Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 2 March 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Part 5 provisions

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

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

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

Changes to “It is intended to set up arrangements for trading among four nations...” sentence.

I think this sentence should change to be more direct in what the Act itself does as a result of the UK leaving European single market. The internal market bill intends on creating a single economic British market among the four nations of the UK. Therefore, this sentence should change to something such as: “The Act creates a single British economic market among the four countries of the United Kingdom, after the Brexit transition period ends”. The act has a purpose to create a single internal UK market and not just a lucid range of trading arrangements between the UK nations. I think the change I have proposed would make the intentions of the Act clear, especially as a result of the UK leaving the European single market as of the 1st Jan 21. DrJosephCowan (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Your change was ungrammatical, and apparently your suggested wording wasn't supported by the reference. FDW777 (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions on the wording used, as it doesn’t necessarily have to be what I have suggested to the letter. However, I do think it should be more direct on what the Act creates after the 31st of December 2020. I had a look at the reference and it does reflect what I suggested, in that its intention is to create a single economic market among the four nations of the UK- so there are no barriers to trade domestically. Therefore, I do believe it would be best to amend the sentence to reflect that it creates an internal market within the UK, as a result of the UK leaving the single market. I think what I originally proposed can be backed by the source and allows the readers to understand the intention of the Act. The Act doesn’t create a lucid set of trading arrangements among the UK nations, it establishes an internal economic market to replace the European single market. DrJosephCowan (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal:' “It is intended to establish an internal British economic market and the arrangements for trading among the four countries of the United Kingdom after the Brexit transition period ends, and to restrict the way that powers which are devolved to the country administrations can operate in practice.”

This would add “ It is intended to establish an internal British economic market” to the start of the sentence and as a result makes clear what the Act does in practice. DrJosephCowan (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This may be how the Government likes to position it, but it doesn't stand up to critical examination. Internal trading arrangements within the UK were never governed by EU single market rules (which only apply to inter-state trade). Since the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800, there has always been a UK internal market. The Scottish and Welsh Governments' view is that it is a counter-devolution power-grab by a Tory Government at Westminster, using Brexit as a smokescreen. Misplaced Pages can't take sides so if anything like your proposal is to go in the article, it needs to give both perspectives. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It does have the devolved governments position in the introduction and elsewhere. I would go far to say that the view of the devolved administrations are over represented within the article and it is far too political. That is why the introduction should be balanced and state what the Act intends to create, which is an internal British market among the four nations of the United Kingdom, as a result of the transition period expiring and the UK leaving the European single market. The Act doesn’t just create trading arrangements among the four nations of the UK, it creates an internal market and that should be made clear in the introduction. As you have said, the UK has already had trading arrangements historically- which is why it is important to specify the main purpose of the Act is a consequence of the UK leaving the single market and for the establishment of a single British market to replace what was there previously. DrJosephCowan (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

In what ways is it a consequence of the UK leaving the EU Single Market? Well, even one way would be good? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is pure OR. The default for a sovereign state is an “internal market”, as the UK had prior to joining the EC. This is no more exceptional than any other country with state or province subdivisions, such as the USA, Canada, Switzerland, India, etc. For all practical purposes, UK “devolved nations” are akin to such subdivisions. Just as importantly, RS do not focus on any claimed distinctions when discussing the act. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that it would be best to word the paragraph to make clear that the market has not just arisen from the this Act. However, the paragraph needs to state what the Act itself does and that is to provide the continued functioning of the UK internal market after the transition period ends. The original sentence did not take this into account and a good compromise should be reached to inform readers.

New proposal:

"The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It contains provisions for the continued functioning of the UK internal market among the four countries of the United Kingdom following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”

I think the above proposal would address the issues raised. It clearly states that the Act serves to provide the continued functioning of the already existing UK internal market, as a result of the UK withdrawing from the European Union. DrJosephCowan (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We still have the fundamental problem that, with the exception of issues raised by the Northern Ireland Protocol, the Government has not produced any evidence that I have seen for its assertion that the Act was made necessary by Brexit. Joining the EEC did not change the relationship between the constituent nations. When the European Single Market came into existence (prompted and promoted by the Thatcher Government), that didn't change it either. So we have a fundamental problem: politicians can make this kind of evidence-free assertion, but we as Misplaced Pages editors can not. Material in the lead must have in the body the detail that underwrites it (per WP:LEAD). I have no objection in principle to your proposal provided that it is accompanied by the underwriting body detail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It wasn’t required before the UK joined the European Single Market because there was no devolution at that point. The Act is in response to the constitutional arrangements of today that were not in place prior to accession into the European Single Market. The UK is now a country with devolved administrations and different regulatory authorities across the nations of the UK. Therefore, the Act is a consequence of Brexit because it has to ensure there is continued and unfettered trade across the nations because such regulatory differences did not exist prior to jointing the Single Market. DrJosephCowan (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Devolution is not what you think it is, I think. That the British Parliament chooses to delegate powers is not exceptional. It can also take them back with a vote and the stroke of a pen. Besides, the union and trade matters are reserved at least in the case of Scotland and I suspect the same applies to NI and Wales too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I am sure the act, like the other EU acts in the transition period, fills many voids in domestic legislation, but to pretend like its absence would render inter-UK trade illegal... what is your source for this, please? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It would not have made trade illegal but it would have enabled the devolved administrations to restrict access of goods and services within the UK. This is covered in the governments own explanation of the Act and its intention to ensure that trade remains unfettered across the country.

See page 19 for instance:

"As the EU regulatory powers fall away, there is a danger of regulatory barriers emerging. These would bring risks not just to the wider UK economy, but also to England, Scoland, Wales and Northern Ireland individually. "

This is why the current proposal of the wording is accurate because it is stating what the Act intends to do. DrJosephCowan (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is closer to the reality, but I do not personally consider the government's statement in a foreword the kind of sourcing I'm looking for here, especially on this particular matter. I explicitly object to wording such as "continued functioning of the UK internal market" since it implies a "UK internal market" was a 'thing' -- that would be the European Single Market. You also need independent, reliable sourcing analysing the act itself, for what you're trying to introduce. I suggest you find such sources along with a new proposed wording which is supported by those sources, and that may get consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader

I would like to respond to your most recent revert and reach an agreement on the wording. The sourcing for this change comes from the existing source, which is the Institute for Government and backs up what the Act intends to do and the wording used. The opinions of both the UK government and devolved administrations are cited at various points in the article. That is why it is important to provide readers an accurate description of what the Act provides. It was agreed that the historical trading arrangements predate the UK’s accession into European Single Market. Therefore, it is accurate to introduce the bill on what it does in practice according to the Institute of Government and the UK Government sourcing, which the additional source I quoted earlier. It isn’t fair or accurate to include in this paragraph that the bill intends on restricting the devolved administrations powers, as that is not what the bill sets out to achieve and I would like to see which part of the sourcing covers this.

The proposal but I am open to suggestions:

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It provides provisions for the continued functioning of the UK internal market among the four Countries of the United Kingdom after the Brexit transition period ends.

Sources from the Institute of Government and the UK Government website. DrJosephCowan (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What the government says it set out to achieve is irrelevant. If we trusted the government on the contents of its actions, well, “no deal” could accurately be described as “No deal is a proposed British government outcome for the Brexit negotiations whereby the UK will continue its trading with the EU under an Australia-style agreement”. Which is perhaps technically accurate, but also very misleading.What’s relevant is what independent, reliable sources have to say about the act. HQRS, academics, etc. It’s widely reported (eg, the BBC sources) that the act can be summarised as “who gets what” and the allocation and limitation of powers with devolved governments. Hence, it should be mentioned. And btw, think tanks are barely independent. They have an agenda, and their job is often to justify actions, so I do not consider IfG as taking precedence here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@DrJosephCowan:, then it would be more honest for your text read "The government of the United Kingdom describes it as providing for the continued functioning " but it would have to be accompanied by some text saying something like The Scottish and Welsh Governments describe it as intended to limit their ability to exercise powers granted to them by the Devolution Acts.

I said before and I'll say it again: please provide the body text that your text summarises. That should come first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:

The source that I have used to base the proposed wording from is the same source used for the existing wording, which is the Institute of Government. The issue isn’t to do with adding additional content that isn’t backed by a source, it is more to do with how the source content is being interpreted by the editors. I’ve just had a look through the institute of Government source once again and it backs everything I have said, as does the Act itself.

The current text: The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is intended to set up the arrangements for trading among the four countries of the United Kingdom after the Brexit transition period ends, and to restrict the way that powers which are devolved to the country administrations can operate in practice.

New proposal: The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. The Act seeks to ensure the continued functioning of the UK internal market between the four countries of the United Kingdom after the Brexit transition period ends. The legislation restricts the way devolved administrations can legislate in devolved areas to protect unfettered trade in goods and services between different parts of the United Kingdom.

This new proposal is entirely based off the current sourcing and spells out what the Act intends to do from a nonpartisan source. However, the existing wording also states about “restricting devolved powers” but it doesn’t make sense, I’ve never heard of the term “country administrations” and is definitely not based of the sourcing I’m reading. DrJosephCowan (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Scotland Act 1998, European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 introduction paragraphs on Misplaced Pages, all of them are clear about the legislation and none have different political positions on the opening paragraph. Therefore, why should this Act be any different? Surely, it should follow the exact same precedent and consistency of other major Acts. DrJosephCowan (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Better but (a) you still haven't provided the body text that it summarises and (b) it still contains the unevidenced claim that it has anything to do with leaving the EU (except in re Northern Ireland). This is not taking a political position, it is standard Misplaced Pages policy, WP:PROVEIT. The source you provide (as you provided it, perhaps they have supporting body text?) merely repeats the Government's assertion.

I for one would be content with

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market between the four countries of the United Kingdom. The legislation restricts the way devolved administrations can legislate in devolved areas to protect unfettered trade in goods and services between different parts of the United Kingdom, taking into account the exceptional arrangements for Northern Ireland following Brexit.

but it would still need body text, which I suspect would be less demanding than to support your Brexit transition phrase. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think adding the additional part regarding the arrangements for Northern Ireland works well. The new proposal is certainly a lot better than what is there at the moment. It is good to get this introduction paragraph sorted out and then look to expand the text body over the next few weeks. DrJosephCowan (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• To refer to the four parts of the UK as 'the four countries' is a misnomer that does a disservice to less well-informed readers, and does not help to clarify this article, given that (per Countries of the United Kingdom) the UK is a unitary sovereign state (country), comprising four constituent parts, of which one part was/is the kingdom of England, that includes another part, the principality of Wales, another part was/is the kingdom of Scotland that on the union with England (and Wales) formed Great Britain, and the fourth part is Northern Ireland that is 'variously described as a country, province, or region, which is part of the United Kingdom' (per Northern Ireland). Instead, it will be better to insert 'constituent' so that the sentence would read

"The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market between the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom"

or better still "The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom".

Qexigator (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree & have added. Was thinking the same earlier today but got sidetracked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Taking into account everything said, including adding “constituent” and clarifying the devolved administrations; I think the below is what the final paragraph has been agreed to read as:

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market between the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. The legislation restricts the way devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can legislate in devolved areas to protect unfettered trade in goods and services between different parts of the United Kingdom, taking into account the exceptional arrangements for Northern Ireland following Brexit. DrJosephCowan (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Now further clarified. Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This is factually innaccurate as the UK isn't made up of constituent countries it is a unitary state and though the name can confuse people it isn't a federal or confederal group the DAs have no greater constitutional authority than any other part of local government. So this is misrepresentative. It also does not in any part restrict the DAs ability to legislate, it would only limit the effect of that legislation as on goods from other parts of the UK. Further it would equally limit the UK government when governing for England as unless primary legislation passed specifically disapplied the UKIM Act any regulation for England would have to be read in accordance with it. For example If UKG outlawed Roundup like weedkillers in England unless they passed primary legislation that specifically cited the the UKIM act would was being overrided such weedkillers manufactured in Wales would still be legal to sale in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.34.195 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have replaced the lead sentence using the text agreed above because it is a lot better than the text it replaces, even in the light of Cambial Yellowing's further challenge next. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing:, I don't understand why you reverted my application of the agreed text above. Despite your continued concerns, it is better than the text it replaces. Your comments (which I split into a new sub-section which I trust is acceptable) did not seem to me be about the wording of that opening sentence so much as validity of later citations. Please explain. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, my error, I see that the sentence is still supported by the same dubious citations. I still suggest that the agreed text is better but the citations should have {{failed verification}} tag. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Of the two versions of the wording of the first paragraph, , the later is the more acceptable, reading:

"The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is intended to set up the arrangements for trading among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom after the Brexit transition period ends, and to restrict the operation of powers which are devolved to each of the administrations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland."

Qexigator (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That version still contains the unsupported assertion that the Brexit transition period is relevant in any way whatsoever, except (exclusively) to Northern Ireland. It is deliberately misleading. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the validity of the protestation 'deliberately misleading'. Are you asserting that it is not 'intended to set up the arrangements for trading among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom after the Brexit transition period ends'? Please npov explain. If the purport of your version is valid, it would be better set out intelligibly in the body where it could be explained more fully at greater length..Qexigator (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the relevance of Brexit is exclusively to Northern Ireland. No evidence let alone a valid citation has been provided to support the assertion that it applies to the other three constituent countries. So a text that implies it does so is misleading (the 'deliberate' comes from Downing Street). I have already proposed a version that sidesteps the Downing Street framing. Here it is again:

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market between the four countries of the United Kingdom. The legislation restricts the way devolved administrations can legislate in devolved areas to protect unfettered trade in goods and services between different parts of the United Kingdom, taking into account the exceptional arrangements for Northern Ireland following Brexit.

Of course it still has the issue of failed verification that Cambial Yellowing has identified below, but in the meantime it clearly separates out Brexit as relevant to NI only. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Surely the relevance of Brexit is that it is the impetus for the bill, given that no longer being (theoretically) bound by EU law means there is no longer a common framework? Not sure whether this is made explicit in any of the current sources but if not it would surely not be difficult so find one. I have removed any mention of Brexit until this question is resolved.

Edit: the first sentence of the IfG source says After the end of the transition period, the UK government and the devolved administrations will no longer be collectively bound by EU law Cambial foliage❧ 14:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

JMF: Because the relevance of Brexit is exclusively to Northern Ireland. is clearly a misstatement (by ellipsis?), as can be gathered from little more than a glance at the long title; and I have no idea what the mention of 'Downing Street' in your comment means. Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Could @John Maynard Friedman: explain your characterisation of the sources as "dubious". The sources are one whose value you personally defended, two authored by experienced academics and published by UK universities, a formal submission by two academics, and parliamentary evidence by a professor of international law. Cambial foliage❧ 15:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Qex: The Northern Ireland Protocol has a clear Brexit-related consequence for the UK internal market, in respect of trade in goods between GB and NI. I don't see any ellipsis. No evidence has been produced yet (that I have seen) to support the argument that there is any Brexit-caused impact on trade between (say) England and Scotland. It certainly seems to me that Downing Street tried to slip through a retrenchment of the devolution settlement by creating a diversion with the proposed breach of international law. I call that deliberately misleading. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Qex: I wonder if we are looking at two sides of the same coin. The Liverpool paper says that while the UK was a member of the EU, the Single Market Act would have prevented Scotland from creating non-tariff barriers to trade, whether to England or Estonia. Repealing the SMA removed that constraint. So, at least theoretically, absent the UKIM Act, it could do so now. What Scotland is objecting to (as the paper describes) is that Act adds far greater restraints on Scotland's ability to establish criteria that respond to its own health challenges than were present in the SMA:

Here, the Bill offers only very limited opportunities for Scotland etc to insist upon applying its own standards to English etc imports: mutual recognition can be denied only to prevent the spread of pests / diseases / unsafe foodstuffs; and even then, only under strictly controlled conditions, e.g. the potential spread must pose a serious health threat, in respect of which the Scottish authorities have provided an adequate, evidence-based assessment, demonstrating also that the relevant measures can reasonably be considered necessary to address that threat. There is no wider system of justifications or derogations, e.g. even for general threats to public health; let alone issues such as environmental, consumer or employment protection.

— United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Implications for Devolution Professor Michael Dougan, University of Liverpool

Does that explain my concerns more succinctly? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

JMF: Briefly, the act is very obviously not limited to NI Protocol, regardless of any sources anywhere, dubious or otherwise. I am sorry to say that your remarks about Downing Street, shrewd or otherwise (I make no judgment one way or t'other), seem to be more suited to a private blog discussion, where they could be given more credence than is suited to this discussion about the article. Nor is it helpful to editing the article to attempt to draw on a complex argumentative paper such as Dougan's. Perhaps we should leave it until after there has been further citable revelations in Parliament or in reliable published comment. By the way, the international law issue has long been a persistent concern of Bill Cash in Parliament, for one, and for other well-informed lawyers on both sides. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Qex: I agree completely that the Act is not limited to the NI protocol, but it is only trade across the Irish Sea that is directly affected by leaving the EU and needed detailed legislative underpinning. To hang the whole Act on Brexit is - what is the phrase? - coat-racking? coat-trailing? gas-lighting?

Repealing the SMA theoretically opened the door to Scotland applying trade barriers to England (and vv) but the 'cure' seems (to Scotland) intended to do rather more than simply establish a direct equivalent of the SMA.

By pointing at Downing Street, I wanted to make clear that I am not accusing fellow editors of bad faith. I recognise that I was teetering on the edge of WP:NOTFORUM.

Yes, let's leave it at that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

CY: The sources are impeccable. It is the articles (mis)use of them that is dubious , not the sources themselves. The "dubiousness" arises only because they are being cited in support of a statement that contradicts what they actually said. Hence {{failed verification}} rather than {{dubious}}. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Which statement? They were originally inserted to support the phrase "to restrict the way that powers which are devolved to the country administrations can operate in practice" which is directly supported, almost to the letter. Cambial foliage❧ 11:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that we are done with this discussion yet. So, strictly to ease continuing discussion, I have inserted #Citations fail verification below as a new sub-section. If there is anything more to say about the wording of the opening sentence, please insert above this note. If your concern is about the validity/relevance/honest reporting/npov of the citations, please add them to the new subsection. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Citations fail verification

Citation is given for the clause regarding "functioning of the UK internal market". The four citations under are given for "the restriction of devolved competences". The notion that this restriction is designed to protect unfettered trade is totally unsupported in the either of the three citations from University of Liverpool, University of Sussex, or the Edinburgh/Aberdeen University publication. The citation from the parliamentary testimony of the professor of International Law to me implicitly denies that claim. I read these when adding the citations and to my mind do not remotely support that assertion. If you believe that they do support it please give the relevant section numbers with quotes.

As a practical aside, please could all participants retain the indentation style as advised at WP:THREAD; the above was not easy to follow. Cambial foliage❧ 10:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If you read the Institute of Government source (which I’ve quoted below) it backs up what has been said in regards to ensuring unfettered trade across the United Kingdom and the principles it is putting into law to achieve that through restricting devolved administrations powers to recognise the market principles.

“After the end of the transition period, the UK government and the devolved administrations will no longer be collectively bound by EU law. As powers over key policy areas return to the UK government and the devolved administrations, there is a possibility that different parts of the UK may in future make different rules. This could create barriers to trade between constituent parts of the UK.

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.”

As source says, the Act seeks to put into law market access principles of mutual non-discrimination to ensure there are no barriers to trade within the United Kingdom. Prior to this change being made, there was already wording used to describe this restriction as such. The Institute of Government source should be sufficient for the new proposed wording that was discussed and agreed here after lengthy discussion. DrJosephCowan (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@DrJosephCowan:, the request to indent contributions using colons was politely addressed to you. I've corrected your error this time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Your version, which I note you have reverted to a fourth time, states that the act restricts the devolved ability to legislate in order to protect unfettered trade. This is not supported by the quote above, and is not supported by any of the other 4 citations. The Institute for Government source, apart from being a think-tank source and less reliable than the academic sources, does not make this connection. The closest it comes to doing so is in the 'Constitutional Status' section: prevent the devolved legislatures passing a law that undermines the UKIM principles. which is not the same meaning as the sentence which you are repeatedly reverting to. Please read WP:UNSOURCED before continuing to push a point which is neither in the body of the article, nor in any of 5 sources cited. Cambial foliage❧ 14:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I am still not convinced that the emphasis of The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market is an honest portrayal of independent reliable sources on this matter, and still feel (at least by the sourcing presented) that the notion that there is now a special "UK internal market" is slightly OR. In any case it should say "create a UK internal market"; the current wording implies that there always was, which definitely seems to be OR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If you read what was said previously, this was touched on. I accepted that historically there has always been an internal market among the nations of the UK since it’s formation in 1707. The historical origins of the UK is based on a union that was established on the basis of Scotland gaining free access to a newly created British internal market. I originally proposed wording that included that the Act “established an internal British market”, however, I accepted that wasn’t accurate due to the fact that the UK internal market existed prior to accession into the European Single Market. Therefore, it isn’t accurate to say this Act creates a British internal market, when it doesn’t do that. The Act, according to the sources, seeks to ensure the functioning of an internal British market that has been in existence for centuries. The Act seeks to ensure the continued unfettered access of goods and services among the nations of the UK in the existing internal UK market, as a result of the UK leaving the European Single Market and does not create a new internal British market. This is because the UK as an internal market has existed for centuries prior to this Act but has only now become more prevalent as the country leaves the European Union. DrJosephCowan (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

One way to bring more clarity to the paragraph would be to add this additional source:

This would mean the wording could be changed to the following:

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market with provisions to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom and restricts the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from legislating to diverge in regulations and standards within the UK internal market.”DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel like you're not reading what at least 3 people have tried to tell you about sourcing, specifically the Institute for Government. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Institute For Government is an independent non-partisan source. Do you agree that this provides further clarity and resolves your concerns?DrJosephCowan (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a think tank. It is inferior to HQRS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing made changes to the wording of the article after claims of “Tory bias”, which is ridiculous as it is simply describing what the Act does and is terminology backed by the non-partisan sources. Please provide details on what you think is not backed by the current sourcing. DrJosephCowan (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No. I used the phrase "PR line" which is as described in the Institute for Government source: "The UK government has argued that the Act will be necessary to underpin the functioning of the UK internal market". It does not state it as fact, and thus cannot support a statement of fact in WP voice. Cambial foliage❧ 00:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to offer a new wording proposal which has been carefully considered from the sources. It highlights what the core provisions are with the Act, in the hope that it removes the ambiguity around what the Act does in practice. I believe the issue with previous wording and your current rewording is that it fails to highlight the provisions, which are the most important aspects of this legislation according to the sources.

Another issue with the wording you have proposed, is that it is vague in what it actually “restricts” the devolved administrations from doing. The sources say that the restrictions are based around ensuring the devolved administrations can’t legislate in ways that could disrupt trade within the internal market. However, your current wording does not make this clear. I hope that the new proposal also helps with this.

New proposal:

”The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. The acts seeks to ensure there are no barriers to trade among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom through the provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, and restricts the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from legislating in ways that could disrupt trade within the internal market.”

Going forward, ideally the first four paragraph of the article should touch on these four areas:

1 - main principles of the bill (non discrimination / mutual recognition) to prevent trade barriers within U.K. (current discussions)

2 - other key aspects of the bill (spending powers, reserves state aid etc)

3 - Northern Ireland paragraph about the controversy of that part, the protocol, and its removal from the bill

4- What UK Government says, what devolved admins say and concludes with royal assent.

I would hope we could reach an agreement on this first paragraph to take the rest of the article forward.—DrJosephCowan (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The lack of elaboration in the wording of what is being restricted is neither accidental, nor is it a fault. The sources differ considerably on what is being restricted. What they agree on is that restriction on certain devolved competences is being sought. When you write ...has been carefully considered from the sources, and The sources say that..., it is evident that what you really mean is "The sources I like say that...". This is undue weight given to a relatively less reliable source (the charity "Institute for Government").

ProReader has pointed out that at least 3 people have told you this about sourcing. I suggest reading the core policy WP:NPOV in full, and at least WP:SOURCETYPES about RS.

The Institute for Government is a charity, not an academic source. That's not to say it isn't useful, as it explains things in "layman's terms". But it carries less weight than the academic sources cited.

Source for example, states that the act will be significantly limiting Territory B’s ability to enforce its own economic and social preferences even within its own jurisdiction. It goes on has real potential to limit the capacity of the devolved institutions to pursue different economic or social choices from those made in London and gives multiple examples to illustrate the implications. Source already has the most apposite quote in the citation, a concise summation from which the text was derived. Source states that it creates a mechanism for the UK Government to legislate for the UK as a whole in areas previously devolved, subject to the consent of the devolved nations and certain time limits. The UK Parliament will 'not normally' legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the devolved administrations, however this political convention is not legally binding, and it is ultimately for the UK Parliament to legislate on any issue. Source puts it these principles restrict the devolved authorities’ practical capacity to regulate and continues in extensive detail.

Furthermore, point 9. in source directly contradicts the weak argument made by the government about "ensuring the continued functioning..." That line is already present, properly attributed, in the succeeding paragraph. There is no reason to state it as fact in the first paragraph as you have done by reversion on multiple occasions.

If you genuinely believe those sources can be summarised as restricts the devolved administrations from legislating in ways that could disrupt trade, I can only assume that either: you haven't read them; you haven't understood them or; you're not interested in following the core policy linked above.

When divergent views on an issue (in this case, the nature of the effect on devolved competences) are apparent in RS, there are three options to maintain NPOV. 1. State only those aspects that the sources agree on. 2. Give details, with due prominence according to number and reliability, of every significant point of view. 3. Select which are the most reliable sources which agree, and go with their view.

There is insufficient space, and it is inappropriate, for option 2 in the lead. Option 3 is unwise for a politically divisive issue such as this, if we were to choose this we would certainly give greater weight to the more reliable secondary academic sources. Option 1 resolves the issue in the lead, while option 2 can be pursued in the body.

Briefly, with regards to provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, it reads too much like MOS:JARGON, particularly for the lead. Perhaps "through provisions to establish market access principles". That appears less jargon-y language to me.

To summarise, your assertion that there is a problem with the wording from 21 October, in that it is vague in what it actually “restricts” the devolved administrations from doing does not hold up to scrutiny. Rather, wording it this way ensures the lead maintains WP:NPOV and WP:V, and is a strength of the sentence in question. Cambial foliage❧ 12:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the vague language about how the devolved administrations powers are limited, is that you'd immediately imagine this to be the power grab the SNP are painting this as; when in reality they're no more limited than when the UK was a member of the EU.

It's important that the language makes it clear that the restrictions are there to prevent the erection of trade barriers within the UK. Also, that wikipedia isn't seen to be dropping facts which cause the reader to make a judgement which is false. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Your original research/baseless opinion is your own. It has no relevance here. Cambial foliage❧ 20:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellow, the issue is currently with this section:

“and to restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can operate in practice.”

Can you cite from the referencing what it means by “restrict the way that certain legislative powers”? What legislative powers are being restricted from operating in “practice”?

Also, can you clarify what does it mean by “operate in practice”? - where is this cited from and can you explain what does it actually refer to?DrJosephCowan (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What issue? Why have you broken the clause of a sentence into two parts? What are your questions for? WP is not a forum. Cambial foliage❧ 12:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is with the wording you have come up with, as you reverted the previous wording. Therefore, I would like to give you the opportunity to please indicate where in the references you provided it backs up the claim that the Act restricts the way that certain powers of the devolved administrations can operate in practice. I can’t see any mention of this within the references you have provided, specifically relating to powers of the devolved administrations being restricted. I am not using this as a forum, I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the wording you have reverted it to.DrJosephCowan (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not in the habit of repeating myself, and certainly not to fulfil your desire to WP:REHASH your arguments ad nauseam. I have explained this in detail in the post above, with quotes from every academic source. I suggest reading them and stating what you don't understand. One source, because it does not have page numbers, already has the most relevant quote in the citation itself: the bill seeks to restrict the way that devolved competences operate in practice. You have been arguing for the inclusion of this phrase when you thought you could rely on a source created by a single charity to specify it in a certain way. Now you claim it is not supported. See WP:IDHT and WP:RGW for the reasons why continuing to post "nuh-uh" over and over (which is the kindest summary to be given to your posts on this talk page) can easily lead to a topic ban. Cambial foliage❧ 10:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The wording used up until my short edit today, suggested the Act specifically set out to restrict the devolved administrations powers; which is misleading. It is for that reason I invited you to clarify this wording, as there is a citation on this section of the article that encourages such discussion to reach consensus. It is important to make clear that the Act creates provisions to prevent internal trade barriers between the nations of the UK and to prevent the devolved administrations from legislating to diverge from rules and regulations of the UK internal market. The wording you reverted it to left ambiguity surrounding the restriction of powers, which was also picked up by another user.DrJosephCowan (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The wording used up until my short edit today, suggested the Act specifically set out to restrict the devolved administrations powers. The wording doesn't suggest this; it directly says exactly that – because that's what the academic sources say. If you think It is important to make clear that the Act creates provisions to prevent internal trade barriers between the nations of the UK then you can rest easy, that is already stated in the text. With regard to and to prevent the devolved administrations from legislating to diverge from rules and regulations of the UK internal market you will need to provide multiple academic sources which directly support that claim, and they will still need to be weighed against the current academic sources: if appropriate sourcing was found, it would be in addition to, rather than instead of, the current wording. The current sources suggest a different course of action – the one in the text. Furthermore, the current wording does not preclude your view, or that expressed by the charity which you added to the citations. With regards to this other user, presumably you mean the single ip contribution. Can you confirm this is not something you wrote while logged out?Cambial foliage❧ 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be doubling down on taking part of the following quote out of context, placing it in the most prominent position and claiming that because it came from academia it supersedes anything which might contradict; even though, when not truncated, the quote doesn't fully support the statement you keep reverting to "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." I am not DrJosephCowan if that eases any paranoia. 82.132.241.117 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The quote isn't out of context. By when not truncated, you presumably mean as it appears in the citation. Who is paranoid? It supports the statement, almost to the letter, as do the other academic sources. You appear to dislike the fact that the academic sources state this. Tough. Cambial foliage❧ 20:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The only problem I have is that you misrepresent a select portion of a quote, insist it be in the lede and continue to resist attempts to make the language more reasonable. Especially when what is being stated is an an unprovable opinion and regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not, it doesn't belong in the lede in the first place given the nature of such a contentious statement. 82.132.241.117 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a lede. That particular quote indicates that "to restrict" is an end in itself which the bill (or its authors) seeks to achieve, and the imposition of principles is the means by which it does this. The other sources state the same, in much greater detail, and I've drawn attention to the most relevant sections – not exhaustive – above. You are trying to put the cart before the horse. The aim is not for the language to be reasonable, which is a value term, but to fairly represent the reliable sources, which agree on this point. The current wording does this. Cambial foliage❧ 14:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Camial Yellowing You have failed to fully explain how this Act restricts the devolved administrations powers in practice, it is clearly an opinion you have formed. The Act makes provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination to prevent internal regulatory divergence among the four nations of the United Kingdom. I gather that you have misinterpreted this as the Act restricting the legislative powers of the devolved administrations, when that is not the case; it is just your opinion. The Act makes those provisions as a result of the entire UK no longer abiding by the EU/Single Market framework. It isn’t restricting the powers of devolved administrations because they have never had the competence to diverge from the internal UK market at any point before as they have been collectively bound by European framework, devolution did not exist on accession to the European Single Market, so the need for this legislation was not required. Therefore, what the Acts seeks to achieve through the imposition of the provisions isn’t “restrictions” on the devolved administrations, it is the continuity of the UK internal market as a result of devolution and the UK leaving the framework of the EU economic market. This is why I am asking you to state fully where it says this legislation restricts the devolved administrations in practice because that seems more like an opinion you have formed based on one quote than actual fact.DrJosephCowan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The above is nonsense. I've quoted from four secondary academic sources. You have quoted from none. The only source for your screed above is the government line. That isn't a secondary source, and it's not a reliable source. Its view, which you continue to repeat ad nauseam, is already in the second paragraph. Cambial foliage❧ 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What I have said is backed up by the sources you have provided. You have misinterpreted what the provisions do and this was also raised by the IP user above, who also agreed. Therefore, as I’ve said, back up where within the sources that it directly says this Act restricts the devolved administrations legislative powers. As clearly this is your opinion on what the provisions do and isn’t fact.DrJosephCowan (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no misinterpretation. You just think it's important to state the government line as fact. That isn't how content policy works. I've already demonstrated where it supports the wording, pretty much to the letter. I'm not going to indulge your wish to WP:REHASH the same empty arguments; it is for you to try to provide a rebuttal from the scholarly literature. The opinion you express above is directly contradicted by an academic source with six authors, all professors of law or politics:

Is the bill necessary to enable businesses to trade freely across the UK? In its current form, no.

Cambial foliage❧ 17:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It is impossible to state as fact, that a side effect of legislation is the intention, when there is no unequivocal evidence or direct quote from those who were involved in creating or pushing the legislation which confirms your opinion on this.

It is disingenuous to use the latter part of a quote to mean something it doesn't, by disregarding the text which preceded it, which makes clear that the implications for devolution are a result of the act rather than its purpose.

When the UK was a member of the EU Single Market, similar rules were in place to prevent trade barriers and/or unfair competition and the act clearly exists to replace those rules. The irony of this discussion is that the devolved administrations are due to gain many powers which were previously held by the EU but for some reason this is nowhere to be seen amongst the partisan opinion at the top of the wikipedia page in question.

There are certainly implications for ways that devolved administrations may have sought to diverge from UK/EU standards post-brexit but the idea that this act was created with a central intention of a power grab is the argument of a someone attempting to misrepresent a situation for political point scoring.

There is no consensus, here or in academic circles, that the intention of the act is to restrict devolved administrations.

Here are some citations from your favourite arena which appreciate the nuance of the situation, rather than attempt to cherry pick the argument of a single academic who has been championed by Scottish Nationalists.

"In seeking to integrate the UK as a smoothly trading nation internally, it risks fracturing international commitments and constitutional settlements in the UK’s arrangements for devolved government."

"The UK Internal Market Bill attempts to avoid new barriers to trade within the UK but it does not/cannot in itself guarantee that trade can continue unhindered in across the UK as it did before Brexit.

The Bill enshrines two different types of principles to make the operation of the UK internal market as smooth as possible after the end of the transition period.

Market access principles mean (put very simply) that goods and services from any of the four parts of the UK can be legally sold in Britain. These principles and their implications are explained in this briefing paper.

The unfettered access principle means that there should be as few restrictions and changes as possible in the way that NI goods move from NI into GB. This is a commitment that has been repeated by the UK government, including in the New Decade, New Approach"

"It is not clear how the UK Internal Markets Bill and the recent statement from BEIS relate to these previous pronouncements. Specifically, neither in the Bill, nor in the BEIS note is there any mention of:

•any objective

•respect for the devolution arrangements

•consultation with the public"

"From January, the UK government wants to continue to have a joint market across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - the "internal market".

Instead of the rules and regulations around things like food and air quality and animal welfare being set in Brussels, now they have to be set closer to home - and there is a row over who should have the final say.

Many powers are set to be directly controlled by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish administrations, in fields including food labelling, energy efficiency and support for farmers.

However, the UK government has said the devolved administrations will still have to accept goods and services from all other parts of the UK - even if they have set different standards locally."

AntiBSBot (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason we give greater weight academic sources is not because they are anyone's favourite but because they are the most reliable. The irony of a now-blocked user providing two additional sources which further support the phrase you are trying to argue against is not lost on me. None of the quotes you provide offer a refutation to the phrase currently in the article. This source is a promotional page for an event, with exactly 3 sentences of commentary on the bill by an unknown author. It barely touches upon what is or is not the intent of the bill. If you had been more careful when locating the LSE blog post , you would have noted that its author is one of the six authors of the publication I reference multiple times above. It is no surprise that Professor Hayward expresses similar views on the LSE blog as in the briefing paper she co-wrote:

3. The UK Internal Market Bill has less of a restrictive impact on the effectiveness of devolved legislation in Northern Ireland than it does in Scotland and Wales; but this is because the powers of the NI Assembly are already constrained by the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.

The UK Internal Market Bill has been criticized by both the Welsh and Scottish Governments for undermining the very principle of devolution. This is principally because, although the Bill only curtails devolved competence in specific ways (e.g. by making state aid a reserved rather than a devolved matter), it will undermine the effectiveness of devolved legislation in relation to goods and services. The UK Internal Market Bill would also be a protected enactment, meaning that the devolved legislatures cannot legislate in a way that contravenes the Bill. Devolved legislatures may be able to make laws to, for example, raise standards, but because they cannot stop goods made to a lower standard from being sold in their market from elsewhere in the UK, the effect of those laws will be limited

The submission from Professor David Bell similarly supports the current wording:

Keating (2020) points out that the devolution settlements are all based on the “reserved powers” model, but that the Internal Markets Bill undermines this model. Reserved powers are those competencies reserved to Westminster: everything else is under the control of the devolved parliaments. Part 6 of the UK Internal Markets Bill conflicts with this approach because it gives UK Government ministers powers to spend in areas that were not previously reserved.

and

It appears that the UK government wishes to be allowed to provide financial support for UK businesses, but to prevent devolved authorities from so doing.

and

Specifically, the Bill will give it power to “provide financial assistance to any person”. There is no reference to any level of government. This wording provides the UK Government with wide scope to support bodies both inside and outside government, and at every level of government within the devolved nations. The intention may be to make arrangements that circumvent the devolved governments.

I thank you for these additional sources, which might perhaps be added to the article in future to further support the bill's intention to seek restriction on the way legislative powers of the devolved administrations can operate in practice. If as you claim, there is no consensus...in academic circles that the intention of the act is to restrict devolved administrations, one wonders why you choose sources which serve only to bolster the case for exactly such a consensus. I'll not speculate. Cambial foliage❧ 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I believe it's wholly unfair to call then a "now-blocked user", since they were blocked only for a username violation and are allowed to create a new account, or have it renamed. FDW777 (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair; duly struck. Cambial foliage❧ 11:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is Michael Dougan opinion a statement of fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Dr Lydgate source doesn't support it, niether does the centre on constitutional change source so you don't know that. So either you've not read through the sources you are citing or you are being disingenious.

− − Sadly your general bully behaviour makes me feel like its the later. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No-one has bullied you. The fact you respond with this silly comment in response to John Maynard Friedman's explanation of image use policy speaks to a desire to represent yourself as victimised, but it's a fantasy.

I've quoted from and pointed to the most relevant sections in the lengthy discussion above. Simply repeating "it doesnt support it" without giving any explanation of your POV is not a legitimate concern and suggests you simply don't like it saying that. Not liking something carries no weight in achieving consensus. Cambial foliage❧ 17:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

References

1. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-uk-internal-market
2. Dougan, Michael (2020). Briefing Paper. United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Implications for Devolution (PDF) (Report). Liverpool: University of Liverpool. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
3. ^ Dougan, Michael (23 September 2020). Professor Michael Dougan: Evidence on the UK internal market bill. Finance and Constitution Committee (Report). Edinburgh: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. 21st Meeting 2020, Session 5. Retrieved 15 October 2020. 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.
4. Lydgate, Emily; Anthony, Chloe (2020). Submission from Dr Emily Lydgate and Chloe Anthony, University of Sussex (PDF). Finance and Constitution Committee (Report). Edinburgh: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. FCC/05/UKIM/02. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
5. ^ Dougan, Michael; Hayward, Katy; Hunt, Jo; McEwen, Nicola; McHarg, Aileen; Wincott, Daniel (2020). UK and the Internal Market, Devolution and the Union. Centre on Constitutional Change (Report). University of Edinburgh, University of Aberdeen. pp. 2–3. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
6. ^ https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2020/dec/uk-internal-market-bill-international-relations-uk-constitution-and-rule-law
7. ^ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/10/19/how-does-the-uk-internal-market-bill-relate-to-northern-ireland/
8. ^ http://www.cpc.ac.uk/docs/Bell_Scot_Finance_Committee_.pdf
9. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-54065391

New article: Irish Sea border

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

Behaviour of editor John Maynard Friedman

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

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

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

@79.66.34.195: I suggest that you read Misplaced Pages:Consensus, WP:bold, revert, discuss, wp:status quo, WP:edit war and finally WP:boomerang.

I haven't been active on this article for a while, I guess what got your knickers in a twist was that I reverted a bold edit that you made without having engaged in any prior discussion or attempt to secure consensus for it. My interest in this article is only that it have a WP:neutral point of view and to do that, it needs to reflect various points of view and not just trot out the party line. For the record, I am not a Scottish Nationalist or indeed any kind of nationalist, which is what probably makes me ideologically suspect in your book. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:John Maynard Friedman has always been perfectly courteous, but this is not the place to discuss editor behaviour. I draw the attention of the ip user to WP:AOBF. Use the individual's talk page or ANI if you think it's serious. Do bear in mind that other editors will likely weigh in, and your own behaviour will be under scrutiny. I am on board for some informal meditation though; it sounds lovely. OMMM.... Cambial foliage❧ 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Tidying up

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

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

IP, your personal interpretation of the primary source of the legislation itself is not acceptable as wp content. Cambial foliage❧ 14:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Well that is a bit rude. What interpretation exactly? Also this is a work in progress so I am adding as I go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If you find statement of fact about the policy regarding interpretation of primary sources rude there is nothing I can do about that. Furthermore, you have deleted 80% of the lead. That's not adding as you go. The fact that the act is now in force does not negate the relevance of the history of its passage through parliament. Secondary academic sources are the most reliable sources for statements of fact. There is no reason to remove them from the lead, even if there is scope to expand their inclusion in the devolution section of the body. Cambial foliage❧ 14:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't deleted the lead I have moved it to more appropriate areas. It was very long, poorly written and repetitive. Openings are best when there are short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead must reflect the most salient points of the discussion, per WP:LEAD. The change you want to make would present only the perspective of the UK government, which is clearly not a shared perspective. Yes, you may wp:be bold and just make changes, but be prepared for your changes to be reverted pending discussion, per WP:bold, revert, discuss. It is more productive to propose changes here and secure consensus first. This is not about left/right/up/down bias: per wp:neutral point of view, the article should reflect all mainstream perspectives provided that they are supported by citation from a wp:reliable source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just setting out what the Act is does, as other articles on piece of UK legislation. As I said in the edit history your (Mr Keynes) addition about the Scottish and Welsh Govs views seemed perfectly fair to me, and it was short. I just think the old lead was flabby and jumped about from idea to idea without much reason or rhyme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So your response was to delete almost all of it? It's already been pointed out to you that the lead needs to summarise all the main points about the article. You can't simply remove the bits you don't like.Cambial foliage❧ 14:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead has to be succinct too. There is a generic problem with controversial topics where people just add yet another item to the lead without any underlying body content, so 'flabbiness' may be a valid charge - but as with people, we can lose weight by cutting out the fat or by chopping a leg off. Just outright removing material that summarises body content is chopping a leg off. But taking out material that is not a major topic is cutting the fat. So, user:80.42.39.51, would you care to propose a new lead section? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but succinct is not "one paragraph", particularly where that fails to represent large parts of the article, and removes the relevant secondary academic sources which discuss what the act does. The history of its passage to enactment (and contemporary controversies) is relevant to the act itself. Cambial foliage❧ 15:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please refrain from making personal attacks, repeatedly doing so can lead to a block. Your proposed lead ignores WP:NPOV from the off. Stating the goverment PR line on its own in the first paragraph is not appropriate. Your proposed second paragraph introduces jargon which is not appropriate for the lead. It does contain some content which could be added to the lead, subject to some refinement. The third paragraph makes several inaccurate and WP:UNSOURCED claims which are not supported by any known scholarship or journalism, e.g. "The clauses were removed" which in context suggests that all the controversial sections are no longer extant. Your final paragraph is highly partial language, contextualising one party's view as dominant and other views as a dispute. Throughout you also make multiple claims which are not supported by appropriate sources, as fact. The substantive changes do not adhere to WP:NPOV or WP:V and cannot be supported. Cambial foliage❧ 11:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to be defensive, its not an attack. I am simply setting out how your behaviour is making me feel, your tone is very aggressive, confrontational and now threatening, which is all upsetting. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the clauses that would of broken the NIP are in the act still? I thought things that were patently true like the sky is blue didn't need sources? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

mansplaining is a personal attack. The perceived aggression is imagined. Falsely claiming editors are being threatening is a personal attack.

No-one is making that claim, nor could a reasonable person have drawn that conclusion. But the NI issues were not and are not the only controversial sections in the act. Cambial foliage❧ 11:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

So just completely ignoring the suggestion we come to a consensus here? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I restored the consensus version. If you want to significantly reduce the lead, you get consensus for the change. FDW777 (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Who's consensus? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That of everyone who has legitimate concerns based in policy, sources, and common sense. Cambial foliage❧ 13:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

It has pretty strong consensus from those interested in following policy, which is what matters. My suggested lead is, roughly, the one that at least 5 different editors have reverted to over several weeks, and which was produced by the usual editing refinement process of several more editors. Cambial foliage❧ 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lack of images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

Cambial Yellowing's request for page protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the edits in the last two hours.

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

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

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

More Economics

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

Pinsent Masons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2021 Sources Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing for claims about legislative disputes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on the lead section

The current lead has many issues including length and structure. It was suggested by John Maynard Friedman we find a new consensus draft. My starter for ten on which I welcome comments below, alternatively also welcome alternative drafting suggestions 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

When you write a policy compliant lead it can be discussed. That is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy and is a non-starter. FDW777 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would fix the typos I've highlighed in bold below, perhaps FDW777 could explain the problems with the text or propose changes rather than the default of revert/no which has plauged progress on this article.

"It establishes an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market."

"The legislation was controversial during its passage as it originally contained clauses that would allow the Northern Ireland Secretary of State to unilateral override the Northern Ireland Protocol; These drew criticism from UK politicians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.131 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing has "plagued" progress. The issue is that you define progress as imposing your views on the article, choosing your own definition of what constitutes a reliable source, and claiming that sources which you don't like are written by arrogant people, or are not reliable, etc. What has prevented your own special definition of progress is that it is contrary to policy, as FDW777 has pointed out. The specific problems with your text were explained the first time you posted a very similar text. Perhaps you could explain what you think are the problems with the status quo text which was arrived at by the consensus editing cycle of >10 editors. Cambial foliage❧ 18:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue appears mainly to be the conduct of a couple of editors using the letter of Misplaced Pages policy (rather than the spirit) to prevent neutral, objective and informative content in this article... choosing ambiguous text where it isn't appropriate and removing objective facts where they were useful. Even the use of the term consensus is a stretch of an argument you're making at present. The rest of your argument appears to be directed at someone else.146.198.108.131 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

IP user has made no comment about the text itself, so presumably like IP which started this section the reason for their objection is that they simply don't like it. That continues to carry no weight at all. Cambial foliage❧ 04:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, the opposition you continue to find is due to WP:UNDUE prominence of Michael Dougan's opinion which was was presented as fact WP:NPOV when they feature heavily in opposition to the act. Like others, I seek to have a neutral and concise lead WP:LEAD which mentions key aspects such as mutual recognition and non discrimination and explains any restrictions rather than leave that concept ambiguous. There is an effort you're essentially replying to, to reach consensus to which I have provided some typographical corrections; the text isn't perfect but it is still an improvement on what I've seen in recent weeks. It would be useful if you could make some suggestions and attempt reach consensus rather than just use the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.131 (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply repeatedly falsely characterising the published work of nine academics as "Michael Dougan's opinion" won't make it so. There is apparently some animus felt towards Professor Dougan though I don't know where it stems from; seemingly to the point of obsession with some IP editors. None of it has any bearing on whether his and 8 others' published work is a reliable source. Cambial foliage❧ 07:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Who are these nine academics? also nine academics doesn't make for a fact, in science that wouldn't even be the first sigma. You are the only one obsessed with Michael Dougan since you want to present his opinions as facts without assigning them to him.

As for the problems with the lead these were stated in the tidy up section conversation which you participated in have you forgotten? To summarise it is; out of date, badly written, flabby, gives undue weight, lacks critical information (like the actual contents of the Act) poorly structured and lacks succinctness.

There seems to be an obsession amongst some to push only negative views of the legislation which talks to some editors individual bias. The article should be neutral and not just be a poorly written version SNP press release. I am open to any constructive criticism or if you have an alternative draft for a new lead 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am in favour of the proposed lead in general but please be sure to fix the typos and cite sources which validate the text or you’ll get a predictable revert. 92.40.175.187 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

80.42.39.51, thank you for your considered attempt to engage in good faith with the process of improving the article. I am disappointed that established editors did not recognise that before criticising your proposal. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis model is a well-established way to make progress. We should look at your draft on its merits and compare and contrast with the existing text.

Put simply, the requirement of the lead section is that it should fairly and proportionately summarise the body content. (For the long version, see wp:lead). Your first two paragraphs do that. A substantial part of the body describes the dissatisfaction of the devolved administrations: your wording there is not neutral because of the "framing" you put around it. Aspects of the Act were criticised by the former Lord Chief Justice and Queen's Counsels, especially on the 'no judicial review' clause which is a major precedent: you omitted that too. You have given undue prominence to Section 5, which in hindsight looks like a bit of a "ooh look! a squirrel!" to distract attention from other clauses and was never going to reach the final Act. The statements of government ministers about the validity or otherwise certainly belong in the article, but be disproportionate in the lead.

I hope you find that more constructive. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both that is really helpful I'll take another crack at a draft, but do feel free to edit it directly I'm in no way precious about it!

JMF on your comments, I will check the framing, but if you have any direct changes do make them, as sometimes we can't see our own bias.

On the Lord Neuberger comments those do refer to the original clause 45 which only referred to the NI parts of the bill which was withdrawn by the government. So it would give further prominence to Section 5. I agree with you about criticism of section 5 but obviously it was very constitutionally novel and drew criticism. I guess there I was trying to reflect the balance of the criticism section which from Joe Biden to the EU, from the ArchBishop of Canterbury, to the Amal Clooney all focused on the section 5 ability to unilaterally break international law. However you are right that going forward the controversey that remains is on its so far yet to be seen impact on devolution (other that definitely reserving state aid/subsidy control it is unclear right now what impact the act will have as for example there has yet to be any incidents where it can be seen to have limited the DLs abilities). I actually thought providing significant focus to section 5 would be a compromise to Cambrial position in the tidying up section.

I guess that is a long way of saying what promenience do we give to section 5? during the passage of the bill it was certainly the most notable part, but obviously none of the offending powers such as the prevention of judicial review, made it into the final act. I'd welcome views?

Thanks again 80.42.39.51 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It 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, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its unique position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The legislation has been criticised by the Labour party, Liberal Democrat party, some members of the Conservative party the Scottish and Welsh Governments and some academics for its impacts on devolution. As part of the UK's withdrawal many powers including those in devolved competence will transfer from the EU to UK and devolved governments. The UK government has categorised this and the UK Internal Market Act as a "Power surge" for devolution. Ministers in Scotland and Wales have disputed this calling it a "Power Grab" by Westminster, as the Act will regulate these new powers. They also predict that the legislation will curtail the powers of devolved legislatures and potentially create a regulatory race to the bottom. It has been welcomed by business groups.

The legislation was controversial during its passage as it originally contained clauses that would allow the Northern Ireland Secretary of State to unilaterally override the Northern Ireland Protocol and prevent judicial review of his decisions. This section drew considerable criticism from political figures in the UK, US and EU as well as The Church of England, senior lawyers and academics. The clauses were removed following negotiation with the EU over the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.” The Lords also repeatedly amended the legislation to lessen its perceived negative impact on devolution. The Government introduced an amendment creating an exemption regime based on the Common Frameworks programme.

The Scottish and Welsh government though supporting the common framework programme are still opposed to the Act. Both their corresponding legislatures refused legislative consent for the Bill, only the second time either legislature has done so. The Welsh Government has indicated it plans to challenge the legislation in court."

I hope I've taken on board both your comments and amended accordingly. My one concern is that it might now be a bit too long. So do feel free to make trims, in addition to changes etc as usual. So again I do welcome any views, edits etc thanks! 80.42.39.51 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Just as when you posted the first two paragraphs of this the first time, which remain very nearly identical, its violation of WP:NPOV cannot be supported. NPOV is non-negotiable and cannot be overridden even by consensus. As FDW777 has pointed out, that makes it a non-starter.

Edit: "it" > NPOV Cambial foliage❧ 19:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

In response to Who are these nine academics? They are the authors of the six publications discussed above: Michael Keating, Nicola McEwen, Katy Hayward, Michael Dougan, Daniel Wincott, Aileen McHarg, David Bell, Emily Lydgate, and Jo Hunt. If you are aware of scholarly sources which contradict what is stated in those publications please bring them to the attention of the talk page. Cambial foliage❧ 19:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing:, "cannot be overridden even by consensus." did you really mean that? The requirement to be neutral cannot be over-ridden by consensus but the text must be open to challenge on grounds that it already fails NPOV. 80.42.39.51's first two paragraphs are not neutral taken in isolation but neutrality can be achieved with balancing text, which the rest of 80.42.39.51's proposal still fails to achieve. They are a fairly accurate reflection of the Government's position. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond to the first aspect of this ping; you seem to agree with me, and you seem familiar with policy. I don't claim the text is not open to challenge; if what I said seems to imply that, I disaffirm that interpretation; though I really don't understand how my comment can be read that way. By "it" I mean NPOV, if that clears up any confusion.

80.42.39.51's first two paragraphs violate NPOV in a way that cannot be overcome later on. The reason is that the intent of the bill is a matter of contentious dispute. Stating the opinion of one of the parties to the dispute in the first paragraph, even with attribution, and relegating opposing views to a subordinate paragraph was already addressed here.

It's also a completely inappropriate way to structure the lead, by including the sides taken in the dispute in the very first paragraph. It should be in the lead, but that introductory paragraph should reflect simple facts and relevant scholarship. That is why I made this change. Cambial foliage❧ 20:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

80.42.39.51, first and most important, I am just another editor here, not the referee, boss or anything, just would like to see all voices being given a fair opportunity to contribute properly and independently sourced material to Misplaced Pages. Would you now compare your proposal side by side with the lead as it currently stands and see what it is that makes them different. I have to say that I start from the position that the current lead has had many hands to hammer it into shape so your version will not replace it. But you may be able to identify an essential point that is not properly represented. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing:, in what respect are the first two paragraphs NPOV violations? They read to me as quite factual and verifiable. They are not the whole story, but subsequent text can address that (which, as I said) the remainder of the text fails to do adequately. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is not neutral? I think the current text is the one that has clear problems with neutrality. Also JMF I don't think I ever suggested you were in charge? I just respected that you another IP have engaged in good faith rather than some of the less constructive behaviour of other editors

"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.

It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It 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, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The Bill 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. The Welsh and Scottish Government in particular strongly opposed the bill and the former has announced its intention to challenge the legislation in court.”

I have shorten and made as neutral as possible in the wording. All constructive contributions and views welcome 80.42.39.51 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You have missed almost the entirety of the section regarding its passage through parliament. You've also removed the material covering what are currently the only academic sources in the article say about its fundamental purpose and result, without any justification given. I suggest that rather than trying to replace the entire lead wholesale, you might try suggesting amendments or additions to the individual sections. Crucially, you will need to indicate what policy is the reason for advocating removal or amendment. I agree with adding something about the market access principles, but I think that phrase should be used, rather than immediately introducing MOS:JARGON such as "mutual recognition and non-discrimination". You and I understand those terms but the casual reader is put off.

Finally, two paragraphs above where you write How exactly is not neutral? I specify in some detail exactly how. So starting your comment with that question is not really engaging in the discussion, and is a bit like this. Cambial foliage❧ 21:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest mutual recognition and non discrimination are better know generally as they are terms the EU, Australians, and Canadian all use, and are known economic terms. Market Access Principles is just something UKG badged them as. I don't think you understand how British law works. Once an act has past it becomes the law, and the law is above the government, and whatever the governments intention may have been become irrelevant to how it will work in pratice Judges will simply read the face of the Act and what it states. I don't think anyone could say that How I've proposed it above isn't neutral or accurate. The SG and WG would agree it regulates trade, they just feel it restricts their powers as they couldn't impose regulation on goods produced outside their jurisdictions. So saying it regulates trade is accurate and neutral.

I think when comes to NPOV you have to perhaps step back and consider your own you have been involved with this article for a while and clearly not like the Act, and generally seem to take the approach British Government = Bad. You have had multiple editors post on here to say its not neutral or otherwise problematic just because you and other editors who have been on the site a while revert to your version doesn't mean that has consensus, this talk page shows it doesn't have consensus. This obsession with "policy" over what is good is unhelpful rules should be broken if they stand in the way, Arcturus pointed out to me that the most important policy is Ignore All the Rules. I am open to you suggesting an alternative new text to discuss below. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that it's totally irrelevant to the discussion, we'll skip past the patronising attempts to "explain" how you think British law works. This is an encyclopaedia, not a guide for the application of the law. We cover all aspects of the subject, not just those that might be useful to one group of people (who are also those least likely to read it). You've again totally ignored why your proposed text doesn't maintain NPOV.

You have had at least four editors revert away from your suggested changes. If an editor said to ignore all rules it is extremely poor advice: the rule is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages" , you should ignore it. Rewriting a lead so that it no longer summarises the article, does not maintain NPOV, and is no longer impartial is not an improvement. If that's your basis for your changes you need to seriously rethink your approach. Cambial foliage❧ 22:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My point on British law was so you understand that the he said she said approach becomes particularly irrelevant once the act becomes a law. In relation to your point several of the those editors have now apologised for their knee jerk revision, thanked me for my work and encouraged me to continue. One even highlighted how behaviour such as those displayed by you and other editors here are an endemic problem on wikipedia that limit the project overall. So perhaps consider if you are a positive or negative impact overall (that being said I do appreciate your apology regard Dr Lydgate but I don't think I should of had to bang my head against a wall quite so much to get there). The current lead is badly written and not neutral. If you want to take a swing at writing a new one I'm happy to read it, if you want to read edit mine with with some suggestioned changes happy to take a look at that too 80.42.39.51 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You wrote two comments: hardly banging you head against a wall. The reversion was not knee-jerk but the correct response to edit which failed to meet the requirements of a WP:LEAD. Rather than simply WP:REHASH your statement "the lead is badly written" over and over and over again, which is unhelpful, pointless and rude, perhaps you can explain why and where you think the problems are. This especially as I have given you the courtesy of doing so for your proposed version on at least two occasions above e.g. here. Cambial foliage❧ 22:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to personally thank IP User 80.42.39.51 for the persistence shown over this and happy to see that after newly two months there is some progress being made. The current lead is absolutely ridiculous and goes against every precedent set on major legislative UK articles. If someone could point me to another article of UK legislation that opens with the opinion of an academic, then please show it to me. It is very clear that the opinion within the lead is there because the editor who put it there wants this particular viewpoint prominently positioned, as it is not a statement of fact but just opinion. This Act makes specific provisions to ensure that there are no internal trade barriers amongst the constituent nations of the United Kingdom and it is simply the opinion of an academic that it restricts the devolved administrations powers. Therefore, can we agree that fact should be in the lead and the opinion of an academic should be placed elsewhere in the article, which is the current precedent of the Scotland Act, European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 and many other historical Acts.DrJosephCowan (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DrJosephCowan, I agree that the lead is not the place for that opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not simply the viewpoint of "an academic" , repeating dishonest claims such as that are impeding discussion. FDW777 (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also point out it was a criticism of the bill as introduced not on the act that was heavily amended. As such it speaks to the general issue of the lead that it is a relic from when it was the internal market bill rather than an Act. 79.66.51.226 (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I ran this past user Acturus, who suggested it was NPOV for overly focusing on criticism so I have amended slightly below.

"The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with the regulation of trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations.

It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It 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, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

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. The Welsh and Scottish Government in particular strongly opposed the bill and the former has announced its intention to challenge the legislation in court.”

Also I've just noticed my IP has changed I was 80, someone helpfully suggested I create an account and I will do, though every username I've tried is already taken!! 11:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.51.226 (talk)

Re: "no consensus". If editors genuinely believe there is no consensus for any particular changes or do not believe they can seek consensus through editing, the course of action is to revert to the last stable version, which is here. It is not to revert to an arbitrary point which they prefer because it misrepresents sources in the way they prefer. Cambial foliage❧ 12:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal is a significant improvement on the current article wording. There are some changes i would suggest but i think you are on the right path with this approach. One suggestion right away i would like to make is "regulation of government subsidy to business, providing the UK..." should change to "regulation of government subsidy to business and provides the UK G...". These two parts of the legislation are separate yet the current proposed wording sounds like one is an effect of the other. If necessary do it as a separate sentence. Another suggestion is the bit about international criticism should include a sentence pointing out the Northern Ireland Protocol part which faced criticism was removed from the legislation. I have some more suggestions but i do think your suggestion is a great start compared to the current article introduction. CoiledAmp (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How can you claim that version is stable? you are constantly reverting edits on it, and its clear from the several editors above the existing lead doesn't have consensus and doesn't appear to ever had despite your claims PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If certain editors believe there is consensus from this RFC for change, the next step is to post at WP:RFCLOSE. FDW777 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You boys do love to quote your policies, do you think that is helpful to anyone or just a way to block improvement? PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It was perfectly stable before you came along and attempted to bulldoze your changes through. I ask you to stop this twin-track approach. The very act of starting this RFC is an acknowledgement there is currently no consensus for your changes, so you should stop attempting to force them through while the RFC is ongoing. FDW777 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No the act of starting the RFC was because the existing text was bad, and it was recognised it needed changing. I've only changed the lead in response to others changing the lead, perhaps you should look to your own actions and if they are good faith or if you are perhaps slipping into the mindset that you own the article?

Further since no alternative has been suggested and my suggestion text has received more support than opposition I thought that was appropriate to change it. I'm happy to hold it and discuss further but I would expect the same from you and Cambrial so if you would revert the lead back to when you first changed that would be a good start on your part.

As for bulldozing again look to your own eye, you have offered no constructive edits only reverted others, that would be bulldozing. A brief look at the edit history shows people trying to improve the lead frequently only you and one or two other editors simple reverted their edits constantly. That isn't stability that is you browbeating people to get your own way. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Re the claim that this article doesn't look like other Acts, that's a complete misunderstanding of how WP:NPOV works. If an Act has come in for significant criticism, as this one has, then the article has to reflect that. That's what NPOV demands, not a dry summary of the text in the Act and its progression through parliament. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Various individual's definition of "improvement" or "better" differ significantly. The reason people quote policies is because many of them are non-negotiable, (i.e. NPOV, Verifiability), and others structure how disputes are handled. Your edits and behaviour indicate you haven't yet familiarised yourself with the most core content policies. We think you should, which is why they are often linked. Cambial foliage❧ 12:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well in fact you and your friend FDW777 use them to try and claim some superiority of position. Its called the fallacy of appeal to authority as your arguments don't stand up on its own. and even your interpretation of those policy have been questioned by other experienced users. The current lead clearly violates NPOV. Also you and FDW777 behaviour would suggest you are breaching the tenet of you don't own articles https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_own_Wikipedia PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This article introduction is a complete mess for many reasons. It should all be completely rewritten. This is an article about an Act of Parliament and yet the introduction spends most of its time mentioning opinions on the legislation rather than what the legislation actually does. I have never seen an article on legislation written so badly. I think we should all work together to rewrite this introduction but we must remove the worst bits. The fourth sentence of the introduction is awful and has no place in the introduction at all. I am shocked one person's opinion is given such prominence when his view is completely irrelevant. This article introduction and the rest of the article needs a lot of work. I am glad someone has added a neutrality tag and i may add a few further tags if necessary because this article has a lot of problems that must be fixed. There is a lot of work to do here. CoiledAmp (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole point is that reliable references, many of them, dispute what the legislation actually does. And once again it's not "one person's opinion", it only says that because one particular disruptive editor who hasn't bothered to read the references keeps changing it to deliberately misrepresent exactly how many people say it. FDW777 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

One person's opinion does not belong in the first paragraph of this article. The article must mention the range of views on the legislation but one person's view should not be given such prominence. The article introduction should state what the legislation does and have one paragraph explaining the different criticisms of it. Currently almost all of the introduction is different individuals or different governments stating different opinions. Its a total mess. We must separate fact from opinion. I have a lot of problems with the current article but that final sentence of the first paragraph in the introduction really is shockingly bad. I considered removing the sentence right away but i am prepared to wait for an agreement. Until then i have added some inline tags to that very problematic sentence. CoiledAmp (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It. Is. Not. One. Person's. Opinion. It only says that because it was disruptively changed by the person who started the RFC. FDW777 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Then can we get agreement now to remove that sentence entirely whilst we work on the rest of the introduction? It currently does just state one person's opinion and that is a very big problem. CoiledAmp (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No. lack of consensus results in reversion to status quo, not your preferred version, CoiledAmp. Cambial foliage❧ 14:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is why i put the tags rather than remove the sentence as its the status quo to avoid the potential for an edit war. Just to let you know (as you said IP before), i am not one of the IP editors above. I have never edited this article or commented before on this talk page. I have viewed the article a few times in the past couple of months and been disappointed with elements of it but not made any changes because there was too much wrong with it to even start. Now the introduction is far worse than the last time i viewed it and now an RFC has been started about the entire introduction i have decided to join the discussion to help improve the article. CoiledAmp (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The page as it stands at this exact moment is not the status quo. Last relatively stable version of the lead (≥7 days) is here. Editing has paused because a user has been edit warring after having been warned about it 2 days earlier. "IP" was a typo which was corrected before you replied, please don't read anything into it. Cambial foliage❧ 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the consensus here is that the opinion of one individual should not appear in the lead paragraph of the article. Nobody is suggesting to delete it from the article completely, but there is a clear consensus that an opinion of one academic should not be in the lead, as though it is a matter of fact. I now suggest the following, remove the entire sentence regarding the opinion of one individual to another section and simply have the lead paragraph as:

”The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations. The 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.” - which tells readers what the Act does as a matter of fact not opinion.DrJosephCowan (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, everyone agrees that the opinion of one individual should not appear in the lead. The opinion of one individual does not appear in the lead, so please stop falsely characterising it as such. What appears is the legal analysis of multiple legal and political academics, published in a variety of scholarly fora. Cambial foliage❧ 15:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:REHASH! Why is it that the only time Cambial Yellowing wants Misplaced Pages policy to be applied is to ensure that a deeply flawed article remains bias and misleading? Happy to effectively own the article at the expense of accuracy and NPOV, to make edits against consensus, revert to their preferred text several times and not engage other than in negative fashion. The only lack of consensus comes from two accounts constantly making ridiculous arguments and clutching at straws while claiming foul at all around. I notice they’ve posted a notice about edit warring on someone actually contributing, I hope it has the streisand effect. Many thanks to those spending time and effort to play Cambial Yellowing’s game and finally fixing this article. 92.40.174.237 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The current fourth sentence of the introduction does state the opinion of one individual. That is a problem. If we all agree the introduction should not include the opinion of one individual why is it still there? lets remove it. CoiledAmp (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing had the status quo of “restricted devolved powers” as a matter of fact for months which has probably misled thousands of people who have viewed this article, thanks to stubbornness and unwillingness to reach compromise. It is now time to stop digging in and remove this ridiculous statement from the lead paragraph from this article, which is clearly there because it sides with the viewpoint of yellowing.DrJosephCowan (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Published academic sources are considered to be reliable sources. If you think the legal analyses which agree on this point are "ridiculous" the thing to do is to show where other secondary published scholarship claims otherwise, not simply whine about how you don't like it. The only stubbornness is that NPOV and Verifiability should be followed: given that those policies are non-negotiable and cannot be overridden by consensus, that's appropriate. They are not obscure or arcane policy documents; if you read them you'll note that they are 2 of the three core content polices that form the heart of how Misplaced Pages is written. Cambial foliage❧ 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is time to end this madness and move to finally have an article / lead which is informative, neutral and not heavily reliant on the opinion of one opponent to the act. It is transparent that Cambial Yellowing/FDW777 find excuses and selectively enforce policy (they often fail to adhere to themself) to push what is essentially propaganda on what is a legally defined act, of which the only interpretation would be undertaken by a judge rather than something the government can manipulate; yet every effort is being made by present it otherwise, mis-characterise or invite the reader to have suspicion. There are implications for devolution and controversies, they should be included with detail rather than selective omission for effect; in a fair and balanced fashion alongside the actual effect of the passing of the act itself. I am happy with the proposed text simply because it is easily a vast improvement over the forced "status quo" which was abhorrent to anyone with a passing interest in objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.215 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The premise on which your argument rests (that it is reliant on the opinion of one opponent) is obviously and demonstrably false. It is already demonstrated to be untrue in the article. So your argument does not carry any weight. Please refrain from making groundless accusations of bad faith. Cambial foliage❧ 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What the lead said when the Act was a bill

"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".

Somewhat strangely the OP argues above at #Pinsent Masons that this addition of theirs should stand. I will quote the last sentence of what their addition says, since it is at the centre of the dispute.

If new regulatory barriers to trade within the UK are created, the Act can be used as a sword or a shield to overcome them

Yet, for some reason they appear to object the "restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales and can operate in practice" wording despite their own referenced addition saying exactly that! The creation of "new regulatory barriers to trade within the UK" would be by the devolved administrations, and it says this Act can effectively disregard them.

This RFC is effectively meaningless due to the constant, ongoing, changes to the lead by the same editor who started the RFC. People aren't commenting on the consensus version of the lead, but one nobody wants. FDW777 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's insightful you characterize change ass disruption.

That is a good point you raise. No one is saying Michael Dougan or other academics opinions aren't important. So a compromise where their views are attributed and placed in the reactions section just like the Mason Pincent view is complete acceptable in my view. So I support that part of your proposal.

Have you thought about trying to be constructive FDW777 and proposing a new lead text that might be accept both from a quality and NPOV perspective, I'd be happy to look at it PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your RFC is an acknowledgement your proposed change doesn't have consensus. Therefore to continue trying to bulldoze disputed changes through while the RFC is ongoing is inherently disruptive, regardless of the content of the edits. It's not up to me to propose anything. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No, its an acknowledgement that the old lead is badly written, not neutral, outdated, and overly long and hasn't really ever had consensus and that a new one is needed. Its my attempt to work with you and others to produce one that actually is useful and isn't misleading like the old lead. Of course why create anything when you can just bulldoze others work by reverting it constantly. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The previous lead had consensus, by definition of the term. It's up to those wanting to change it to demonstrate that the previous consensus has changed. You've yet to do that. FDW777 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

From what i have seen there is big support for the article introduction not mentioning an individuals opinion in the first paragraph of the introduction. So i am not sure why we are keeping it in there? There is not consensus for the status quo. Most seem to want to see changes. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

See #"opinion of one person" is a disruptive misrepresentation below. Please stop making this false claim. FDW777 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It clearly didn't. Also concensus is a continually thing you can't claim it was reach once and then bank it. If consensus existed, which looking at the talkpage and edit history it clearly didn't, it doesn't now. I also don't have to demonstrate anything to you FDW777 you don't own the article. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@PlainAndSimpleTailor: Could you summarize the exact changes you want made and why? Theres a lot of whole lead sections but that is not very useful for me to analyze what changes are wanted. I'm thinking that if you can create a concise list of changes we can then hold a formal WP:RFC, wherein we !vote on a course of action. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

An IP above posted proposed new wording at 11:56, 2 February 2021. Their proposal seemed a good starting point for the approach the introduction should take. A significant improvement on the current introduction though with further alterations needed. Everyones views on that as a starting point would maybe help. Theres a lot of problems with the current introduction but the biggest problem is the fourth sentence of the first paragraph. it is totally unacceptable that someonse opinion is given such undue weight. It does not belong in the introduction. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I can do you one better at the suggestion of user John Maynard Friedman I drafted the below text that I think addresses the issues of length, confused drafting, and Neutral point of view

   "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.

   It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It 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, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

   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. The Welsh and Scottish Government in particular strongly opposed the bill and the former has announced its intention to challenge the legislation in court.”

I'd welcome your thoughts, Thanks PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the current lead? It seems to be longer, more descriptive, and goes into more nuance. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the current lead is its mostly just stating different people or organisations views. This is meant to be an article about an Act of Parliament. it should say with clarity what the Act does and then have one paragraph explaining the notable criticism of it.At the moment the first paragraph mentions the views of one random guy. Then theres the view of the UK Government then the Scottish Government then Michael Gove then Devolved administrations. The final paragraph is reasonable though some small changes would be appropriate. But the first three paragraphs are just very bad and no other articles on Acts of Parliament take on the tone and style of this article introduction. It is biased with undue weight given to negative views of the legislation rather than neutral and factual with notable criticism. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There's actually not much in the way of information about the act itself in the lead at present, key aspects such as "mutual recognition" and "non-discrimination" are not even mentioned. What the act "seeks to" do is highly contentious, it would be far better to simply state facts rather than the interpretation of any individuals, on wikipedia or anywhere else especially considering that this a law without wriggle room for interpretation. Politicians are looking to promote significant and seismic constitutional change all the way to independence on the back of sentiment of laws such as these, Misplaced Pages should be neutral on these matters. There is a lot of content on this talk page, probably too much for someone coming in fresh but you will find many objections to what is being referred to as the status quo, although how that has been maintained is in itself contentious.146.198.108.194 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not how NPOV works. That's like saying the article on German leader Adolf Hitler is negative compared to the article on German leader Angela Merkel. FDW777 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit of legislation it is equal in status to other legislation and should be similar to other articles. The fact that you mention Hitler and Merkel sort of highlights a concern that this article is seeking to treat this legislation as bad vs other legislation which is treated as good or neutral. Many bits of legislation have criticism at the time but the article introduction is not entirely focused on that criticism. The introduction should mostly set out what the legislation does. Including its primary purpose (Mutual Recognition and Non Discrimination). Yes it should include notable criticism but that should be in one paragraph and not almost every other sentence of the introduction. CoiledAmp (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't say I know what "mutual recognition" means beyond...the obvious? Don't the parties already recognize each other? How is that the most relevant bit? AdmiralEek (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The most important thing about the legislation is that it puts in law the principle of mutual recognition. The fact the introduction does not make this clear is one of the problems. Its the primary purpose of the law. Without this law there was not legal assurance of mutual recognition of goods or services within the UK as it previously (since devolution) depended on EU regulations. CoiledAmp (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The devolved administrations didn't exist before the UK became a member of the EC/EU, the EU Single Market enforced the principal of mutual recognition of goods and services. The UK has now left the EU and the devolved administrations are free to create legislation which might have prevented trade between the countries of the UK. The UK Internal Market Act means that while those laws can be enforced within the nation they were created, they can't be used to prevent trade from other areas of the UK (essentially replicating the role of the EU for the UK Internal Market). I could go on but it'd probably be easier to read the article and sources which explain this.146.198.108.194 (talk)

... also, the understanding of these principals explains the issue of the lead simply saying that the devolved administrations are restricted; without any further explanation, a casual observer could interpret the act as being a far bigger imposition than reality (especially considering that additional powers are being moved from the EU to the devolved administrations). Changing this text has been frequently blocked despite reasoned arguments and highly reliable sources.146.198.108.194 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I notice in the formal arguments below, some are falling into the trap of arguing whether the devolved administrations are restricted rather than simply argue to have a lead which spells out what are seen as restrictions by some. The old (steadfastly defended by highly questionable reverts) lead was deliberately vague, this is what should be sought to be rectified rather than be pulled into arguing the toss about who's opinion really counts / needs to be included.

So regarding mutual recognition that means that say a Scottish regulator recognises that a product made to Welsh standards is equivalent to Scottish standards and vice versa. It means a business only has to comply with the regulations of the part of the UK its producing in. So this where some of the academics say it would limit the scope of the devolved legislatures as they could regulate producers operating within their own jurisdiction and not prevent those from another part of the UK. However following amendment due to criticism like those there is now an extensive exemption regime based on the common frameworks programme PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"opinion of one person"

The bundled footnote containing multiple references at the end of the sentence follows, unbundled for ease of viewing.

References

1. Thimont Jack, Maddy; Sargeant, Jess; Marshall, Joe; Hogarth, Raphael; Kane, James; Jones, Nick (9 September 2020). "UK Internal Market Bill". Institute for Government. Retrieved 17 September 2020.
2. Dougan, Michael; Hayward, Katy; Hunt, Jo; McEwen, Nicola; McHarg, Aileen; Wincott, Daniel (2020). UK and the Internal Market, Devolution and the Union. Centre on Constitutional Change (Report). University of Edinburgh, University of Aberdeen. pp. 2–3. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
3. Hayward, Katy (19 October 2020). "How does the UK Internal Market Bill relate to Northern Ireland?". London School of Economics. Retrieved 1 February 2021. ...although the Bill only curtails devolved competence in specific ways (e.g. by making state aid a reserved rather than a devolved matter), it will undermine the effectiveness of devolved legislation in relation to goods and services. The UK Internal Market Bill would also be a protected enactment, meaning that the devolved legislatures cannot legislate in a way that contravenes the Bill. Devolved legislatures may be able to make laws to, for example, raise standards, but because they cannot stop goods made to a lower standard from being sold in their market from elsewhere in the UK, the effect of those laws will be limited
4. Lydgate, Emily (23 September 2020). Professor Emily Lydgate, University of Sussex: Evidence on the UK internal market bill. Finance and Constitution Committee (Report). Edinburgh: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. 21st Meeting 2020, Session 5. Retrieved 15 October 2020. In that context, even though the new powers might not be used, I expect that the UK Government wants the legislation to be in place before those statutory instruments come into force, in case the common frameworks fall apart. What we are seeing is the UK Government responding to a threat by trying to centralise power or create a system that will function in case there is a problem...For example, England might authorise a new active substance for pesticides, or a new GMO, and would then be able to freely export those products to devolved nations, even if they had controls domestically. In so doing, England could competitively undercut producers and in effect undermine permitted divergence.
5. Bell, David (2020). Submission from Professor David Bell, University of Stirling (PDF). Finance and Constitution Committee (Report). Centre for Population Change. pp. 4–5. FCC/S5/20/UKIMB(LCM)/05. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
6. Wincott, Daniel; Hunt, Jo (17 October 2020). "UK internal market principles will create distrust within the union, says new report". Cardiff University. Retrieved 2 February 2021. By introducing uncertainty over new UK Government spending powers in the devolved areas, and by limiting the ability of the devolved governments to pursue their own policy priorities, the Bill is more likely to undermine rather than strengthen the union, and creates the space for political conflict, grievance and a breakdown in inter-governmental relations.
7. Dougan, Michael (2020). Briefing Paper. United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Implications for Devolution (PDF) (Report). Liverpool: University of Liverpool. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
8. Dougan, Michael (23 September 2020). Professor Michael Dougan: Evidence on the UK internal market bill. Finance and Constitution Committee (Report). Edinburgh: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. 21st Meeting 2020, Session 5. Retrieved 15 October 2020. 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.
9. "Trade in the UK Internal Market". Institute for Government.

I will confess to not having read all of the references, but it's clear from just the ones with quotes provided (#3, #4, #6 and #8) that it is not just Michael Dougan. And that's before I point out again that at #What the lead said before the disruption right above the OP's own reference says the same thing. FDW777 (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So why is the article mentioning his name and his view? And why is it given such prominence? Yes the introduction should mention criticism but not an individuals and with such prominence in the first paragraph. It is giving those views significant undue weight even if other people agree with him. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Because the person that started the RFC has edit warred to say only his name after starting the RFC, confusing everyone. FDW777 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 You should read them they are interesting. FDW777 You agree opinion shouldn't be presented as fact and should be atrributed. As with the Mason example this is best done in the reactions section, which was missing a section. I've now added so these quotes can be expanded upon. I would point out that before your changes it said "some academics, particularly Michael Dougan" and that one of the sources being cited Dr Lydgate's predate the bill entirely as it was a response to the FCC call for evidence in December 2019! so it appears to be your changes that have made the issue of it being one man's opinion. I think the general consensus is that these opinions belong in the reaction section and not in the lead. Crikey you boys type fast I can't get a word in edgeways! keep getting edit conflicts! PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say any of those things you just claimed? Diffs are needed with exact quotes from me. Otherwise please strike through your incorrect comments. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For one: stay chill y'all, focus on the *content* not the *contributor*.

For two, like the "some academics" or "numerous academics" wording. We *usually* try to avoid that language as it is vague, but in this case, there is not shortage of folks who hold that position, so it is not inaccurate. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not even an opinion, that's what's so frustrating. Either the Act does contain legislation that restricts the powers of the devolved administrations (which it does, according to numerous academics), or it doesn't (erm, according to nobody in particular). This is fact not opinion. FDW777 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It clearly is an opinion and an outdated one at that, as it was about the bill which was heavily amended in its passage due to similar criticism particularly in the lords. So they don't reflect on the Act as it is now but on the bill as it was introduced. Or in the case of the Dr Lydgate cite before a bill was even suggested.

The simple fact is you won't know how it impacts devolved competence until its tested in court. Even a constitutional lawyer offering a view won't be definitive, because no one can be PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There you go again, misrepresenting Lydgate now. FDW777 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 I think you should look to the plank in your own eye. Your friend Cambrial even admitted the source was wrong up in the sources discussion. Perhaps you'd like to apologise? PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, she said it on 23 September 2020, two weeks after the bill was published. So your comment of Or in the case of the Dr Lydgate cite before a bill was even suggested is simply dishonest. FDW777 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Go read your friend Cambrial apology then lets see if you are big enough man to come back accept your mistake and apologise. I am not banging my head against a wall to explain it again. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: @PlainAndSimpleTailor: Clearly having you interact directly with each other is not going well. So if you will engage, I propose we do this WP:DRN style. You will each make a brief statement of what you think the issue is, and what you want changed, with sources if need be. You will talk in separate sections, you will not directly talk to each other, and we will avoid threaded discussion. I will attempt to then steer the conversation in a consensus forming direction, not taking an opinion myself. If the others involved would like, they can join in too, as long as this stays formal. This can be done on this page, or at WP:DRN. Would this be helpful to y'all? AdmiralEek (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, sorry its probably not a helpful way to go about discussing improving the article. I don't respond well to be called a liar and have faced constant hostility from some editors which just wears you down. I have tried extensively to engage and I don't think its just me FDW777 is like this too. I have set out a few times the issues. If you look back to my first post when I started editing the article. Happy to try any method you suggest to find a resolution. Its all so tiring. Could we perhaps do it at the weekend then everyone can take a break. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There is the Scottish Parliament's "Scotland and the UK Internal Market - Call for views", from February 2020. Before the Bill. Linked on that page is Dr Emily Lydgate and Chloe Anthony, University of Sussex. The quote from Emily Lydgate is in reference#4 above, and reads In that context, even though the new powers might not be used, I expect that the UK Government wants the legislation to be in place before those statutory instruments come into force, in case the common frameworks fall apart. What we are seeing is the UK Government responding to a threat by trying to centralise power or create a system that will function in case there is a problem...For example, England might authorise a new active substance for pesticides, or a new GMO, and would then be able to freely export those products to devolved nations, even if they had controls domestically. In so doing, England could competitively undercut producers and in effect undermine permitted divergence. I should not have to provide a point-by-point analysis to demonstrate that quote does not appear in the February 2020 submission. But, just for example, it doesn't contain the terms "new powers", "statutory instruments", "centralise power" or countless other terms in the quote. Why is that? Because the quote is from something she said in September 2020, after the bill was published.

I find the DRN suggestion potentially beneficial (with the caveat some ground rules may need to be established, to prevent problems like Lydgate coming up again). FDW777 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I would point you to Cambrial apology "Ok fair, the submission cited was written in response to the understanding of intent to publish legislation (following the Johnson manifesto and electoral success), not to the white paper itself. I apologise for the error." I guess we now know which one of you is more of a grown up at least PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There are currently four editors or more who have agreed that the lead of this article states the opinion of one individual with the clear intention of pushing a particular viewpoint on the article. It doesn’t matter how many sources you throw about, those are all opinions of the Act prior to it coming into law (hence the climb down and change from yellow). The fact is the Act prevents internal trade barriers amongst the constituent countries of the UK by creating mutual provisions, provisions which are globally renowned within the global economy. It is simply the opinion of an academic that this restricts the devolved administrations, that isn’t what the Act does; that is simply an opinion. Therefore, place the opinion of those academics somewhere else within the article and not in the lead. The precedent has already been set on every other major legislative article in respect of the UK, where the lead introduces what the bill does and doesn’t state the opinion or interpretation of what academics view the legislation as doing. We need the opinion of the academic removed from the lead, which is what the consensus is here by majority and for those opinions to be placed else where within the article.DrJosephCowan (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the academic point. This is the biggest problem i see with the current introduction. It gives undue weight to the views of one academic (yes some others may share those views too but thats not how the article is currently worded) and yet the article introduction does not even mention the term "mutual recognition" which is the primary purpose of the legislation. AdmiralEek in the discussion above asked about its meaning. The introduction should clearly set it out because that is the whole point of this legislation. Yet it doesnt. Instead the introduction is just a lot of different peoples and governments views all contradicting each other rather than stating the actual facts. Its a mess. Other articles on Acts of Parliament are not worded in this style or tone at all. CoiledAmp (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@CoiledAmp:Your argument reads as the following, you claim that you believe: undue weight is given to one academic, but actually you recognise that in fact it's the analysis of multiple academics, but because one editor has made the article say it's the view of one academic, we should treat it as though it is. That argument is very facetious, and does not hold up to a moment's scrutiny. Cambial foliage❧ 23:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've now created a academia section in the reaction section as along with business and political parties (two very key groups given the economic nature of the bill) this was missing from the old version of the article. I think these criticism all more suitable sit there were they can be expanded and attributed. Which I have begun to do. My one concern is that all the academics cited so far are from the DAs some like Dr McEwen have even worked for the Scottish Government so should that potential bias be caveated as in a way you could say her views represent the SG given her consultancy for them. What do people think? PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cambrial can say whatever they like. It is a proven fact the Emily Lydgate quote cited in the article is from after the Bill was published in September 2020, and not from an earlier paper from February 2020. It does not matter how many times or how many people say red is blue or black is white, that quote is from after the bill was published. FDW777 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't in the old lead for which you are advocating, so it seems you are the one trying to claim red is blue and rewrite history to fit your own world view, and despite being caught in a lie you press on. You are very Trumpian with your alternative facts etc PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 The opinion of an academic does not carry weight for it to be placed as fact within the lead paragraph of this article. Please indicate where this is the case on any of the other major legislative UK article on Misplaced Pages. The lead paragraph should be entirely on what the Act sets out to do, which once again; is to prevent internal trade barriers within the UK with globally renowned factual provisions of mutual recognition and market access principles. It is the opinion of academics which say that the Act restricts the devolved administrations, but this isn’t fact it is opinion. Therefore, keep the lead paragraph in line with precedent and move the opinion of the academics and others elsewhere within the article.DrJosephCowan (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you'd read the first post in the section you're replying to before replying (which is generally a good idea) you'd know it's not just "an academic" , but "many academics". The "other major legislative UK article" argument has been dismissed, as being incompatible with NPOV. Just as the article on Adolf Hitler is more negative than the article on Angela Merkel, despite them both being about German leaders, the content of this article is dependent on what independent references say on the subject. FDW777 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Progress is now being made to the introduction by majority of consensus on here that says remove the opinion of the academic and place it somewhere appropriate. Please take a step back from this article and consider that you are actually the issue here.DrJosephCowan (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again @DrJosephCowan:: phrases such as this The lead paragraph should be entirely on what the Act sets out to do, which once again; is to prevent internal trade barriers within the UK with globally renowned factual provisions of mutual recognition and market access principles betray a total unfamiliarity with what a WP:LEAD is supposed to do, and what WP:NPOV means. Let's compare:

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section

It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as 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.

DrJosephCowan

The lead paragraph should be entirely on what the Act sets out to do.

You don't get to simply reinvent how articles are to be written.

Your proposed lead uses only one source for what the bill seeks to do: the Conservative party in government. Misplaced Pages is not a press release, and treating it as a platform to put the policy announcements of one government as fact, and all academic legal analysis of the legislation as only someone's opinion, is an egregious violation of NPOV. Legal scholars examine the text of the legislation and draw conclusions based on their expertise in how the law operates, what extant legislation might impact it, and the real-world circumstances in which the law will operate. Their analysis is a reliable source for what the act does, and trying to claim that only government press releases/policy papers should be used to support what the act does suggests you either haven't read or haven't understood what NPOV means. Cambial foliage❧ 00:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the change to the lead regarding the inclusion of the provisions is not based on the opinion of the Conservative Party in Government; it is based on the legislation that is now in law. Let me make it clear to you what I meant, instead of you misinterpreting what I said and turning it into something it is not. The legislation creates renowned provisions, which are internationally recognised principles to prevent internal trade barriers amongst the constituent nations of the UK. That isn’t the Conservative Party line, it is fact; which has sat within the lead paragraph prior to any change I made “concerns trade within the UK to prevent internal trade barriers”. The only change that has occurred, is that the opinion of an academic has been removed as per the consensus above. The only additional piece of information added to the lead paragraph is adding the market provisions and principles, which are stated throughout the article as being central to the legislation to prevent internal trade barriers. You are once again acting like you own this article and trying to bring up old arguments. DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I am not objecting to any criticism of the Act and I would be happy with the opinion of the academics to be present within the article. However, it should not be in the lead paragraph or entirely focused on the opinion of one individual. The fact you are basing my edit on accusations of political motive is ridiculous, when I am trying to be as neutral as possible for the good of the article. Maybe, it is time you take a step back from this article. DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You haven't achieved consensus. Another editor agreeing with you is not a consensus. It is fact is not a valid argument, it carries no weight in your trying to achieve consensus. Your arguments which are variants of "I don't like" it carry no weight in determining consensus. Content is determined by verifiability, not what you claim is simply "truth". The same arguments apply because you haven't changed anything about your arguments for your proposed changes, and they still fall down in the same place. The sources cited in the status quo lead are reliable sources. They state that the act seeks to prevent trade barriers, create market access principles, and restrict the ability of the devolved administrations to legislate in certain ways. Those sources state the latter as equally significant a function of the bill. You don't get to simply decide this function of the bill shouldn't be in the lead; that isn't maintaining a NPOV. Maybe it is time you took a step back to understand what NPOV means before continuing to edit WP. Cambial foliage❧ 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And again, I am not talking about the entirety of the “lead”, I am talking about the introductory paragraph. If I was talking about the entirety of the lead, I wouldn’t have said “paragraph” after the word “lead”. I’ve also been open to adding opposing views and have been subjective as possible. Stop twisting my words and preventing consensus on this article by quoting rules- as if you own the article. DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your words aren't being twisted. Your arguments simply don't hold water. I'm only bothering to point out the core content policies to you because your edits and the words you write here indicate that you're intent on ignoring them. Cambial foliage❧ 00:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Disingenuously quoting what I said and portraying it as something it is not, is twisting my words. I understand the rules regarding the lead, what I am discussing isn’t the entirety of the lead it is the introductory paragraph and how it should not have the opinion of one individual within it. My proposal to remove the opinion of the academic was backed my various editors, who agreed it should be removed from the introduction paragraph and placed elsewhere. The only additional content I added to the lead paragraph was what is already well and truly established within the article, which are the provisions around market principles.DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you rehashing your argument that the intro paragraph should not have the opinion of one individual within it again. Everyone agrees with this. Quit rehashing it. Just as the sources originally in that paragraph were reliable sources for the act "creating market access principles", they are reliable sources for it "restricting the competences of devolved administrations". No opinion of one individual in sight. You don't get to decide "I like that they say this", but "I don't like that they said this."Cambial foliage❧ 01:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles are not a matter of opinion, those provisions are a matter of fact within the legislation. It is the opinion of an academic that those provisions restrict the devolved administrations. However, that opinion should not be in the introduction paragraph of the article because the Scottish Government, UK Government and Welsh Government all have opinions too of what the legislation and provisions achieve. So, why should an academic that you agree with have a prominent position within the introductory paragraph? It shouldn’t. Stop thinking that the provisions are a matter of opinion, they aren’t. The provisions are in law and part of the legislation. You are mistakenly under the impression that those provisions are a matter of opinion. That is why the introduction paragraph should be left as is and the opinions should be placed elsewhere within the article. DrJosephCowan (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You have it completely backwards. No-one thinks the provisions are a matter of opinion. What the act does to the ability of devolved competences to operate is a fact, and multiple independent reliable sources support it. Do you think the act prevents trade barriers? You inserted the text claiming that it does this. Cambial foliage❧ 01:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cambial the issue that several users are trying to explain to you is that you are stitching on to the end of a factual statement the opinion of academics without attributing it as such and instead presenting as if it is factual, which is misleading at best. Further the opinions you want to include were of the bill not the act, so are outdated and much like the more extensive criticism of the NIP breaking clauses belongs in the reactions or background.

Trying to hide that those are opinions, presenting them as fact and giving them undue promienence and weight particularly is the problem.

The article has languished at a C grade for months, other editors just want to improve it and get its quality up please stop reverting those efforts and be constructive. Everyone has bent over backwards to try to include you and your friend FDW777 despite your behaviour.It can't all be one way. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 February 2021 - Disambiguation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

1. "The UK internal market and devolution". Constitution Committee: United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (Report). London: Parliamentary Copyright. 16 October 2020. 17th Report of Session 2019-21. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
2. Jones, Richard Wyn; Larner, Jac (2020). "Progressive home rule?". IPPR Progressive Review. 27 (3): 235–245. doi:10.1111/newe.12221.

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. 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.

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 ⚓ 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 PlainAndSimpleTailor

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 DrJosephCowan

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

(Personal attack removed)

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

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

@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)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• C-Class European Union articles
• Low-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles