Talk:United Kingdom internal market

Image / text use (Gov.Uk)

Crown Copyright.
These have been produced by, or on behalf of, government and so can be re-used by government as well as being free to re-use under the Open Government Licence (OGL)by non-government users; or made available for re-use under an appropriate creative commons licence such as the CC-BY Licence (also see this blogpost) ChefBear01 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Laws in the United Kingdom

What's about Northern Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.5 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you for bringing it to my :attention, it has now been added.

ChefBear01 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Title

Per MOS:CAPS, is there a good reason for this article to have capital I, capital M? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that the Bill has been published, this article needs an 'about' hat note.

I would do it but tbh I'm not really clear what this article is about and it doesn't have a {{short description}} that I could steal. If someone could provide a succinct summary, then we could use {{about}} to say "this article is about X. For the UK's proposed UK Internal Market legislation, see UK Internal Market Bill"

But the obvious question must be: why do we have two articles when one will do? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Image credits

Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we have contributor credits. Please remove them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have removed all image credits.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to comments

usually when I use images that are not mine, it is required to give attribution to the original creator.

ChefBear01 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland "special relationship"

I have hidden the map and caption that makes the wild assertion that RoI is an "EU country with a special relationship with the UKIM". This is so off the wall that the dubious tag I added earlier is inadequate. It has no basis in reality. The only "special relationship" is the one that Northern Ireland has with the EU single market and customs union, per the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Withdrawal Agreement. If the map is to be reinstated unchanged, a very sound citation needs to be produced. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

I have added a citation & quotes to the area in question, I hope this and the explanation I gave on my edit to revert your edit will give you the answers you need

ChefBear01 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

No it does not, for two reasons.

One: in your edit note, you wrote N.Ireland is in a single customs territory with the UK (see article 4 of the EU - UK WA), N.Ireland is in the UK Internal Market (see Article 6 of the WA), as trade works both ways goods from R.Ireland enter the UK Internal Market through N.Ireland (the purpose of the N.I.P is to protect trade between N.Ireland and R.Ireland The error in this analysis is that it fails to recognise that the WA puts NI in both the EUCU and the UKIM, so goods could arrive in NI from any part of the EU – it just happens to be more likely that they will do so from or via RoI – and conversely, goods from GB can enter the EUCU via NI. This reality explains the "border down the Irish Sea" phrase but more practically, explains the border control posts at Larne and the Port of Belfast. Yes, there is a special relationship, but it is of NI with the EU, not the RoI with the UKIM.

Two: you cite the WA as reference for your assertion that the RoI has a "special relationship" with the UKIM. It does not say that. In your opinion, that is what it means, but that makes it WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not permitted. You need to find a reliable and neutral third party source that says so.

Clearly, we have different perspectives on this issue. It would be just as equally a breach of WP:SYNTH for me to change the article to match what I have said above, because I don't have a third-party backup either. So I am tagging the article as {{Disputed}}, and your citation as {{Not in citation given}} and {{Dubious}}. Please note that it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to remove these tags unless and until there is a consensus that the issues have been resolved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but I agree with John Maynard Friedman that the claim is not substantiated by the quote in the citation. All I read it saying is that there is a border between NI and ROI, and that that border is the delimiter between the EU single market and the UK internal market. Based on what is written in Brexit and the Irish border#2019 renegotiation: New Protocol, NI is not de-jure in EUCU, but only de-facto (covered by the other part of the protocol, I suppose). "Special arrangements" would entail that products from ROI are treated differently that products from the rest of EU, but I have never heard that this should be the case. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply

I have added a new source, changed the name to something that is more factually correct as the link points out there are three parts to the cross border trade in the N.Ireland protocol and this is reflective of this and changed the image.

ChefBear01 (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The map is uncontroversial now so the only issue is the citation. The map doesn't actually need a citation, so nothing is lost by removing it. The citation itself is problematic because it is not neutral: it expresses the current Johnson administration's view that, as I am sure you know, is disputed. The caption re the Irish border is just distraction in the infobox and the issue is too complex for a succinct caption. It is not even needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If these two items (redundant in any case, imo) are removed, then as far as I am concerned, the neutrality of the article is no longer disputed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

ITN candidate

Article: UK Internal Market (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Britain’s plan for a post-Brexit settlement which deepens divisions https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/brexit-plan-england-wales-scotland-northern-ireland-1-6761126

It is a big topic in the United Kingdom, as well as a major event that will have a major effect on the functioning of the United Kingdom. It is also very controversial with both strong support and opposition creating tension within the United Kingdom, as well as causing collisions internationally with the EU causing making it a majorly polarised topic (Post)

It is a big topic in the United Kingdom, as well as a major event that will have a major effect on the functioning of the United Kingdom. It is also very controversial with both strong support and opposition creating tension within the United Kingdom, as well as causing collisions internationally with the EU causing making it a majorly polarised topic}}
ChefBear01 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Is UK Internal Market Bill not the primary news item, that this article is a backgrounder for it? (Though I come back to what I said at talk:UK Internal Market Bill – why do we need two articles when one will do? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, you don't seem to have actually nominated it? I can't find it in the list for consideration. See procedure at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#How to nominate an item. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply

This article solely concentrates on the passage of legislation (The UK Internal Market Bill), whereas the UK Internal Market article concentrates on the history, principles, functioning and governance of the UK Internal Market to name a few, so both are needed and important as they both provide crucial information into this topic.I will add the article to the nominations page, but I wanted to ensure it was the best it could be before submitting to ensure it has the best chance of been submitted. Both of these articles are being discussed in parallel as they are tied together.
ChefBear01 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

ITN Nomination

Link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2020

(see July 25, 2020)

ChefBear01 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you choose to place the nomination in the archives, but I have moved it to the correct location: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#UK Internal Market ― Hebsen (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability, merging?

This concept was created after Brexit and retrospectively applied to the economy of the United Kingdom to explain how things work after devolution by comparing with the EU internal market (cf. Common Travel Area vs Schengen Agreement). The article does not even treat devolution in any detail. Much of the content is based on a Bill introduced in Parliament. – Kaihsu (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

The article covers the UK Internal Market and goes into depth on the subject, it will continue to be updated as the UK Internal Market and is updated.

ChefBear01 (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Kaihsu (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Please see my comment under (Could we add the "Four Freedoms"?)

I hope this shows gives you another reason not yet given on why the two articles should remain active and separate, and my determInation to ensure that it stands on its own merit to inform people and share information which is what Wikipedia aims to do.

ChefBear01 (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Mess

This article seems to be a complete mess. For example, the "website" parameter in the infobox actually links to a gov.uk page about the EU Single Market! (see here). There are various other issues as well. I am minded to nominate for deletion. There are no similar articles for other countries (e.g. United States Internal Market). Elshad (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elshad: I would support deletion (or merging into the article for the Bill) if proposed. Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have spent rather a lot of time in the past few days trying to help with the many formatting errors in the article to look too closely at the content, though I did question why it even exists. I still don't have a satisfactory answer to that question. Right now, it fails wp:CRYSTAL since there is no such thing. Others have demolished claims that the Acts of Union 1707 created it: the reality is that the 'common market' between the four constituent countries/princiality/part of a province exists only by accident through various UK laws over the centuries. If the Bill becomes law, the internal market will become "a thing" – but even then the UKIM will exist only because of the new law. For that reason ....

• I support deletion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is not based on facts but pushes the fictitious narrative that the UK is a self-conscious economic union of autonomous participants that compares to the EU. But (for example) the UK does not have ‘members’ nor are the overseas territories in economic partnership agreements with the UK. – Kaihsu (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I have made changes to the article to improve it and endeavour to ensure it meets the standards for Wikipedia.

I also do not see how the article isn’t neutral, I have used neural words and followed Wikipedia method’s when quoting an external source.

If the article needs more major work would suggest moving it to drafts for now where I can continue to work on it away from the main space.

I always endeavour to make the changes that are suggested and take on feedback and deletion is an extreme step to take that reflects negatively on my credibility to edit. ChefBear01 (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The two primary issues I see are these: (a) the article is based on a number of policy papers from the UK government that explains how the UK government wish for things to be, which is speculative since no law has yet been passed; and (b) the article uncritically pass on the UK governments views without proper attribution (this creates POV-issues). It presents the internal market as one that will "foster collaboration and dialogue" and "build trust with business and maintain openness", while also claiming mutual recognition is "well-tested" and "low-cost". Is this NPOV? I think not. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Note also that UK Single Market was deleted back in March. I assume (but does not know) that is was primarily written by the same author. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: The problem is not your good faith or your editing ability: neither are being questioned. The problem is that you have taken the proposals and assertions of the Government as being a reliable source. In any normal world, that would be entirely reasonable, but not with this Government, which has been widely described as incompetent (even by The Telegraph). The fundamental problem is that the "UK internal market" does not exist and has never existed, which makes it impossible to write an NPOV article with the best will in the world: WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are almost impossible to avoid. The Acts of Union did not establish a UK single market, it is a Government fiction that it did. What did happen is that there have been a series of laws in the last 313 (or 220) years with UK-wide application but these were not done with any concept of an internal market between the member nations: like Topsy, it "just growed and growed". The Government is now trying to spin this as some grand architecture. The article is a mess because it is trying to describe a chimera. My best suggestion is that you copy the article as it stands to your sandbox, let it be deleted from main space, and wait to see how the Bill pans out. When it passes (as I assume it will, albeit with significant amendments), you will then have a solid foundation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It could be moved to the draftspace and be edited without needing to loose all the work put in to the article, once the bill has passed I can edit the article to bring it up to scratch and then resubmit it to be moved to the main space.

ChefBear01 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: Yes, that would be sensible. It would be a pity to just lose all that work, much of it will be reusable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I have remove the flagged content so the article is now “clean” in regard to not having any more flags on it. reject deletion.

ChefBear01 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories

What agreement could British Antarctic Territory (summer population 250, mostly scientists, next to no citizens), BIOT, Pitcairn (pop. ≈ 50), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (no permanent population) sign with the UK, let alone one relevant to its “internal market”? – Kaihsu (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kaihsu: You might well think so but it is not for us to make a judgement on the Second Johnson Ministry's delusions of imperial grandeur: if these territories are listed in the version as enacted, we have to record it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Thanks for pointing this out. I am looking at this document on the GOV.UK website: The Customs (Tariff-Free Access for Goods from Overseas Territories) Regulation, cited in this article. It claims to be a statutory instrument, but has no information on the minister who signed it nor when it was laid before Parliament. I cannot find it on https://www.legislation.gov.uk/. Also the name of the document has “regulation” in the singular, which is exceptional if it is a statutory instrument. So I cannot really determine the nature of this document. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a Manx Statutory Document referring to this “arrangement” at footnote 3: Customs (Tariff-free Access for Goods from British Overseas Territories) Regulations 2019 – Kaihsu (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

And now it is withdrawn!! https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-customs-tariff-free-access-for-goods-from-overseas-territories-regulation – Kaihsu (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Please re add the overseas territories as I have provided a link and a quote that clearly states they have access to the U.K. Internal Market through an agreement with the U.K.

I have also removed all the “speculative” content so the template be removed.

ChefBear01 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Just so it is clear, I did not delete anything from the article. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The arrangement is not an agreement that has been “signed”. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

While I have not read the entire document (needless to say), a quick glance tells me it only makes goods imported into the UK from BOTs duty-free, not the other way around (nor between BOTs). An "internal market" also includes some sort of regulatory alignment. This is not good enough for us to state that BOTs are part of the internal market. Also note that Gibraltar is not listed in Annex I. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

On Gibraltar, the arrangement on goods is not yet settled: Government issues Technical Notice on movement of goods - 645/2020 (2020-09-21). The citation given is a UK government consultation on financial services; it does not mean anything has been agreed with Gibraltar. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories aren't part of the UK or its internal market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.10.90 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Could we add the "Four Freedoms"?

The "Four Freedoms":

• .1 Goods
• .2 Capital
• .3 Services
• .4 People

Public sector procurement of goods and services — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.213 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

At the moment I have had to remove information relating to the U.K. Internal Market pending the passage of the bill

I think both articles are necessary as you cannot cram the mass of information from the UK internal market article into the UK Internal Market Bill article as it would make it unreadable and unmanageable, so having a separate article that goes into detail makes sense.

To answer your question the U.K. Internal Market Bill includes goods and services but not people and capital, I have also avoided using the terms “free movement” as it would make the U.K. Internal Market Bill look like a parody of the EU Single Market, and I am keen to ensure that it stands on its own merit separate from anything else.

ChefBear01 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate of a deleted article?

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Single Market (t · c) buidhe 12:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)