Talk:European single market

Margaret Thatcher Contribution

There seems to be no mention of Mrs Margaret Thatcher in the article which is highly unusual for a website purporting to be a encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If this still bothers you years alter, find reliable sources and add it yourself. Cortador (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Massive simplification

"In a well-known series of cases beginning with case 8/74 Dassonville, continuing with case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon and culminating in C-267/91 Keck and Mithouard, the Court has said that discriminatory and non-discriminatory rules of Member States (therefore not actions of private corporations or individuals) that hinder trade shall be illegal."

Rules that hinder trade shall be illegal? This passage is unclear and basically inaccurate. I do not have time to rewrite this second, but there needs to be reference to the articles in play (Art 25 for the most part), competence creep, and the actual tests developed and implemented.

---

I agree with you that the passage is a simplification that needs clarifying. However, I do not agree that it is inaccurate. Dassonville judgment (C-8/74) says in paragraph 1 of summary: "All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions." Hindrance to trade, even only potential, is here suggested as the test by which legality of measures shall be judged. Of course, not all rules that hinder trade are illegal, but only some. In Cassis, the Court was ready to add non-discriminatory ones to the list (e.g. a rule forcing all producers of utter in Member State A to use packaging of certain shape or size). The European Court of Justice has spent decades trying to determine which rules exactly shall be illegal, and their answer has varied widely, to the extent that they were prepared to depart from their own views in Keck. The debate is still open, but the Court has always affirmed its basic formula in Dassonville. As a matter of fact, every case on the subject quotes it. Hence my insisting on it.

You are right that a clearer account of what various EC Treaty articles say is needed, but Article 25 deals with a customs union and plays no role in the Dasonville line of cases. Surely, you mean Art. 28? Or, you want to say that customs union (Art. 25) and taxation (Art. 90) ALSO need to be discussed? If the latter, then you are absolutely right and I agree with you. I also agree that we need a detailed discussion of the tests in all the cases.As286 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

criticism

The criticism section is too polar, as if there is only a (political) debate between 'neoliberals' and 'left-wing criticasters'. There are more fundamental issues at stake too. Intangible 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I read through it, and it does appear to be quite compact and specific on small issues. I'm not versed in EU politics. For those of us who live outside the EU, the section provides no context, explanation or proper introduction. I'm going to slap a different tag on it, if you don't mind. It still needs improvement. Joffeloff 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. About the free movement of persons being a negative right, I am not sure that is the case though for the EU. This is one of those fundamental issues that needs to be talked about in the article. Intangible 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Most libertarians agree that closed borders are coercion, and that free movement over borders is a negative right. The way I interpreted this, the 'free movement' in the EU guarantees the right to be able to work in other EU countries, as long as you have got work there - I'd consider that a negative right. Of course, if it's anything like FDR's 'freedom from want', it's definitely a positive right. This is part of what I mean, I don't get this stuff since I don't discuss it daily like you (perhaps) do. :) Joffeloff 05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

new version

I have substantially rewritten the article, explaining the basics in simpler terms, and covering in a little more detail two of the four freedoms. Other will, without doubt, be added. I felt complied to remove the 'criticism' section completely, not because it lacks interesting points but mainly on the account of the confusing way in which it was written. User:as286, 23:29, 23 June 2006 (GMT) 2

Well done. ---J.S (t|c) 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Two Fundamental Freedoms?

Just a quick question/issue. Shouldn't this whole article be given "stub" status? It only discusses one freedom in any 'detail', barely touches on another and doesn't consider either establishment or capital. I know FM of Capital isn't the most popular subject but surely it should at least be briefly discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.103.212 (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Start class to me, but I agree that more information on the other freedoms is needed.--Boson (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the goods part should be transferred to its own article and a summary placed in this one. ElectricLemon (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of personal movement

I thought some countries like the UK had quotas on immigration? -- Beland (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't apply to EU citizens (or others who can take advantage of EU free movement rights, such as posted workers). ElectricLemon (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The other countries

But as EU or EFTA citizens, we have right of movement for work, living and establishment in Iceland, Switzerland and Norway too - not just EU countries. We need no work permits to work or we must be self-supporting, but apart from the few restrictions on new member states' citizens which will expire soon, we have freedom within the whole European area, except Russia, Belarus, the microstates and the former Yugoslavia. i think the article should mention that in practice, while not EU members, the freedom to move extends to Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. Also, one also arguably has freedom of establishment in countries that give you right of abode on purchase of a nice house - Bermuda, Bahamas etc. --81.105.251.230 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

NGOs & volunteers

what about:

• right for establishment - NGO, political party, religious organization
• the free movement - volunteers, paid workers of NGOs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.46.95 (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Services

Added a brief section on Freedom of Service Provision and the recent debate in the UK. If I have a chance I'll expand it, if anyone would like to correct or improve please feel free - however random deletion such as that which occurred subsequent to my work will not be appreciated! I'd welcome any comments or discussion here Stuartwilks (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on why deleted:

The freedom to provide services in member states has been present from the early days of the treaty of Rome. The relevant article is 49[6].

The other freedoms have been present since "early days as well". This is nothing new. The relevant article is not only 49 but 49-55 (and, indeed, others).

This area was brought to the fore in in 2009, by issues in the UK.

No, it has not. It has been in the "fore" since at least 1980s if not much earlier. Not to mention the Services Directive and the controversies it had caused.

Service providers from other states brought with them their own workers, arguably at the expense of potential employment opportunities for UK workers.

Here you are talking about posted workers which is a problem connected with both Art. 39 and 43/49 and for which there is a Directive (Posted Workers Dir.) which ought to be properly explained, if it is mentioned.

Professor Michelle Everson of Birkbeck College, University of London [7], writing to the Guardian [8] noted the possible conflict between Article 49 EC and Article 39 EC in light of decisions of the European Court of Justice.

Sure he did but you did not explain what that conflict is.

The right to provide services in another member state has, however provided many organisations with the opportunity to trade freely and compete in other countries as part of a single European market, where they might otherwise have been unable to do so.

Free trade existed way before free movement of services (and is a result of GATT etc). Services merely add one brick to the building, however important it is.

Indeed, in the UK example cited above, it might have been difficult for the Portuguese company in question to compete with their UK counterparts had they not been able to utilise their own workforce when tendering for the project. Prime Minister Gordon Brown made this observation when warning against protectionism[9] during the debate surrounding the issue.

Here you have a valid point about Viking and Laval judgments but you seem not to be making that point at all.--As286 (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, my piece expands an otherwise empty section, it is not misleading and is referenced. I disagree with your point about the 1980s - the subject only surfaced in the UK media this year. Constructive re-drafting would be more helpful than deletion. I will make some minor amendments and restore.

If you know all the above and have the time to write them here, why not make a useful contribution to the page?Stuartwilks (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Please remember to sign with the four tilds your comments.

Proposed move

I'd like to propose moving this article to Internal Market (European Union). It's always struck me that we don't have an article on this rather fundamental part of the EU. As the treaties make clear the Internal Market is comprised of the four freedoms that this article is about:

"The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties." (Article 26(2) TFEU).

— Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. In cleaning up there are a ton of names used for this, so one wonders if this is in fact the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Internal Market (European Union) → Internal Market – 99% of the time people use this phrase to refer to the one in the European Union. For the other 1% a hat note will more than suffice. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This is the primary topic. Since the links to the other two topics are a bit complicated, I would suggest having the hatnote link to the old disambiguation page, renamed Internal market (disambiguation) and edited accordingly.--Boson (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Is "market" capitalized? This BBC report would suggest not. This book on EU tax policy uses the lower cased phrase many times. Kauffner (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment if it's not capitalized, then I oppose the move, since an internal market is what is used to calculate GDP, hence a very generic and common concept. If it is capitalized, I don't really like it, but I suppose since Wikipedia disambiguates by capitalization, it could work. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't disambiguate by capitalisation. If the phrase "internal market" is such an important aspect of GDP it's curious that the phrase isn't used on the gross domestic product article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Capitalization varies (even on the EU's website), but in any case is used as a defined term across the media (whether they capitalize it or not). Makes less sense to call the article Internal Market (European Union) given the Internal Market applies to the European Economic Area, not just the EU. Connolly15 (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agnostic as far as capitalisation is concerned. I originally capitalised the article name on the basis of it being a proper noun but interpretations of this rule vary. At the moment the title is capitalised and I'm not proposing any changes. But if the majority of editors think it should be lower case, I'll happily go along with that. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I marginally prefer the capitalized version because I think the article is mainly talking about something that exists and is called the Internal Market, more than the general concept of an internal market in the EEA.--Boson (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, I do wonder whether we should really call it 'Single Market', which seems to be the preferred term in English sources (as opposed to some Eurospeak sources); but I think that is a discussion for another time; both terms are used primarily to refer to the EU topic. --Boson (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. If you google "internal market" -wikipedia, the top five results refer to the EU meaning. In fact, result No. 6 is the only non-EU result on the first two pages. Kauffner (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to European Single Market. There is consensus that this title is more recognizable and precise than "Internal Market".
As for the title case vs. sentence case, there is no real consensus. Arguments raised by Amakuru and Rob984 both have merits (it is unclear when the expression is used just a descriptive phrase, when a proper name, and when as a term of art), but I think it is fairer to go with the original proposal, without prejudice to a subsequent RM to decide on casing. No such user (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

---

• Internal market → European Single Market
• Internal market (disambiguation) → Internal market

– "Internal market" is a highly generic endonym, that is not only used in other parts of the world for their own "internal markets", but even within the EU is too unspecific to be widely understood, unless the EU context is specifically given. Even though it might be mostly used in an EU context, this context is not given within Wikipedia. The sheer number of Google hits is therefore not sufficient to determine the suitability as a Wikipedia article's title, unless the respective contexts of these Google hits are evaluated.
The proposed, unambiguous term "European Single Market", on the other hand, is widely established as the name of this particular single market, both inside and outside the EU. It is even used by EU institutions, see for example this European Commission page. PanchoS (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• [Support. Either proposed title or European Union Internal Market (which is more official but less common).]

I think I am going to support this move as I agree the current title is not precise enough, and "european single market" is commonly used, returning 180,000 results in a Google search. However European Internal Market should possibly be considered as "Internal Market" is the name used in treaties and predates the single market, when it was only a common market (possibly giving it long term significance?). It also has reasonable use, and returns 71,000 results in a Google search. European Union Single Market and European Union Internal Market are also possible contenders, with "eu single market" returning 345,000 results (by far the greatest), and "eu internal market" returning 169,000 results.

Also I am confused by what is happening with the speedy deletion. Have you submitted the wrong page for speedy deletion? The article is located at Internal market and I am not sure what the issue is? It appears to have been moved from Internal Market correctly. [Oh, I understand now. The talk page was not moved correctly.]

Rob984 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've now fixed the talk page issue and have corrected the capitalisation in the nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support sounds reasonable. Should there be an article about the generic term 'internal market' and the economic concepts it involves? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There is—Single market, which covers both common markets and single markets (that should really be moved to "Common market" since a single market is a common market and more). "Internal market" is just used to describe a common or single market that is internal to an trade bloc, such as the EU. Rob984 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a clear example of a primary topic. The examples of other internal or single markets are mostly illusory and evaporate after a couple of investigatory clicks. Internal market (disambiguation) only lists two articles, one of which is a redirect to an article entitled National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. A hatnote should surely suffice!? The single market article is just sourced original research attempting to argue there is a economic model by discussing in general terms something which really only exists in Europe. And argues that there's a distinction between common and single markets even though they are just different names for the same thing. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken on common market–single market distinction. The EEC was named the "common market", and only achieved a ssingle market in 1993. There are many sources that make this distinction. I agree the EU is probably the only true single market, but there certainly are other common markets, Mercosur? ASEAN's common market? What's to say "internal market" only refers to single markets? "internal" is just an adjective. Even the EC referred to "the ASEAN internal market". I agree the EU's is the primary topic (so the term should remain directed here as a redirect), but it isn't recognisable, and also isn't the most common name. "Internal market" could refer to any common market and so I think a more recognisable name should be preferred. And "Single Market" is definitely more common. "European Single Market" is common and recognisable. This page being the primary topic doesn't make "Internal market" the ideal title. Rob984 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support – More WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. And "Internal market" could arguably be redirected to "Single market" as a descriptive term. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternate support – I would also support the alternate names "European internal market" or "European Union internal market". (A WP:NCCAPS discussion could be held separately if one of these titles gains consensus.) — JFG ^talk 11:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's not been known as the "Single Market" since before Maastricht. If it must be moved, it should be "European Internal Market" as per the numerous references in the Treaties, e.g. Art. 26 TFEU. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Single Market" certainly is widely used, with "eu single market" returning 345,000 results in a Google search, more than any other phrase referring to the Internal Market. The Single Market Act[1] is an example of "Single Market" being used recently by the EC.

Also, the document you cite was produced in 1957, before the Internal Market was a single market (but instead only a common market). Though you are correct in that it is usually referred to in treaties as the "internal market", as a common noun. However, when the market is being referred to in proper, it is capitalised as "Internal Market". For example, the Internal Market Information System is always capitalised.[2][3] I think "internal market" is just using "internal" as a common noun, ie referring to the market that is internal to the EU

There is also reference "European market". I'm not sure the "EU Internal Market", "EU Single Market" or "European Single Market" is exactly the same thing as the "internal market of the EU" or "European market". The former refers to the harmonised policies under the EEA agreement, whereas, "European market" is maybe more general.

Rob984 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Several issues here. First, the document cited is the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which entered into force in December 2009. Second, I accept that "single market" is used interchangeably with "internal market" by the Commission to cover what is essentially the same thing. However, I would say that IM is the "official" title in the Treaties and incidentally the one used by the majority of the other wiki language versions. Third, no objection to capitalisation. Fourth, there is plenty of garbage out there on google on this subject and for this reason I don't believe that the number of ghits counts for much. IM is a relatively recent designation with references to the SM going back to the 80s if not earlier. It's therefore quite logical that there should be more ghits. Using the (more accurate) Google books search, SM brings up 237,000 results dating in general back to the 1990s, whereas IM shows 334,000 results which are more recent. Lastly, I am not aware of "European market" being a designation for anything in legal terms. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support per usage evidence offered by proposer & supporters to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. SnowFire (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I realise the proposer has discounted Google hits, but I feel we should at least look at the numbers:

internal market	5,060,000
single market	4,390,000
european single market	186,000
european internal market	70,500

Even if the first two can arguably refer to thing than the EU's internal market, how many many of the results can there be that don't refer to the one in Europe? A search for the only actual as opposed to dictionary definition theory is the one in the NHS, yet a search for {"internal market" NHS} yields only 224,000 results.

Just because two words placed together might be a generic term, does not make it so. Just because the literal meaning of Netflix and chill is relaxing while watching Netflix, doesn't make it so. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because this is the primary topic, doesn't mean it is the most recognisable and precise title. See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The other titles are more recognisable and precise, and not at all ambiguous; despite being less common. The most common title is generally preferred, but we should still consider the naming criteria. Rob984 (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support, but it is not a proper name. Move to European single market. I live in an English speaking country of the EU (for the time being, at least!) and I can honestly say I've never heard of the term "internal market"; this is always called the "single market", even if that is not the WP:OFFICIALNAME. I don't think it should be capitalised though; sources don't seem to generaly.[4][5][6][7] Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be capitalised as either "internal market" or "single market" can atleast be used in the sense of a common noun, ie "the single market of the EU". This is the title of an article on the topic, so the proper noun form should be used "European Single Market". This is used just as much from what I can tell, for example, by the EC here. Rob984 (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS we only treat it as a proper name if sources "consistently" do so. And from my links above, it is clear that they do not.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a proper name. Even if you take it decapitalised, it is proper, as it only refers to one thing. So per policy, it should be capitalised unless convention is for it not to be. Rob984 (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The common noun form can be used to describe the European Single Market, but this is the title of the article on the topic, so it must be a proper name. Only if convention was not to capitalise the proper name form, would that be correct. But it would still be a proper name either way. Rob984 (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

From MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. In other words, your opinion on whether it is proper or not, and whether it refers to one thing or a general concept, is not relevant, it's reliable sources that count. We capitalise the term if and only if reliable sources also consistently capitalise it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The policy does not imply that proper names must be consistently capitalized. And they certainly aren't always. For example "summer". Why do you think that only if reliable sources consistently capitalise it? This is not implied by the policy. It simply states that proper names which are consistently capitalized in sources should be capitalised, not that only these proper nouns should be capitalised. Rob984 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Also we should take into account the EC's consistent use of the capitalised proper name form when titling relevant acts/documents such as the Single Market Act and Single Market Strategy.[8][9] An unquestionably common noun form would be "there is a European single market", as this is referring to a single market, of which there is many. So non-capitalised forms are not clear evidence that the proper name form is not capitalised. There may be some cases, but plain use of "European single market" is not indicative. Rob984 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support, under the precondition that both "internal market" and "single market" will include links, as they seem to be used quite a lot. I would also prefer the non-capitalised version.Gormfull (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Jenks24: notified me that I omitted the second part of the move (Internal market (disambiguation) to Internal market) from the close. It was an oversight indeed, but on re-reading the debate I don't see a 100% clear answer. First, after I edited the templates I missed after the close, Special:Whatlinkshere/Internal market reveals 84 incoming links that would be broken by this move. Second, even if there was a consensus that this is not the primary topic for "internal market", it is pretty much offset by the fact that Internal market (disambiguation) is basically a two-item dab that could be better solved by hatnotes. I'm inclined to leave it as it is now. No such user (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European Single Market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621000000/http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_18_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_18_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201114647/http://www.euro.gov.uk/crossborder.asp to http://www.euro.gov.uk/crossborder.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613000000/http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_15_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_15_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Crown dependencies and overseas territories within continental Europe

Hi there,

Due to Brexit and the UK now having entered into a transition arrangement whereby the UK has left the European Union but still maintains temporary access to the European Union Customs Union and the European Single Market, the legend on the map is correctly coloured light blue to reflect this new status

However, the Withdrawal Agreement mentions the UK as a party, comprising the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, Gibraltar and the British Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Although the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is now coloured light blue, why aren’t the other parts of the UK pursuant to the Withdrawal Agreement also coloured the same, using the spots as the one which highlights Liechtenstein for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:41D:7144:7152:B8E7:73D8:1E80 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

When the UK was a member of the EU, not all EU laws applied to all territories. The UK was in the single market and customs union, Gibraltar was only in the single market, and the Crown dependencies and Akrotiri and Dhekelia were only in the customs union. According to the withdrawal agreement, during the transition period EU laws continue to apply to each territory as they did before, so only the UK and Gibraltar remain in the single market. On the map, Gibraltar is marked in light blue with a very small circle. Perhaps it could be a little bigger but it shouldn't be as big as Liechtenstein to show that it's not an independent country. Heitordp (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Definition

We might clarify that internal market is the official name, by treaty, while European Single Market or Single Market is the popular name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.102 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

New article of interest to editors watching this page

Freedom of Establishment and Freedom to Provide Services in the European Union has recently been created and overlaps somewhat in scope with this page. While I think that there's enough there for a standalone page, both articles could likely be improved by reorganizing information to minimize redundancy. I would encourage anyone watching this page to go take a look at the other article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mobility package for road transport

Nothing here.Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Map update re: UK

EU, UK and neighboring countries

The Brexit deal was announced a couple of days ago. Great Britain will no longer be apart of the custom's union while Northern Ireland will remain in it. I think perhaps the map should be updated to reflect this. BBX118 13:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Another five days to go. (and btw, the 'deal' is unratified. IF the the European Council approves (which can't be assumed, Hungary or Poland could get awkward again), it will be applied provisionally wef 1 January pending parliamentary approval (which again can't be assumed). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

But you have identified an important issue: the map (right) being used in Brexity articles in general won't work for this article because of the special status of Northern Ireland. Does anyone know how to escalate this? To the bright spark who thought that orange and green were good colours to use: you need to read a bit about the History of Northern Ireland. I don't know much about it either but even I know that these are the Unionist and Nationalist colours.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The deal is done and in effect. Northern Ireland is not within the European customs union: the Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement states that it is within the United Kingdom customs area, but makes special provision to allow Ulster's businesses to 'play both sides', so there is no restriction on the border. Goods crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are not subject to customs checks, unless they are 'at risk of' passing into the European Union. That sort of subtlety is no easily mappable! I have done a red and blue map in case anyone is worried about the standard green and orange. Hogweard (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned Ulster business. As far as I am aware this has no bearing on businesses in Cavan, Donegal or Monaghan? Unless you know otherwise of course. If so, please enlighten us.2A02:C7F:8618:7000:B5CC:20D6:18F8:D999 (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. It is far too small for the diagonal stripe technique. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

The article currently claims that Northern Ireland forms part of the Internal Market. Is this really true? As far as I've understood, special rules allow the free movement of (most) goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but what about all the other parts of the Internal Market? Services? Capital? People? Are EU laws concerning these issues really applicable in Northern Ireland? I doubt so. --Glentamara (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is definitely not in the single Market.

The article is misleading in the suggestion that Northern Ireland is part of the Single Market.

Northern Ireland has not signed a bilateral agreement with the European Union, the UK Government did so through its negotiations as part of the Withdrawal Agreement and the agreed Irish Protocol. The current wording portrays that Northern Ireland has a bilateral agreement with the EU and is in the single market, this is completely false and a misinterpretation of the true reality.

Northern Ireland is simply aligned to elements of the European Single Market, when it comes to a limited set of rules relating to the European Single Market. This agreement is not between Northern Ireland and the European Union. It is a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and European Union, so that part of the UK’s territory can remain aligned to the Single Market in a very limited way to accommodate the circumstances around the Irish border.

Therefore, It is inaccurate to portray Northern Ireland on a map alongside the EEA and Switzerland. All of those are individual sovereign states, which have signed bilateral agreements in some form as sovereign independent states with the EU. Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom Internal Market and has not signed a bilateral agreement with the European Union. Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, which is aligned with a limited set of rules by complying with the Irish Protocol made by the UK Government and the European Commission through the Withdrawal Agreement.

If you read this article from the European Commission it states very clearly that Northern Ireland is only aligned to some rules of the European Single Market and is not part of it:

“Does this mean that Northern Ireland will remain in the EU's Single Market for goods?

Northern Ireland will remain aligned to a limited set of rules related to the EU's Single Market in order to avoid a hard border: legislation on goods, sanitary rules for veterinary controls (“SPS rules”), rules on agricultural production/marketing, VAT and excise in respect of goods, and state aid rules.”

And

“Northern Ireland will remain aligned to a limited set of Single Market rules to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. Today's Protocol will also avoid any customs border on the island of Ireland, while ensuring that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK's customs territory. The Northern Ireland Assembly will have a decisive voice on the long-term application of relevant EU law in Northern Ireland.”

It’s disingenuous to state that Northern Ireland is part of the European Single Market or that it has a bilateral agreement with the European Union. The only bilateral agreement is through the agreement signed between the UK and EU on the Irish protocol that makes provisions for Northern Ireland to remain aligned to the European Single Market in a limited way. Northern Ireland is not part of the European Single Market and it has no bilateral agreement with the European Union.DrJosephCowan (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks! --Glentamara (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

New proposal:

Remove Northern Ireland from the map, as this implies Northern Ireland is part of the Single Market on the same position as EEA countries, which it is not. It also gives the impression that Northern Ireland has a bilateral agreement with the European Union on access to the single market, which it does not.

The UK and European Commission have agreed a set of alignments for Northern Ireland on goods through the Irish Protocol to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland. The wording of the article suggests Northern Ireland is fully part of the European Single Market and on its own accord along with sovereign countries and is completely inaccurate.

Therefore, remove Northern Ireland from the map and simply just add a short paragraph in the introduction which states the UK has left the European Single Market and there is an agreement between the European Commission and UK which maintains an open Irish border through Northern Ireland following a limited amount of rules on goods.

Possible wording: “The United Kingdom left the European Single Market in December 2020. An agreement was reached between the UK and European Commission to align Northern Ireland in a limited way on rules over goods with the Single Market to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland.”DrJosephCowan (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I already removed Northern Ireland from the map. --Glentamara (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added in additional content under third paragraph: “The United Kingdom left the European Single Market in December 2020. An agreement was reached between the UK Government and European Commission to align Northern Ireland in a limited way on rules over goods with the European Single Market to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland.”DrJosephCowan (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But we have to reflect it somehow

Main article: Brexit and the Irish border § Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol

I have no idea how to reflect this correctly but somehow we need to record that Northern Ireland has a semi-detached relationship with the SM and EUCU, in some respects, whilst equally indeed or even more so remaining part of the UK customs territory. Now you see it, now you don't.

This is an initial list based only on half-digested recollections of reading the news [GB sources] so I can't vouch for its accuracy or completeness. Amendments and additions welcome.

• Goods from NI can be traded freely across all of the SM, not just the RoI
  • The production of any goods intended (or likely) to be exported to the SM must meet the same standards as anywhere else in the SM, including state aid constraints).
  • Does anybody know the status of services? Recognition of qualifications? etc? (I don't).
• Goods from GB entering NI that "might reasonably be considered at risk of leaving the UKCU" are subject to inspection on entry to NI.
• Agricultural products entering NI from GB are subject to more extensive SPS checks (but that is not new: I understand (?) that NI and RoI have operated a joint SPS regime for the island for many years).
• Citizens of NI who choose to assert their Irish citizenship have the right of free movement to anywhere in the EU but the converse is only true for citizens of the RoI.
• Citizens of NI may participate in the Erasmus programme, due to a unilateral decision of the Irish government to fund it. So this is a privilege, not a right.

(Per discussion above, I can't see any reasonable way to show this on the infobox map so I suggest we just rule that out straight away otherwise it becomes an obstacle to resolving anything.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a lot of the information that relates to the arrangements between the European Single Market and Northern Ireland can be found on the page specifically related to the Irish Protocol. This is why I have added in the additional paragraph and linked it to the Irish Protocol page, as it is there for those who would like more information on the details of the Agreement made between the EU Commission and UK Government on the NI/Single Market relationship. There is also a “Brexit” section on the European Single Market page, which could be expanded on with some of the details you have cited. The European Single Market itself has not changed though, there has been no new accession into the single market. It is simply the case that the European Commission and UK Government have agreed a protocol where a part of the UK follows some limited rules so that an open border can exist on the island of Ireland.DrJosephCowan (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. We have to be quite strict on this. You're not part of the Single Market or the Customs Union just because you have aligned some rules with the EU legislation. If that were the case, many more countries with various trade and partnership agreements would also have to be included. The case of NI is entirely different from the situation of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, who actually implement almost all EU legislation on the internal market, including rules related to the four freedoms and competition law. --Glentamara (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is rather more complicated than that. All goods entering NI from GB are subject to EU customs checks, because they are entering the single market and/or the EUCU. In the case of "trusted traders" (like the big supermarkets), the EU has agreed to an exemption. Once on the island of Ireland, these goods can go anywhere in the EUCU. The same applies to goods produced in NI: they are Single Market goods as far as the EU is concerned. So NI has a far more EU privileges status than Turkey or Ukraine, which are shown explicitly on the map. In the other direction, goods going from NI to GB require paperwork that is not required between EN/CY/SC. I recognise that it is v difficult to show this on a map but it is wrong to pretend that the status of NI wrt to the EUCU and SM is the same as that of GB because it is not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the main map should follow current precedence and be reserved to sovereign states with direct agreements with the European Union on full accession to the Single Market, which meet the four freedoms: free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Northern Ireland does not meet this criteria, therefore, it should not have a prominent place on the main map of the European Single Market.

The way to recognise the relationship that Northern Ireland has with the Single Market is by representing NI on the “Integration of non-EU states”. There could then be an additional bit of information within this section that discusses the relationship between the Withdrawal Agreement and what the Protocol means in practice.

User: Bbx118 updated the main map with Northern Ireland and added additional content within the main introduction, which took up more than half on the introductory paragraph. The Northern Ireland alignment with the Single Market, in regards to a limited amount of rules on goods does not merit such prominence. As the Single Market isn’t just about the relationship it now has with one part of a former state. This is why the current minor paragraph within the introduction is sufficient, as well as a more detailed explainer within two sections of the article: “ Integration of non-EU states” and “Further Developments” section.-DrJosephCowan (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@JohnMaynardFriedman, I have noticed that the map on the section “Integration of non-EU states” has been updated to reflect Northern Ireland, which works well. I think it would be beneficial to add additional information that you highlight within this section. As this would follow similar relationships with other states that aren’t subscribed to the “four freedoms” but have a relationship with the Single Market.-DrJosephCowan (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had a discussion on Commons with the map author, which led to that result. I've also moved the material in this article to the correct section, see edit note. It may be that, since Northern Ireland is not a state, the subsection heading is arguable but wp:think of the reader.

Even if I had the background information and citations (which I don't), I don't really think that this is the place for it. L.tak proposes to create a new article on the Protocol, pulling together the bits that are currently in the B&tIB and WA articles (and maybe the Irish Backstop) but we really need to see first what precisely Gove and Šefčovič agreed on 8 December, because the press-release is a bit coy. The details were to emerge before the end of 2020 but has anyone seen them? The BBC reported on 17 December that (I think!) the agreement has been confirmed but where is it? Maybe when the fog of war lifts a bit? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Without reading the comments, and just answering John's comment: the decisions I think you are referring to are available in the EU's official Journal... L.tak (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@L.tak: Thank you. I don't understand why such info is so hard to find in GB but maybe the Irish and Northern Irish media have referenced it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi John Maynard Friedman, I can't find the consensus here you'd mentioned in your revert. Both British and European sources cite Northern Ireland are remaining "apart" of the Single Market for goods and certain other areas (livestock, vegetation etc.), like the other non-EU member states/areas. My map reflected N.I.'s individual status. Could you provide some info to the contrary here? I'll give it a few days to see what information comes here before editing the main article.

Thanks,

BBX118 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

BBX, I think you will find that it was DrJosephCowan who reverted your edit. But I agree with him that the consensus is clear. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there is consensus here that NI is not part of the Internal Market. Just because they have aligned some laws to EU laws related to the free movement of goods does not make them members of the Internal Market. The Internal Market encompasses much more; free movement of people, services, capital, competition law etc. If we include all countries that have aligned some of their laws with EU laws on the Internal Market, the list would be very long. --Glentamara (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Glentamara. The internal market is about the 4 freedoms, and this is about goods. I must say however that the integration with the internal market regarding goods is "all but in name" in the internal market. The fact that they have a dynamic acquis to be followed (if the legislation changes, they have to be changed), subject the same repercussions for non implementation, makes them go much, much further than any other country that aligns with the EU/EEA/CH. But, as I started, that's 'just' about goods. It may be useful to add N.Ireland in some way thus to European Union Customs Union... L.tak (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

However Northern Ireland is specifically stated in the Protocol not to be a part of the EU customs area or market. It is stated that "Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom." Later too we see "Having regard to Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom’s internal market". The Province is in a unique position, akin to a local privilege, in that its businesses are able to supply goods without hindrance into the Single Market without being part of it. That's it really. Even the apparent 'border in the Irish Sea' is just to regulate goods passing from Great Britain to the Republic of Ireland, or at risk of being so - there is no hindrance of goods passing to Northern Ireland that are not heading through and out the other side. Hogweard (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A user has changed the main map on the page again. The consensus on here is clear that the main map should be reserved for sovereign states and those states that meet the four freedoms. Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state and it does not meet the four freedoms, therefore, it should not have a prominent position on the main map. Northern Ireland is fully represented on the section of integration of non-eu states, which shows NI within the map there and a full explainer.DrJosephCowan (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Eh.. I think you are mixing up things. I changed the map to svg format on 11 January 2021. At that time the map was identical with the current one. However, some other user changed the map on Wikimedia Commons the other day (30 January 2021), that's why NI suddenly appeared in a different color. Just to clarify things. I think it is the edit of the svg map that should be reverted. svg is preferable to png. --Glentamara (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I made a mistake; it was in reference to another user.DrJosephCowan (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You could always use File:Single Market (EU).svg instead. Hogweard (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes to the image File:EU Single Market.svg, and restored the svg map. Agreed we should keep the svg map, so if changes are required let's update there. TDL (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Withdrawal Agreement

(Northern Ireland Protocol)

Article 3 - Common Travel Area

Maintains the CTA between the UK (inc Northern Ireland) and it’s other members.

Article 4 - UK Customs Territory
Confirms that N.Ireland is part of the UK customs territory.

Article 5 - Customs Duties
Maintains that no customs duties shall be paid on goods entering Northern Ireland from the RUK.

Article 6 - U.K. Internal Market
Maintains that nothing in the agreement shall prevent unfettered access for good travelling from N.Ireland

[UK - EU Withdrawal Agreement]

ChefBear01 (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

What about Akrotiri and Dhekelia? Have they retained their status after Brexit?--Artemis Dread (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

More or less, yes. There is a special protocol attached to the withdrawal agreement about the status of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. They were never part of the EU, even when the UK was, but they have an open border to the Republic of Cyprus and for that reason some special rules on the customs union etc. apply to them. --Glentamara (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Red Links

There are three red links within the references so I want to inquire are these pages being created?, if not they may need to be redirected or removed. WP:REDLINK. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on article map

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brexit § Single market/customs union maps. Jr8825 • Talk 16:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Capitalization across sources found to be not consistent enough to capitalize each word in this term. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

---

European Single Market → European single market – No consistent capitalization in RS, see NGRAMS or Google Scholar results. (t · c) buidhe 03:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support The OPs evidence strongly indicates that the title does not meet the threshold for capitalisation per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per strong evidence of mixed case in sources, in light of P&G cited by Cinderella above. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: while it appears the EU/EC doesn't even capitalize, they don't seem to have a consistent style manual for that entire page (particularly egregious is the "European standards" menu). Academic journals (or articles – not sure if journals enforce a standard on this) seem to go either way as Buidhe pointed out. (Book excerpts as well). WP's own article on SEM's origin isn't even consistent. (The text of the act itself is ref 4 in the article and never says "single market" as a phrase, so that doesn't help.) There's also the term "ESM" that I occasionally hear, I think perhaps from The Economist podcast? WP:MOS:CAPS wants a substantial majority of RS for caps, and that burden doesn't appear to be getting met, but to analyze thoroughly one should check whether the RS are significantly biased by subject (newsmedia, academia, or gov/ngo, say), recency, and region. But it's late for me. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  "whether the RS are significantly biased by subject" is not very relevant if they're clearly mixed and inconsistent. WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS say we use lowercase when sources are inconsistent. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Internal market" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Internal market has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 13 § Internal market until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Internal market (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)