Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [1] 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: [2]

"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 [etc]" 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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, [3], 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 [I'm sure there is a less wiki-loaded word I should have used], 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 [3] is given for the clause regarding "functioning of the UK internal market". The four citations under [8] 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