![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 24 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from European Single Market to European single market. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
"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)
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 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
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)
I thought some countries like the UK had quotas on immigration? -- Beland ( talk) 08:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
what about:
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].
This area was brought to the fore in in 2009, by issues in the UK.
Service providers from other states brought with them their own workers, arguably at the expense of potential employment opportunities for UK workers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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" 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)
internal market | 5,060,000 |
single market | 4,390,000 |
european single market | 186,000 |
european internal market | 70,500 |
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)
@ 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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Nothing here. Xx236 ( talk) 14:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
(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'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)
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)
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)
What about Akrotiri and Dhekelia? Have they retained their status after Brexit?-- Artemis Dread ( talk) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Brexit § Single market/customs union maps.
Jr8825 •
Talk
16:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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, mello hi! ( 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 24 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from European Single Market to European single market. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
"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)
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 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
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)
I thought some countries like the UK had quotas on immigration? -- Beland ( talk) 08:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
what about:
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].
This area was brought to the fore in in 2009, by issues in the UK.
Service providers from other states brought with them their own workers, arguably at the expense of potential employment opportunities for UK workers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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" 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)
internal market | 5,060,000 |
single market | 4,390,000 |
european single market | 186,000 |
european internal market | 70,500 |
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)
@ 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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Nothing here. Xx236 ( talk) 14:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
(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'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)
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)
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)
What about Akrotiri and Dhekelia? Have they retained their status after Brexit?-- Artemis Dread ( talk) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Brexit § Single market/customs union maps.
Jr8825 •
Talk
16:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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, mello hi! ( 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)
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)
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)