Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Name
The name will need to be changed when the actual name comes out. I was going to ask for it to be changed to Great Repeal Bill 2017 (I can't move it) but I'm going to hold fire. JASpencer (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ...when the actual name comes out.: Yes. As (npov) an aside, when Davis made his statement in the Commons yesterday John Redwood said it should be called the Great Continuity Bill - and see his blog today. Qexigator (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

moved the article to "Repeal Bill 2017" with edit summary "as in Queen’s Speech". What the Queen's Speech said was:
 * A bill will be introduced to repeal the European Communities Act and provide certainty for individuals and businesses

This does not support the move. Additionally, the text of the article still has "Great Repeal Bill", as does the white paper which is the main source. I think it's best not to use the date, as that gives a misleading impression of being the official title of the bill as introduced to Parliament (which it hasn't yet been). So I have used "Brexit" as a disambiguator. Of course it's still all only temporary until the bill is in fact introduced. jnestorius(talk) 12:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/queens-speech-2017-background-briefing-notes Kaihsu (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ref added. jnestorius(talk) 13:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/12/labour-tories-great-repeal-bill-brexit-eu

‘The so-called “great repeal bill”, which will revoke the European Communities Act of 1972 and transpose EU law into UK law, will be published on Thursday as the European Union (withdrawal) bill, but MPs will not get the chance to vote on it until it receives its second reading in the autumn.’ Kaihsu (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"2017-19"?
Referencing Parliamentary Material: "Bills" suggests the prescribed reference would be the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill [HC], Bill 5, 2017-19 or similar. I guess the bill's name is not the same as the reference but rather just the italicised portion (European Union (Withdrawal) Bill). Can anyone confirm or refute this? jnestorius(talk) 17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That reads to me like the recommended reference, rather than what we should consider the title of the bill, and so the title of the article here. 2017–19 isn't used here, where the page is titled European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (HC Bill 5) or here: , where it is says that it is formally known as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I would propose the latter as the article name here. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I have changed "Bill 6" to "Bill 5" in my previous comment. I agree about the shorter name, unless someone has firm evidence to the contrary. jnestorius(talk) 15:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'd also add that in the published version of the Bill itself, it's clearly titled simply as European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. As there's nothing to disambiguate it from, there's no reason to opt for a more cumbersome title. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article title should be "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill", since the article is not about a particular version of the bill. When referencing the bill, of course, the citation should distinguish between different versions (just as the edition and date are given for books). As the source cited above (Referencing Parliamentary Material) states, when referring to (i.e. citing) a specific version of the bill, the bill number must also be given. --Boson (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Added for clarification: From one of the replies, I realize that – trying to be too concise – I expressed myself misleadingly, so I should clarify that here. I realize that "2017–19" refers to the Parliamentary session (and may fulfil a similar purpose to the year for acts of Parliament – when there is potential ambiguity). My intended point was that for referencing purposes the exact document or version must be identified precisely, and this is done by specifying (inter alia) the house, the session and the bill number. This is used for citations and is used internally for the passage of the bill through Parliament (where the session identifier may be part of a heading or appended to the name of the bill, as appropriate) When talking of the bill in general terms (as in the media), only the title of the bill is used. --Boson (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree the article title should be "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill". Qexigator (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The 2017-19 bit merely refers to the current 2-YEAR Parliamentary session (https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19.html), as detailed in the Queen's Speech. There is nothing particularly controversial about this. Is this just a bizarre way of trolling in the Summer when the schools, the Colleges and Uni are out, by the Kids these days?! Do something actually useful! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * While I know what the 2017-19 refers to, that doesn't explain why it should be included in the Wikipedia title. Based on WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and that it is titled "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill" on the face of the bill itself, I'd press the case again for that as its title. I'd also note that aside from User:87.102.116.36, there's something of a consensus here. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This might be a minor quibble, except that the format with the session identifier is potentially in conflict with policy, and adopting this format when no disambiguation is required potentially sets a precedent for all UK bills. The name with an added session identifier is not required for consistency with other bills and is not the commonly used name. The cited document does not settle it by any means. It is headed Bills before Parliament 2017-19 and includes one bill listed as "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill". The session is included in the document showing the progress of the bill, but published versions of the bill do not include the session in the title (though versions of the bill have headings like "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (HC Bill 5)". The media, too, do not seem to use the unnecessarily disambiguated title. --Boson (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

In view of the above comments, "2017-19" should be removed from the title. Qexigator (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Polite reminder!
Please remember this article and title can only be changed to a Act of Parliament after it has received Royal Assent and not before. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:911E:41A5:91B0:EAE1 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC))

Please Don't Cover Up The Date of the Royal Assent
It is indeed in the source which I cited, only noted as Tuesday.2601:447:4101:41F9:68C2:5DF8:2163:A302 (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How do we know this, on the Parliament website it’s says Royal Assent is yet to be scheduled! (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:B5A4:84BB:F294:90DD (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
 * It's now an Act as confirmed by the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44615245). I have re-named the article. Computor (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)