Talk:Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

More resources

 * Talk:Northern Ireland Protocol – Kaihsu (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see an obvious place for this to go atm but it might be usable later when we get round to "climb down off high horse" time: The European Union is prepared to cut checks and controls "to the absolute bare minimum" if British Prime Minister Boris Johnson agrees to engage with it on the Northern Ireland Protocol, its chief Brexit negotiator has said. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Protection Requested
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase 2601:8A:C180:70:58FF:D843:8989:98CB (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Such a request would have to include evidence of frequent disruptive editing which, so far at least, doesn't exist. If that changes then the request will be made.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Purpose and provisions
If anybody has time, this section really needs rather more detail on what the proposed Act would do. Such as removing jurisdiction of the ECJ over the clauses that concern EU law, food safety standards, etc etc. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems a great source for a relatively independent and neutral breakdown of the various effects of the bill https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/northern-ireland-protocol-bill JeffUK (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Reactions: US Administration
As The Guardian's source is unattributed, I considered but rejected adding something supported by Brexit: unilateral action on NI protocol ‘not conducive’ to trade deal, warns US. Am I being too picky? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Scottish Government reaction
https://www.gov.scot/publications/ministerial-statement-northern-ireland-protocol-bill/ Kaihsu (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is what we want for the article https://www.gov.scot/publications/northern-ireland-protocol-letter-to-uk-government/ It just needs a nice précis to introduce it. Volunteers? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * we could just quote this The motion rejected the UK Government’s current course of action as being unacceptable, highlighting the risks of sparking a disastrous trade dispute and breaking international law.. Is there anything more to be said? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added a first cut. Improvements welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Welsh Government reaction
https://gov.wales/written-statement-northern-ireland-protocol-bill-nip-bill Kaihsu (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Lords second reading
Scheduled Tuesday 11 October. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3182/stages/16925 – Kaihsu (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Committee stage from 25 October: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3182/stages Kaihsu (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Also Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is having Commons 2nd reading today. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3340/stages Kaihsu (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Committee stage should finish today: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3182/stages/16958 – Kaihsu (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Further Commission reaction
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/eu-imposes-meeting-ban-on-uk-officials/

– The communique also refers to the government bill currently making its way through the UK parliament, which would give ministers the power to override the Northern Ireland protocol, If adopted, the bill would represent “a clear violation of the Withdrawal Agreement” and “constitute an unprecedented breach of international obligations and trust,” Juhansone stated. Kaihsu (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
Why was this article moved to change its name? Bills don't have dates like Acts do. Parliament calls it the "Northern Ireland Protocol Bill". The WP:Common name in all media outlets is the "Northern Ireland Protocol Bill". There is no other "Northern Ireland Protocol Bill" that could be confused with it. So why?

Is there any reason not to revert? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: (well, not so) speedy moved to Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as a revert of a contested move. No such user (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022–23 → Northern Ireland Protocol Bill – To revert a contested move. moved the article without prior discussion. Anything to do with Brexit or Northern Ireland but especially both is intrinsically controversial and, whatever the merits or otherwise (see above), consensus for the move should have been sought beforehand. WP:STATUSQUO. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Per WP:CRITERIA: A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics: The prosecution rests. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Recognizability (The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.) The name used by all media sources and by Parliament itself is "Northern Ireland Protocol", without further qualification. Appending a qualification is contrary to the WP:Principle of least surprise
 * Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. Same argument as just given for recognisability.
 * Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. The title "Northern Ireland Protocol Bill" is complete and unambiguous. There has never been another NIPB, nor is there likely to be.
 * Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. This is true of the original (and now the proposed) title of the article. It is not true of the changed title.
 * Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Bills are not generally dated, as Acts are. The exception to the rule arises when the same name has been used more than once, such as for Private Member's Bills. Dating is only ever used where ambiguity might arise. It does not do so in this case.


 * May we assume that, since has not responded or indeed given any defence or justification for having unilaterally moved the article,  there is no objection to reverting the move? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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