Talk:Single European Act

Untitled
European Single Market should not redirect here.


 * I agree and was about to post the same thing. The Single Market should have its own page, it is not reducible to the SEA in any way. Blankfrackis (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was it signed in two places, ie. in Luxembourg and, almost two weeks later, in The Hague? And why in The Hague, if Luxembourg held then the European Presidency??? --217.150.108.58 10:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Common Market or Single Market?
The text says that the object of the Act was to create a Common Market. Is this true? Why not a Single Market? --Red King (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As the body of the article says "Single Market", I assume that "Common Market" was vandalism and so I have changed it. --Red King (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

UK interpretation and UK withdrawal
Does this section really add anything to this article ? In particular, the four lines about "Vote Leave" seem quite out of place.

Noliscient (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand: why for a treaty signed by 12, and now binding 27, give such consideration to the "interpretation" of a now former member, the UK? But on the other hand, UK (and Lord Cockfield) did play a leading role and drafting the treaty, and in discussing what (at least after central European accessions) is the the most dramatic thing that has happened to the Single Market since inception, UK withdrawal, the section does throw further light on the original conception and nature of the SEA. But maybe the section can be reformed/re-edited, or in any case balanced out by the discussion of other developments.ManfredHugh (talk)