Talk:European single market

message: 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)
replies: text: If this still bothers you years alter, find reliable sources and add it yourself. Cortador (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margaret Thatcher Contribution 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Massive simplification 

message: 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)
replies: text: I read through it, and it does appear to be quite compact and specific on small issues. I'm not versed in EU politics. For those of us who live outside the EU, the section provides no context, explanation or proper introduction. I'm going to slap a different tag on it, if you don't mind. It still needs improvement. Joffeloff 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. About the free movement of persons being a negative right, I am not sure that is the case though for the EU. This is one of those fundamental issues that needs to be talked about in the article. Intangible 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most libertarians agree that closed borders are coercion, and that free movement over borders is a negative right. The way I interpreted this, the 'free movement' in the EU guarantees the right to be able to work in other EU countries, as long as you have got work there - I'd consider that a negative right. Of course, if it's anything like FDR's 'freedom from want', it's definitely a positive right. This is part of what I mean, I don't get this stuff since I don't discuss it daily like you (perhaps) do. :) Joffeloff 05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: 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
:Well done. ---J.S (t|c) 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new version 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks like Start class to me, but I agree that more information on the other freedoms is needed.--Boson (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the goods part should be transferred to its own article and a summary placed in this one. ElectricLemon (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Two Fundamental Freedoms?

message: I thought some countries like the UK had quotas on immigration? -- Beland (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't apply to EU citizens (or others who can take advantage of EU free movement rights, such as posted workers). ElectricLemon (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom of personal movement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The other countries 

message: what about:
* right for establishment - NGO, political party, religious organization
* the free movement - volunteers, paid workers of NGOs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.46.95 (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGOs & volunteers 

message: 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:
:"The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties." (Article 26(2) TFEU).
— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621000000/http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_18_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_18_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201114647/http://www.euro.gov.uk/crossborder.asp to http://www.euro.gov.uk/crossborder.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613000000/http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_15_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_15_en.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: When the UK was a member of the EU, not all EU laws applied to all territories. The UK was in the single market and customs union, Gibraltar was only in the single market, and the Crown dependencies and Akrotiri and Dhekelia were only in the customs union. According to the withdrawal agreement, during the transition period EU laws continue to apply to each territory as they did before, so only the UK and Gibraltar remain in the single market. On the map, Gibraltar is marked in light blue with a very small circle. Perhaps it could be a little bigger but it shouldn't be as big as Liechtenstein to show that it's not an independent country. Heitordp (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crown dependencies and overseas territories within continental Europe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article of interest to editors watching this page 

message: Nothing here.Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobility package for road transport 

message: 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)
replies: text: Another five days to go. (and btw, the 'deal' is unratified. IF the the European Council approves (which can't be assumed, Hungary or Poland could get awkward again), it will be applied provisionally wef 1 January pending parliamentary approval (which again can't be assumed). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

text: But you have identified an important issue: the map (right) being used in Brexity articles in general won't work for this article because of the special status of Northern Ireland. Does anyone know how to escalate this? To the bright spark who thought that orange and green were good colours to use: you need to read a bit about the History of Northern Ireland. I don't know much about it either but even I know that these are the Unionist and Nationalist colours.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The deal is done and in effect. Northern Ireland is not within the European customs union: the Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement states that it is within the United Kingdom customs area, but makes special provision to allow Ulster's businesses to 'play both sides', so there is no restriction on the border. Goods crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are not subject to customs checks, unless they are 'at risk of' passing into the European Union. That sort of subtlety is no easily mappable! I have done a red and blue map in case anyone is worried about the standard green and orange. Hogweard (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You mentioned Ulster business. As far as I am aware this has no bearing on businesses in Cavan, Donegal or Monaghan? Unless you know otherwise of course. If so, please enlighten us.2A02:C7F:8618:7000:B5CC:20D6:18F8:D999 (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I agree. It is far too small for the diagonal stripe technique. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map update re: UK 

message: What about Akrotiri and Dhekelia? Have they retained their status after Brexit?--Artemis Dread (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less, yes. There is a special protocol attached to the withdrawal agreement about the status of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. They were never part of the EU, even when the UK was, but they have an open border to the Republic of Cyprus and for that reason some special rules on the customs union etc. apply to them. --Glentamara (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akrotiri and Dhekelia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Red Links 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brexit § Single market/customs union maps.  Jr8825 • Talk 16:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on [[:Talk:Brexit#Single market/customs union maps|article map]]

message: :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: 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, mellohi! (投稿) 04:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: European Single Market →  – No consistent capitalization in RS, see NGRAMS or Google Scholar results. (t · c) buidhe 03:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 June 2022 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  fgnievinski (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Internal market]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress