Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Please can we set up a article for the Nuclear Safegards Act 2018 which is also Brexit related legislation which also received Royal Assent today. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:E893:C008:A4B8:3210 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC))Reply

Now that the bill has been enacted, the article needs some restructuring, by rearranging the sections with the content of the Act first, followed by the bill's progress through Parliament, similar to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 article.

As a first step, this could be done by moving section 2 'Legislative history' down below the sections describing the Act's content, currently sections 3-9. Then as a further step, name the first section "The Act", and have in it current 'Objectives' and current 3-9. Qexigator (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree at the moment thers far more information about its passage though Parliament rather than about the Act itself. This needs to be corrected. (151.228.41.13 (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC))Reply

+Now done.[1] Some consquential tweaking and trimming may further improve the article, but, in view of the contentious nature of brexit and this legislation, the legislative history will be of lasting interest for future reference. Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do we need to do any tweaking of the European Communities Act 1972 as the Act is currently listed as amended, I know there isn’t a red icon saying “To be repealed” but could one be made up. Also can the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 also be modified? (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:F9B8:A52F:1F44:DD5D (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC))Reply

+ Some of the references in 'The Act' section are obsolete, deriving from the text of the earlier "bill" version, and are better removed. It will remain open to add non-polemical criticism of the Act, based on npov RS, such as respected commentators on constitutional matters, if that emerges. Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC) 14:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The provisions of the Act about "commencement" are complex and OR would be unreliable. The online Explanatory Notes "prepared by the Department for Exiting the European Union" headed "EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL) ACT 2018" [2] state on p.47 that "Subsection (1) sets out the provisions of the Act that will commence on Royal Assent. Subsections (2) and (3) set out the provisions of the Act that will, for certain purposes, commence on Royal Assent. Subsection (4) sets out that the remaining provisions will come into force on the day or days appointed by regulations, and different days may be appointed for different purposes."

By looking at the Act it can be seen that section 25 provides that the parts of the act specified in section 25 (1), including that subsection, "come into force on the day on which this Act is passed", that is on 26 June 2018 (roysl assent). The sections listed in s. 25 (1) include:

• 8 Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal
• 9 Implementing the withdrawal agreement
• 10 Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
• 11 Powers involving devolved authorities corresponding to sections 8 and 9
• 16 Maintenance of environmental principles etc
• 17 Family unity for those seeking asylum or other protection in Europe
• 18 Customs arrangement as part of the framework for the future relationship
• 20 Interpretation
• 21 Index of defined expressions
• 22 Regulations
• 23 Consequential and transitional provision, except subsection (5)
• 24 Extent.

Section 25 (2) relates to section 12 Retaining EU restrictions in devolution legislation etc.

Section 25 (3) relates to Schedule 3 Further amendments of devolution legislation and reporting requirement.

Section 25 (4) states "The provisions of this Act, so far as they are not brought into force by subsections (1) to (3), come into force on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint". The inference is that this applies to sections not in s. 25 (1) and (2):

• 13 Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
• 14 Financial provision
• 15 Publication and rules of evidence
• 19 Future interaction with the law and agencies of the EU.

and

Repeal of the ECA

• 1 Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972

Retention of existing EU law

• 2 Saving for EU-derived domestic legislation
• 3 Incorporation of direct EU legislation
• 4 Saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA
• 5 Exceptions to savings and incorporation
• 6 Interpretation of retained EU law
• 7 Status of retained EU law.

Qexigator (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC) added 08:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have transposed the above lists into the article,in a way that expects updating when outstanding provisions are brought into force by commencement orders, sooner, later, sometime or may be never. Qexigator (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article's second side panel, headed "Part of a series of articles on the United Kingdom in the European Union", ends with lists for Accession, Membership, Withdrawal, and Calls for second vote. The last of these seems to be promoting a politically one-sided POV by listing only "Organisations campaigning for a second vote". That looks out of order, as if Wikipedia is open to being used for covert political campaigning. It should be removed. Qexigator (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Qexigator: this has been discussed but (along with other things) not resolved at Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union. You're welcome to join the discussion there. EddieHugh (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The current version of the article's opening sentence (and previous versions back to the time of the bill) is awkwardly constructed. Successive versions have tried to pack too many bits of information into one sentence, The Act's long title.describes it concisely but comprehensively as 'An Act to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and make other provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.'The 'other provsion' includes procedures for Parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement now being negotiated between the government and the EU, within the two year period that was triggered by the notice of withdrawal under Article 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union dated 29th March 2017. The withdrawal notice was a consequence of the referendum, and the negotiatiions for the Withdrawal Agreement are a consequence of the notice..

Would it be acceptable to recast the first sentence by adapting the long title thus:

"The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c.16) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that provides for repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and for Parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement being negotiated between the government and the EU."

The other bits of information can be left out or reworded and included in the lead, or in the article's main body. Qexigator (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done and expanded in main body[3]. Qexigator (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (the Cyprus British SBAs) are not a member (in its own right) of or otherwise (by virtue either of the United Kingdom or of Cyprus) part of the European Union (EU) and thus also of the European Economic Area (EEA), backed up by multiple sources [4][5][6][7]. Any attempt to restore the name of the place in relation to Brexit is just simply time-wasting trolling. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Section 1 [8] and at least more than half of the rest [9] of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 [10] are 'Prospective', i.e. 'Dormant', i.e. not 'Live' [11], therefore as things currently stand the ECA 1972 will NOT be automatically repealed on Exit Day or the so-called Brexit Day UNLESS AND UNTIL it is 'activated' by being brought into [legal] force by Regulation or [Commencement] Order. Some proper time-wasting trolling here I see! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

87.102.116.36's anonymous revision as of 17:11, 14 July 2018[12] is inelegant and unnecessary, and could be considered as tending to trolling. The Act legislates for... but the text clearly states that part only is in force, and identifies section by section parts which depend upon commencement orders before they come into force, if ever: i.e, the act legislates for all those provisions by enabling commencement orders to be made and bring them into force. Qexigator (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why is this now a sub-heading? Why isn't the paragraph - Government and other amendments to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill were debated in the House of Commons at report stage held on 16 July.^[1] Amendments to the Trade Bill were made in the House of Commons at report stage held on 17 July.^[1] Both bills as amended completed third reading and were passed from the House of Commons to the House of Lords. - considered enough of an explanation? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why not cool off, TVF, pause awhile, reflect, and avoid intervening disruptively as if there is a problem, where there is none. In the now current version,[13] (with sourced lead sentence added: btw not undue) the section heading and text under it improve the article. What part of this had you not understood? Given that the government's withdrawal bill/act is the principal piece of an interdependent set, the edsum explains sufficiently what will be self-evident to a visiting reader concerned with this topic: "gives the inquring visitor to the article a clearer context for understanding the purport of the legislation in connection with the withdrawal act", unlike TVF's incomplete and unhelpfullly repeated:

"Post-act events... ---comment, that the UK would probably not get a trade deal with the US if the prime miinister's plan went ahead, was widely published in the media.

Government and other amendments to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill were debated in the House of Commons at report stage held on 16 July. Amendments to the Trade Bill were made in the House of Commons at report stage held on 17 July. Both bills as amended completed third reading and were passed from the House of Commons to the House of Lords."

When that version first appeared[14] it was a reasonably good improvement, but the now current version is a further improvement. It would be well to desist missiing the point of this revision, consider the sections and article content as a whole, and refrain from further pointless edit warring. There is no good reason to impede the further improvements. Thanks all the same for giving the matter your attention. Cheeers!Qexigator (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above comment misses the point, as anyone can see who considers the matter with npov. In the now current version,[15] (with sourced lead sentence added: btw not undue) the section heading and text under it improve the article. What part of this had the above commenter not understood? Given that the government's withdrawal bill/act is the principal piece of an interdependent set, the edsum explains sufficiently what will be self-evident to a visiting reader concerned with this topic: "gives the inquring visitor to the article a clearer context for understanding the purport of the legislation in connection with the withdrawal act", unlike TVF's incomplete and unhelpfullly repeated:

"Post-act events... ---comment, that the UK would probably not get a trade deal with the US if the prime miinister's plan went ahead, was widely published in the media.

Government and other amendments to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill were debated in the House of Commons at report stage held on 16 July. Amendments to the Trade Bill were made in the House of Commons at report stage held on 17 July. Both bills as amended completed third reading and were passed from the House of Commons to the House of Lords."

When that version first appeared[16] it was a reasonably good improvement, but the now current version is a further improvement. It would be well to desist missiing the point of this revision, consider the sections and article content as a whole, and avoid the risk of pointless edit warring. There is no good reason to impede the further improvements. Qexigator (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Copy of Dispute Resolution Noticeboard closure statement The dispute has only two posts from each opposing editor. No extensive discussion. I would leave it at that but it is also the opinion of the volunteer that both editor's conduct on the talk page is less than perfect. Qexigator's uncivil remarks in a passive aggressive manner discuss the contributor and not the contribution and amount to little more than saying the other editor is being disruptive however, there is no evidence of disruption. @The Vintage Feminist, please return the comments of the other editor as it was not justified under WP:RPA since this was not a blatant personal attack but an uncivil accusation of disruption. While the evidence does not support disruption, evidence was offered in the form of a diff and some explanation was made in good faith. Again, it's an uncivil and passive aggressive tactic to use your own words against you in this particular manner and is deflecting away from the actual argument...that it's undue weight to section of this small amount of almost unrelated content. Unless the other editor has misquoted you, our posts are released under a creative commons license. I suggest everyone have a nice cup of tea.-Mark Miller (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Qexigator Please answer the questions in the opening post of this thread. In your answer please confine yourself to discussing the contribuion and not myself, as per the DRN ruling. Pinging JASpencer, Ânes-pur-sàng, Kaihsu, MOTORAL1987, 87.102.116.36, Mmitchell10 and Wire723 as major contributors to the article to assess how the article looks now. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given AGF, I am unable to see what is TVF's problem here. Contributors pinged by TVF, and others interested in npov editing of the content and arrangement of the article for the better information of its visitors, are invited to note reply above (in versions before and after TVF's invocation of "dispute" resolution) as sufficient for the purposes of improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it can; but then I haven't studied the Act, or even read it all. As far as I can see, if the Act allows the date of exit to be changed by ministerial stroke-of-the-pen, then the Act has to make that provision in its text. The Act famously incorporates sweeping powers (the 'Henry VIII' powers) for ministers to change not just the EU Withdrawal Act, but also other Acts. But I can't see that this allows ministers to change the date of exit. Am I right? Is there anyone here who knows? MrDemeanour (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

See footnote 5 of the article's current version. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, once again, I opted not to read the entire Act! Thanks for your reply, Qexigator.

Subsections (2) to (5) apparently say that a minister can change the withdrawal date, if the date of exit given in the Article 50 letter is different from the exit day in subsection (1) (i.e. the 29th March). As far as I can see, that doesn't apply; the exit date in the letter _is_ 29th March, same as in subsection (1).

The second paragraph in that refnote says that the EU27 can extend the withdrawal date. But I'm not asking about EU law; I'm asking about UK law, and the way I see it, UK law does not allow the withdrawal date to be changed by ministerial fiat, except if the date in the Act differs from the date in the letter. So the UK government could ask the EU to change the withdrawal date; and the EU27 might agree; but under UK law, we would still have to leave on the 29th. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This page is not a discussion or inquiry blog. Have you a proposal to improve the article? There is enough information about the current debate in this and other Brexit articles, as well as other online sources. Qexigator (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The second half of this previously read:

"and fixes 21 January 2019, at the latest, when the government must decide on how to proceed if the negotiations have not reached agreement in principle on both the withdrawal arrangements and the framework for the future relationship between the UK and EU, for Parliamentary debate."

I have altered the tense of this, because the original text assumes 21 January to lie in the future. However, the meaning of the clause as a whole was somewhat obscure to me, largely owing to the final three words; I have attempted to clarify it. Please feel free to re-write it to improve it. Harfarhs (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was needed. I've chewed it up a bit more. Same remark applies. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The section on Exit Day is a complete mess. Following an edit by MexFin, the actual exit day is (now) correct but this editor did not replace the supporting citation. I would have reverted their edit for that reason, except that the citation that should have been replaced was itself inappropriate. That one claimed to be a citation for the Act but does not do so, it actually cited a subsequent revising SI [SI No. 859, below] – and that SI merely updated the preceding SI [718, below]. I started to correct it but I really don't care enough to spend the time on a major cleanup.

Here are some relevant SIs I found:

(a) references to before, after or on exit day are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 22 May 2019 or (as the case may be) 12 April 2019,^[1]

followed by

2.—(1) Section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of “exit day”, for the words from “means—” to “(and”, substitute “means 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (and”.

(3) In subsection (2), for the words from “Act—” to the end of the subsection, substitute “Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 31 October 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.”.^[2]

The article should cite the original Act as enacted and quote what it said. The subsequent amending SIs need their own text and citations, as does the actual exit day. NB that 718 may not be the first SI that revised the date of Exit Day. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Repeal Bill plan was the white paper leading to this Act. Kaihsu (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Strong support for merge. The topic has no meaningful status as a standalone article, it only has any notability as part of the background to the act. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:BOLD – Kaihsu (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done, it has had long enough for dissenting comment. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Due to the EU (reform and repeal) Act the term retained EU law and other references will be repealed at the sunset date and replaced with the term “assimilated law”.ChefBear01 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply