Talk:European single market
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.
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.
I also agree that we need a detailed discussion of the tests in all the cases.As286 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] The criticism section is too polar, as if there is only a (political) debate between 'neoliberals' and 'left-wing criticasters'.
Intangible 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] I have substantially rewritten the article, explaining the basics in simpler terms, and covering in a little more detail two of the four freedoms.
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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.103.212 (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I thought some countries like the UK had quotas on immigration?
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)[reply] what about: Added a brief section on Freedom of Service Provision and the recent debate in the UK.
If I have a chance I'll expand it, if anyone would like to correct or improve please feel free - however random deletion such as that which occurred subsequent to my work will not be appreciated!
Prime Minister Gordon Brown made this observation when warning against protectionism[9] during the debate surrounding the issue.
If you know all the above and have the time to write them here, why not make a useful contribution to the page?Stuartwilks (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Please remember to sign with the four tilds your comments.
Arguments raised by Amakuru and Rob984 both have merits (it is unclear when the expression is used just a descriptive phrase, when a proper name, and when as a term of art), but I think it is fairer to go with the original proposal, without prejudice to a subsequent RM to decide on casing.
The sheer number of Google hits is therefore not sufficient to determine the suitability as a Wikipedia article's title, unless the respective contexts of these Google hits are evaluated.The proposed, unambiguous term "European Single Market", on the other hand, is widely established as the name of this particular single market, both inside and outside the EU.
First, after I edited the templates I missed after the close, Special:Whatlinkshere/Internal market reveals 84 incoming links that would be broken by this move.
No such user (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on European Single Market.
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot.
No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply] 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.
I have no idea how to reflect this correctly but somehow we need to record that Northern Ireland has a semi-detached relationship with the SM and EUCU, in some respects, whilst equally indeed or even more so remaining part of the UK customs territory.
(Per discussion above, I can't see any reasonable way to show this on the infobox map so I suggest we just rule that out straight away otherwise it becomes an obstacle to resolving anything.)
I recognise that it is v difficult to show this on a map but it is wrong to pretend that the status of NI wrt to the EUCU and SM is the same as that of GB because it is not.
Both British and European sources cite Northern Ireland are remaining "apart" of the Single Market for goods and certain other areas (livestock, vegetation etc.
Have they retained their status after Brexit?--Artemis Dread (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 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.
