Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

Protection level too high

Surely semi-protection would be adequate. Going straight to full protection seems like overkill. Nurg (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

semi-protection done by admin. Nurg (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Article is no longer accurate

This article's factual accuracy is compromised due to out-of-date information. It became an Act 3 weeks ago but significant parts of the article still refer to it as a bill. Nurg (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed now. Nurg (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Article in written in the future tense, however the letter referred to in the article was sent on 19 October 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.178 (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

'surrender bill' more common

Mr Johnson used the more contemptuous term 'surrender bill' both in parliament and while giving statements to media. 'Surrender act' might have been said on rare occasions, too. However that 'act' phrase seems derivative from what he originally said.2A01:C23:9038:800:382E:2516:8843:9D61 (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No mention of name given to act by PM of Surrender Act

May be contencious but it is know as that now by large numbers of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.81.111 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The section heading is untrue. Look at the 3rd paragraph of the version as at 08:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC). Nurg (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Suscpicious bias?

her predecessor, Jo Cox, was murdered in June 2016, while campaigning to remain in the EU, by a neo-Nazi who called her a "collaborator" and "traitor".[50]

No she wasn't campaigning, she was hosting constituency meetings. Also "who called her a "collaborator" and "traitor"." What is the evidence for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.177.1 (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. "Collaborator" and (race) "traitor" seem to be views attributed to the attacker by media, which he appears to have held but which he did not address to her. I've made those changes. Errantius (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Overlaps

As of 22 October 2019, there are overlaps between "Court cases" and "Outcome". As the editor responsible for this, I think that in the present fluid situation overlap is safer than potential contradiction or omission. Everything will become clear soon - won't it? Errantius (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2019

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: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

---

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 → Benn Act – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Both media outlets and academics [1][2] use this as their main title, noting that it is not its official name. Using the official short name is just confusing for our readers. We should not confuse our readers. Note that WP:NCGAL says Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources. before saying that short titles are preferred over long titles. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: the official title is descriptive and the better way to enable readers to follow the complex narrative across Wikipedia articles and in the sequence of time. The redirect suffices for anyone who happens to use the informal use of a sponsor's name, which, unlike USA, is not usual in reference to UK acts. Not sure how "common" is "common" in this connection. The Act has been overtaken by later events, but the informative value of such articles outlasts the short period of political controversy associated with a sponsor's name. Qexigator (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. A quick and dirty web search for both terms, excluding Wikipedia, gives a ratio of about 40:1 in favour of the proposed name. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:SLANG. The official title follows the precedence that we use for modern Acts of Parliament, I don't see a reason to slang it up with this one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:CONSISTENCY; I can't think of any other piece of British legislation – even the Great Reform Act – that isn't at the Short Title + Year construction. Sceptre (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That articles have the title "Reform Act 1832", but isn't the official short title "Representation of the People Act"? It seems that this is actually a counterexample. Also the consistency criteria is only one of five. "Benn Act" wins on recognizability, naturalness and conciseness, while they are even on precision. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see Benn act as slang at all, as it's very far from the examples given in that guideline and as most respectable newspapers use it as well. To me the 40:1 ratio is such a big one that it overrides the consistency goal, but I do concur that this is a valid argument against change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is a hole in the article

The Background section ends with Johnsons request to prorogue parliament. The next section starts with the bill being introduced. Going from memory a lot of things happened in the middle. I came here to refresh my memory on those events and found nothing!

Here is what my memory, maybe mistakenly, tells me:

1) A proposal was made to Johnson (from Cummings?) that he could exploit the reopening of parliament along with the normal closure for the conference season as a means to keep parliament closed right up to the Brexit deadline and hence avoid parliamentary debate.

2) Johnson refused the proposal, although he accepted the idea of extending the closure, he said that there would be the conventional two week session between the summer recess and the conference season.

3) The opposers of Brexit (cross party) discussed the most effective means by which they could avert Brexit in that 2 week window. There was time for any bill, but only one major one, so they had to decide exactly what they would propose when parliament opened.

4) A proposal to vote out Johnson's government and put in a caretaker government that would delay Brexit fell through because there was no consensus on who would lead it, or what it would do after delaying the deadline.

5) Proposals to delay the Brexit proceedings or make an explicit Bill that would not allow Brexit until parliament had accepted a deal with the EU also failed. This was because many MP's who were against Brexit represented constituencies who had voted in favour of Brexit and they did not want to be seen to be explicitly stopping the procedure.

6) Pro remain MPs eventually settled on the idea of a bill that would force Johnson to request the delay rather than than force the delay themselves. In this way they could achieve their objectives but avoid taking direct responsibility.

This background was fundamental in the creation of what was essentially an unusual bill that led to it's eventual bizarre manifestation with the dual letters being sent to the EU.

I think the article would be greatly improved if this Background were expanded; it is fundamental to the way the bill was implemented.

You may be right, but reliable sources are another matter. If you can find them, go for it. Please sign your posts. 14:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Errantius (talk)