Talk:European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is completely misconceived. No such Bill has yet been published. All that has been published is the Government's statement of intention to bring forward a Bill on these lines - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-bill-to-implement-withdrawal-agreement It only takes a second to check at https://services.parliament.uk/bills/ to see that there is no such Bill yet before Parliament. There is a European Union (Withdrawal) Bill - https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawal.html. But the whole point is that these will be 2 separate Bills. The Brexit legislation is extremely important and very controversial - the existence of this page is a serious blow to confidence in Wikipedia's reliability. The page should be deleted, or completely overhauled if it is to be kept as a place-holder for an as yet unpublished Bill. I am afraid I do not know the Wikipedia etiquette for suggesting a deletion, but I thought I should point this out as soon as I saw it. 212.9.21.10 (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE The bill has been published, and linked in article. Qexigator (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal Agreement

What about the Withdrawal Agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most significant statute

I think the paragraph starting "This Act is the most significant statute...", which I cannot find supported by the main article text, needs a reliable source. And I don't just mean that someone else has said it. I don't doubt the significance of this statute, but:

"most significant" is a very strong statement
"most significant" is also a very weak statement, if no other significant statutes have been passed
any statement about its significance seems to be predicting the future
the words "the Johnson government of 2019-24" seem very odd in 2020 - why not use the page title

All in all, this seems to be editorialising. I think an article describing an act of parliament would be by better, at least until some more historical perspective can be gained, without this, unless it can really be provided with reliable sources. --PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great claims need great evidence. Unless there are multiple very reliable sources saying that it is the most, then we don't say so either. At best, it is "one of the more significant" and even that arguably needs a citation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that written? I don't see it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The words were removed.[1] Qexigator (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]