Talk:Brexit/Archive 2

I would like to propose a new edit considering the new information that Theresa May will become the new prime minister. Perhaps this would best fit as a new section under the "2016 Referendum" section. Please discuss this and let me know your thoughts.

The following is the proposed new section:

Theresa May will succeed David Cameron as prime minister, after Andrea Leadsom, May’s only rival, dropped out of the race on Monday, July 11, 2016. May will become Britain’s second female prime minister, the first being Margaret Thatcher.^[1]

Cameron reported earlier that he would resign once a new party leader was selected; although, this change of leadership was not expected until as late as September 2016. Cameron stated he will offer his resignation on Wednesday, July 13, 2016. ^[2] Opposition leadership challenged the transfer of leadership to Theresa May, instead raising the possibility of a general election.

Theresa May, who campaigned to remain in the E.U., has assured the public that there will be no second referendum and that she will fully pursue the best deal for the U.K. through the E.U. exit.^[3]

• Thanks for the suggested contribution! Some general & specific tips, as you're new: it's over-detailed (days can be cut, as can repeated years, as can people dropping out); think about relevance (the article is United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union, so her being the second female PM is not relevant, nor is the "Opposition leadership challenged" sentence; and think about future redundancy, as, on Wed, the "Cameron stated" sentence will be obsolete. I hope that's of use. Add it and see what response there is! (And remember to sign your talk page comments using ~~~~) EddieHugh (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• We also have another article - Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 - which may be a better place for material like this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The diagram of the political system is very neat. However, it contains a number of anomalies.

1. The Lozenge in the centre is by convention used to define an exit point - a decision point - on a chart of this type. 2. Here a Lozenge is used to identify that Legislation is the featured output from this process. 3. The links from the Coucil of Ministers, and from the European Parliament are described as "elects / appoints / decides on" links - in this case, I would assume that the only logical meaning of this link is that these parties can "decide on" the Legislation. This implies that legislation can come from two different areas of the elected bureaucracy of the EU? If this is the case, what is the need for two different decision points? 4. The European Commission is linked to Legislation by means of a link which means that it "proposes" legislation. If this is all that the European Commission does in the context of this diagram, then the link from the European Commission should be to one (or both) of the bodies that can actually "decide on" legislation for the European Union.

I understand that this is a "helicopter view" of the process, but in its current state, it isn't just a helicopter view, it is misleading and confusing in the use of the termibnology included.

I recommend that someone who is familiar with the use of this type of diagram should be sought to clean up this mess, as quickly as possible.

Note: probably the EASIEST way to do that wold be to remove "Legislation" completely, as it appears to run counter to all of the other uses of this diagram. I am quite certain that "Legislation" isn't the only output from this organisation, and as such, it should either be removed, or the scope of the diagram changed to include all major outputs from the "Political System"

Thank you124.170.36.185 (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if there is any relationship between this Political system of the European Union schema and any United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union? Or can this schema been removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The title of this article suggest United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union!

Or according to some news, some European parts asked the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union by article 50, but the government from England and Wales did not show any serious intention to engage in the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union by article 50. Else, article 50 would have been used yet.

Here, we do not know if such United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union is possible. The prime minister herself has no interest or no capacity to engage in article 50, that is United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union. Else, article 50 would have been used yet. Anyway, we do not only know if she has any clear goal...

All that is only speculation.

As so, can such a title for an improbable or impossible future event be used in Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The article starts getting a bit disorgnized and a sprawl.

This is natural and fast moving events etc. were added.

I feel some ordering and maybe trimming is needed. Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dear editor,

I would like to suggest adding a footnote at the end of the 2nd para. of the following Chapter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#.22Article_50.22_and_the_procedure_for_leaving_the_EU , with the following content: "For a visualization of the mechanics of Art. 50 TEU see http://www.eur-charts.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02-Development_Additional-Charts-on-Exit_www-eurcharts-eu.pdf"

The visualization has been developed under the supervision of Prof. Christa Tobler, University of Leiden, (https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/christa-tobler) and may also be accessed via http://www.eur-charts.eu/downloads

46.14.161.225 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

About 80% of the way through, in the section headed "Political effects" Correct capitalisation from "Theresa may" to "Theresa May". 87.114.45.163 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, along with other tweaks to the text Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In section Delaying tactics to obtain concessions from Brussels it is stated "That is provoking alarm in many European capitals," This is not true, not neutral and only based on one newspaper source. The section Long-term economic prospects is pure speculation of the future, only based on one source in a magazine and it is contradicted by several articles in other magazies. Yger (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Now done.Yger (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The WHOLE article suffers from POV issues. Some edits seem to have quite an agenda. I would have edited stuff. But would need serious research. and it is just too hard to neutralize the whole article. seriously Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to edit the article yourself, you need to give more specific guidance to other editors regarding the changes you would like to have made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a systematic problem with the article since the referendum result. The serious news, on this very big subject, has slowed markedly as various political and economic processes take place, mostly behind closed doors. That leaves the field open to be filled by trivia (Somebody has crowd-funded £x000 to bring a legal case; somebody has called a rally, and called it off; somebody in a bank said something; the Mayor of N'importe_ou said something.....). In particular, the Independent seems to want to continue to refight the Project Doom scenario. I suggest that we try to avoid the trivia, and bit by bit delete most of the 'somebody predicts....' elements as we slowly get hard news. Or maybe we should set up a separate article called 'Accuracy of predictions made around Brexit'

Gravuritas (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a disagreement over the wording of the opening paragraphs.
EddieHugh suggests:

Brexit^{[note 1]} refers to the United Kingdom's (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU). It is a political goal that has been pursued by various individuals, advocacy groups, and political parties since the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC), the predecessor of the EU, in 1973. The process of withdrawal is being implemented following a national referendum on continuing EU membership held on 23 June 2016.

In 1975, a referendum was held on the country's continued membership of the EEC, which was approved by 67.2% of voters on a turnout of 64.6%. In the 2016 referendum, the result was 51.9% in favour of leaving and 48.1% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72.2%. Following the referendum, political changes have occurred in the UK.

I suggest:

British withdrawal from the European Union, commonly known as Brexit,^{[note 2]} has been a political goal that has been pursued by various individuals, advocacy groups, and political parties from across the political spectrum since the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. The process of withdrawal from its successor, the European Union (EU), is currently being implemented following a national referendum held on 23 June 2016.

In 1975, a referendum was held on the country's continued membership of the EEC, which was approved by 67.2% of voters on a turnout of 64.6%. The EEC later transformed into the EU. In 2016, a referendum arranged by the UK Parliament was held on the country's membership of the EU. The result was 51.9% in favour of leaving and 48.1% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72.2%. Following the referendum, significant political and economic changes have occurred in the UK.

Firstly, I believe it is important to give equal weight to common alternatives to the term "Brexit", and "British withdrawal from the European Union" is the most common of those. (There is a case for Exiting the European Union, as used by the Government, but it cannot be prefixed by the word "British".). The idea that the word "British" does not refer to the UK as a whole is false - it is indeed the adjective used officially and internationally for the UK as a whole. Opening sentences saying "X refers to something" are deprecated on WP - regular editors, I'm sure, can put their fingers on the guidance. The opening sentence should say what the subject of the article is, not what it "refers to". The issue of "Brexit" not being a term used in the 1970s can be seen as a minor but inconsequential flaw in both wordings, not only mine. Finally, some significant economic changes (notably decline in the value of the pound) have already occurred since the referendum, and it is false to suggest that they have not. Comments from other editors on the alternative wordings, and others, are obviously welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither of these is very good, but the first is better as a starting point. The article's title has just been changed, so there's no need to put a particular wording of an alternative in bold (I see no evidence for "British withdrawal from the European Union" being as common as "Brexit"; regardless, it would require an article). The second version introduces the 2016 referendum twice and is a mess structurally. Cutting "significant" and "economic" was a change to a very recent edit. It could be in a separate place later in the lead. ...Having got this far in commenting, I'm going to try again at a proper re-write. EddieHugh (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The bolding of alternative titles in the opening sentence is absolutely normal and is covered at MOS:BOLDSYN. Clearly, although "Brexit" may now be the most common term in the media, it has no official status and as an encyclopedia we should give at least equal weight in the opening paragraph of the article to alternative names (WP:OTHERNAMES and MOS:LEADALT). The alternative title is, as normal, a redirect to this article; obviously, it does not require a different article. Both wordings contain two references to the 2016 referendum; a reference certainly needs to be made to it in the opening paragraph, which should "define or identify the topic" - MOS:BEGIN - as the referendum was the necessary start point of Brexit. I would personally favour removing any reference to the 1975 referendum from the opening paragraphs here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: This new wording is an improvement. However, in my view there is still a need to add usual alternative titles in bold, especially in this case where the term "Brexit" is clearly a neologism (some would say slang), and alternative names are widely used. I remain unconvinced of the need to mention the 1975 referendum in the opening paragraphs - it is background, not part of Brexit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Which alternative to include? There's no need if the opening sentence is "Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU)." That's as clear as it's going to be and encompasses any alternative title. The 1975 bit is an interesting point: is Brexit just the leaving, or the goal, or the political movement, or the topic of the 2016 referendum...? I think the history has to be included, as the 2016 referendum didn't appear out of nowhere. I'm not going to do battle with what looks like an IP editor, but I hope that someone restores my latest version or something superior to it (not something like the current attempt).

there is no such thing as brithdrawal. the title is brexit because of "british exit", so use "british exit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.134.79 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't help: it's just saying the same thing twice. EddieHugh (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the first sentence of the existing alternative, it states what it is all about. I would then prefer to continue directly with the third sentence existing in both alternatives. And tranfer the second sentence to the following section. in front of the result.Yger (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone (Eddie Hugh) deleted that content ... So I reverted it.

I was the one who had added the paragraph in June about Cameron failing to use the emergency brake that the Guardian claimed he had available from the EU. But new articles - including a quote from Merkel - indicate that he had sought such relief but had not obtained it before the referendum. So it is not fair to claim that he failed to use it. He did not have it to use.

However, Cameron claimed "he could have avoided Brexit had European leaders let him control migration", according to the Financial Times. Parker, George. "Cameron pins Brexit on EU failure to grant UK brake on migration". The Financial Times. London, UK. Retrieved 24 July 2016. That is credible, considering a statement made by Angela Merkel to the German Parliament: “If you wish to have free access to the single market then you have to accept the fundamental European rights as well as obligations that come from it. This is as true for Great Britain as for anybody else.” Woodcock, Andrew (28 June 2016). "Cameron warns EU immigration rules could threaten UK trade deal". The Independent. London, UK. Retrieved 24 July 2016. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This was the reply by Eddie Hugh to my reverting: (I have; they refer to what DC did not get. He did get an "emergency brake" offer. See https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-emergency-brake/ Discuss on talk page first if you (still) disagree) Peter K Burian (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I may be wrong. How soon could the emergency brake be triggered? The proposed mechanism requires EU law to be altered. That’s not something the EU leaders can manage on their own. First of all, the deal will not kick in until after the UK has voted on the forthcoming referendum on EU membership. And, of course, it assumes that the UK votes to remain in. OK, this does shed a new light on the issue. Cameron did not get a full blown carte blanche on restricting immigration but he did have the offer of the emergency brake which he really did not use effectively to try to sway the vote to the Remain side. Eddie reverted me. OK. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There was an official renegotiation of some aspects of the UK's relationship with the EU prior to the referendum. One of the outcomes of that renegotiation was that the UK was officially offered what was called an emergency brake on immigration if it stayed in the EU. See independent analysis and the official EU documents (especially pages 23 and 34). Cameron's comments soon after the referendum were about his failure to get a better deal in those renegotiations. Merkel's post-referendum comments were in relation to the UK leaving the EU (stressing, in effect, that the renegotiation offer, which has now been withdrawn, was the best that the UK could hope for). The update you posted from The Observer was about new discussions, occurring now (i.e. after the referendum). The point of The Daily Telegraph article was that some MPs think that this new (post-referedum) proposal is very similar to the old (pre-referendum) one. EddieHugh (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, you are right. I was wrong. I apologize for reverting your edit. The link you sent me to the Full Fact article was particularly useful.

AND I seem to recall reading articles that criticized Cameron for not doing more to publicize the emergency brake offer he had received. I don't recall if the articles in the citation discuss that. If not, we should find one that does.

Here is the edit I did on the David Cameron article a few minutes ago, using the Full Fact article as one of the citations.

According to reliable sources,^[1][2] the EU had offered David Cameron a so-called "emergency brake" which would have allowed the UK to withhold social benefits to new immigrants for the first four years after they arrived; this brake could have been applied for a period of seven years. This plan would have been triggered only in the event of a vote in favour of remaining in the EU.^[3] It expired when the vote determined that the UK would leave the EU.^[4] However, after the referendum, Cameron claimed "he could have avoided Brexit had European leaders let him "control migration" without referring to the emergency brake offer.^[5] Peter K Burian (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Using the term Brexit without quotation marks seems a bit odd to me - is it official enough to warrant usage implying it is the actual name of this process, rather than referring to it as "Brexit" and naming the article as such?

See also the way the subsection down the page is named '"Article 50" and the procedure for leaving the EU' - despite Article 50 being a real part of the Lisbon Treaty. Having the term Article 50 enclosed in quotation marks seems to suggest it is merely a moniker, which it arguably has now become, but that does not erase the fact that Article 50 does exist. 147.147.164.32 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If it's "official" enough to be the WP:COMMONNAME, referred to in sources without quotes, then it should not be quoted here; doing so would just make the article look messy anyway. "Article 50" may not have reached that state, but may later, depending on use in the sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe recently published Europe after Brexit by Pat Cox in its "Debates and Documents Collection". That might be an interesting resource for this article.
Briony Compleag (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

In fact, the case of a referendum having a huge long term effect with a narrow majority has raised discussions in many places.

Of course, this is hardly a fluke decision, as the parliament called the referendum. But it can safely be said that had the parliament majority deemed "no" a probable answer, no referendum would have been called.

Here is the section that was (justly) removed from the text"

<quote>According to the political scientist, Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou, Brexit constitutes as an example of the tyranny of the majority. A situation in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged minority through the democratic process. Pashakhanlou argues that this is what numerous minority groups in the UK are experiencing after Leave won the referendum. Ironically, Pashakhanlou maintains that Brexit has not only harmed the interests of the minority, but also the majority that supported Brexit.<quote>

However, many others have started discussing the merits of referendums and its meaning vs. representative democracy, being a yes/no question, without attention to tradeoffs.

as one said, "you can at any time get a majority for: tax reduction, increased spending, and deficit elimination" which is naturally absurd"

This subject merits a section. I will find the links later.

Jazi Zilber (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If significant expert discussion is focussing on referendums in general and just uses the Brexit as latest case study, it might be better to add such content in Referendums#Criticism. But of course the best handling depends on the sources and their coverage of this aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with GermanJoe. The Brexit article is about the UK leaving the EU. The referendum is something leading to that, but is not the focus of this article. EddieHugh (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

alright. But a single line mention seems apt. How about?

"The Brexit referendum have renewed the discussions and critiques of referendum (link to criticism section there) in general. For example.... just links to a few of Brexit related higher intellectual arguments. Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

3 links I hastily saw now. There are endless more. So this subject merits a reference

It is commonly assumed that Cameron expected to need coalition partners after the election, and he planned to let them block any referendum.

I have read this claim in multiple sources. It is actually implied in the text of the article here (saying "after Tories won unexpectedly a majority" or so). but could not find a reference now.....

Note, for clarification only, the above appears to have been written by User:YechezkelZilber JRPG (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Uhm ..Cameron didn't expect to win the election at all so he didn't expect to have to implement the promise. A crucial point in winning the election was the raising of the spectre of the SNP blackmailing a Labour government. Another point was the emphasis on reducing the deficit -something the Conservatives claimed but didn't achieve even before Brexit.

The Independent has a view on Cameron which I believe historians will share. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you stick to the facts about what Cameron or anybody else did or did not do. Speculations about Cameron's speculations about what was then the future are unlikely to have sufficient authority to be worth putting in an article. 'Commonly assumed'? 'Implied in the text'? Come off it.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. hard to establish this logic.

I brought it up because this line of reasoning recurred so many places, that I felt it to be accepted as standard view by many. But anyway, hard to put such stuff here.... Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If a wp:reliable source says that is what happened, we can report that they have said it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If a WP:RS says they know what Cameron was thinking, then they just turned into an unreliable source. If the report needs to hedged with 'it is commonly assumed that' or 'sources claim' then it's no better than rumour, and has no place in WP.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting to see this article actually got moved to "Brexit". I thought it would stay put at the original title when the first RM was closed.

As recently as this week, mainstream media are still using the phrase "since Brexit" to mean, effectively, "since 23 June 2016". That would suggest that "Brexit" is ambiguously both the referendum earlier this year and the ongoing act of the UK trying to quit the EU. Since this article is clearly stating it's deferring coverage of the referendum to a separate article, I'm surprised it got moved to this all-encompassing title. Deryck C. 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This all encompassing,inaccurate and unnecessarily tabloid title, in my view. Britmax (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The link goes to search results which are generally either of the form "...since Brexit vote..." or are American. Mainstream informed media are not using "since Brexit" in the style Deryck suggests.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

American = uninformed? Well, maybe so, but they are still used as sources. I think there is some ambiguity in use. I don't think that justifies renaming the article, though. Maybe we just clarify the use in this article in the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have heard it is the other way around by some margin! Does anybody know the actual stats? A quote from a kipper is not all that reliable...137.205.183.31 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And when you've found out the stats, the point with regard to this article is what, exactly?

Gravuritas (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: I appreciate your help in fine-tuning the lead section of our Brexit article. The reason for my latest edit was that I feel there is a void in the sentence with the wording "52% voted to leave", which may throw the reader's mind off-balance; we need to specify 52% of whom. Granted, you had valid objections to saying "52% of voters chose to leave" or "52% of participating citizens voted to leave". Can we work to find another wording here? Perhaps "52% of voters opted to leave" or "52% of ballots were cast in favour of leaving"? — JFG ^talk 09:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"52%" is just fine as it is. In any vote, the percentage is stated as a proportion of those voting - that is implicit in the words, and explained in detail in the main text. It will not "throw the reader's mind off-balance". There is no need to go into an unnecessary elaborate and long-winded explanation in the introductory paragraph of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyrtle. "52% voted to leave" is succinct and accurate

Gravuritas (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, must have been just my mind then . Restored the most succinct wording. — JFG ^talk 14:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem I have with "...voted to leave the union" is that in Scotland "the union" is more likely to mean the union with England than the EU. So, it would be best to refer specifically to the EU rather than "the union" - to remove any possibility of misunderstanding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the opening paragraphs, both in this version and in this version, place too little weight on the current process (I know the referendum was non-binding, but it is clearly the intention of the UK government to implement it), and too much weight on the historical aspirations of some groups - so, I have put up an amended and restructured wording. Happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

PS: Further changes have now taken place, including the wording "Brexit is a term used for..." which is directly contrary to policy - WP:ISAWORDFOR. Phrases such as "Brexit is a word for... " should not be used here. The article should start with a definition of what Brexit is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@RGloucester: @DeFacto: - My interpretation of the wording "Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU)" - the current article opening - appears to differ from the interpretation put on those words by their proponents (such as in this edit). To me, the words "Brexit is the withdrawal..." imply to readers that Brexit now exists, without qualification - that withdrawal is now an ongoing process. It is not. Processes have been established that it is intended will eventually lead to Brexit in the future, but Brexit is not something that exists now, to which the present tense applies (except in wordings such as "Brexit means the withdrawal...", which is unacceptable article wording per WP:ISAWORDFOR). Brexit is forthcoming. It is clearly intended as a matter of current government policy. No-one yet knows, precisely, what it means or when it will eventually happen - it is a matter of ongoing political debate. The opening sentence should give some weight to the uncertainty around the word and process, so as not to mislead readers into believing that it is a real thing that is happening now (or has already happened). I'd like editors to discuss the current wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

'Brexit' was coined before the referendum as a word to mean 'the British exit from the EU'. That exit was not necessarily 'forthcoming' then and is still not certain now, so 'forthcoming' is inappropriate. In fact if it does become certain, then 'the forthcoming Brexit" would be the correct grammatical construction. -- de Facto (talk). 08:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

My interpretation is the opposite of yours. By not stating that it is either "forthcoming" or "intended" - or something similar - we are allowing readers to infer that it is now, currently, existing, and certain. The words "..is the withdrawal..." need to be qualified, to improve readers' understanding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How about: "Brexit is the a withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU)"? Then you can vote for Brexit, negotiate Brexit and achieve (or fail to achieve) Brexit. -- de Facto (talk). 09:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Better, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have rectified what I believe was a key omission: we needed to state clearly that exit hasn't actually happened yet. It is obvious to those close the the subject of course but it needs to be said up front for the worldwide audience. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; this is why we had "forthcoming" in the very first sentence until recently, so I have re-instated this for clarity, and shortened your sentence a bit. If/when the Brexit process starts, we can change "forthcoming" to "ongoing". If/when Brexit is cancelled, we can change it to "aborted". Today, the most correct qualifier is "forthcoming". — JFG ^talk 04:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, forthcoming is a bad choice of word. Per merriam Webster forthcoming means "appearing, happening, or arriving soon", which given that we have no idea when (or even absolute certainty if) it will take place is not accurate. What we know now is that it is planned. I'll modify accordingly. TDL (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Forthcoming is indeed the wrong word. May has been given an impossible position and has left these incredibly difficult negotiations to ministers who disagree on every aspect. Nor are there sufficient civil servants with experience to do the job. Nor had Cameron made any plans for what he probably regarded as an unthinkable event. One possibility is that they will run out of time and nothing will happen so May can't be blamed. Hence the best description is 'anticipated' -forthcoming implies certainty. Planned is fine. JRPG (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I still favour "intended withdrawal" - which clearly reflects the position of the government and the majority view of the country. "Planned" implies there has been some conscious and organised forethought and planning - which it has been difficult to identify so far. "Anticipated" may appear to be more positive and welcoming towards the prospect than neutral. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Neither 'intended' or 'planned' (or any other qualifier) is appropriate because the word 'brexit' was coined before the referendum had taken place, therefore before any exit was planned or even apparently likely. It is a shorthand version of "British exit from the EU'. There was a vote as to whether the electorate wanted a brexit, or not. The vote wasn't for whether they wanted an "intended withdrawal", or not. No qualifier is required: in fact any qualifier would be logically wrong, I think. -- de Facto (talk). 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that whether or not it was planned or likely at the time the word was coined matters. The content of the article is about the process that is now being prepared for. It hasn't yet happened (and perhaps may never happen), but it is intended to happen, and we should make that as clear as possible in the opening sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Brexit doesn't mean "intended British exit..." or "planned British exit..." though - "intended Brexit" or "planned Brexit" means those. Brexit just mean "British exit...". Read the rest of the article and you will see the word "Brexit" appears several times - try substituting it with the various suggested meanings and you'll see only one definition really fits all uses - and that is "British exit from teh EU". -- de Facto (talk). 21:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"the intended British exit" actually fits very well into the majority of uses of the term of the page; absurdities with the current text also occur if the term is assumed not to refer to the intention to exit or decision to exit unless specifically qualified as such. More to the point, since this is Wikipedia rather than Wikitionary, the purpose of the opening line is to provide a concise introduction to the subject matter rather than offer a dictionary definition, and the fact that Brexit is an intended outcome of a process rather than a historical event is pretty high on the list of important things to convey. Dtellett (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Dtellett (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So what about the uses that the definition doesn't fit? Is the word incorrectly used in those instances - or is the definition wrong - such as in "...opinion polls a week after the Brexit vote showed..." (we weren't voting for the intended withdrawal)? Surely if the definition doesn't fit all uses then the definition is wrong. And what happens when Brexit moves into the "planned" phase or even the "aborted" phase - do we then have to change the definition and rework the whole article to reflect that?

Look back at the history of this article and you'll see that before it was renamed to "Brexit" it was called "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union" - note it was not called "The intended United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union". -- de Facto (talk). 06:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course we should update the article if and when Brexit moves from being "intended withdrawal" to "the process of withdrawal, which commenced with the invocation of Article 50 on $DATE" and "the exit of Britain from the EU, which occurred on $DATE" . That's how Wikipedia works (As for the history of the page, it started off by introducing the article subject as "a political aim"). You seem to be under the incorrect impression that the first sentence on the page is supposed to be a dictionary definition of the term and should be timeless and immutable. Neither are the case: Wikipedia has quite explicit policies stating that it's concerned with relevant facts rather than linguistic concerns WP:DIC and well established style whereby future events are described as "forthcoming" or "planned" until they happen. I've no idea why you seem to believe that the first sentence should be substitutable into all instances of the word Brexit on the page; I hate to think what would happen if we started applying that principle to pages which open with sentences like "Economics is..." or "Europe is.

And FWIW we were voting to decide the government's intention, not an outcome, unlike the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011, hence why no timetable for Article 50 invocation exists yet and the theoretical possibility it doesn't happen remains. Dtellett (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the first sentence should define the subject of the article (for which the status is key) not the term itself. I've reworded to work around the issue.

As for planned vs intends, I'll again cite merriam-webster which gives a definitional of plan of "Something that a person intends to do" so these are really synonyms. TDL (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works. It clearly separates the state of the exit process from the definition of the word Brexit. -- de Facto (talk). 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dtellett: you are not answering the points I raised, you are answering your misunderstanding of them. Yes, as Brexit progresses the article will change, but he definition of the noun "Brexit" won't change - it means "British exit (from the EU)" - it does not mean the "intended" exit, or anything else. And no, I'm not under the impression that the first sentence needs to be a dictionary definition, I'm actually of the view that the first sentence should be accurate and correct - which I don't think it would be if it included a transient qualifier (such as "intended") in the explanation of what Brexit is. Having explained "Brexit" we can describe "an intended Brexit", "a planned Brexit", "the forthcoming Brexit", "the pre-Brexit state of the British economy", "post-Brexit immigration curbs" or whatever, without having to re-define the term and without having to rework old content to reflect the latest transient definition. -- de Facto (talk). 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the situation appears to have been resolved thanks to the efforts of User:Danlaycock I'm not really sure why you're continuing to dissemble here. If you wish to enforce a rigid and consistent definition of Brexit upon the article (I don't, particularly) I'd suggest you could more productively use your time purging the article of constructions like "one month after Brexit" apparently using other definitions. This would certainly more useful than continuing to insist the earlier version was inaccurate because of your unique interpretation of the first sentence as a noun definition rather than a subject matter contextualization.

Or perhaps you could go to HS2 and tell them the proper noun HS2 refers to a high speed railway, not a planned high speed railway...

Dtellett (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a different issue with the new wording. It links "The separation process is complex, causing political and economic changes for the UK and other countries" to the "Aftermath" article. The Aftermath article, in my view, simply covers the confusion and changes that immediately followed the referendum in June - not the longer-term political and economic changes that will result. So, the link to the Aftermath article should be removed from the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The article does touch on the anticipated longer term political and economic changes to the extent we know them at this stage. Ultimately there should be a new article on planned political changes and anticipated economic outcomes. We could split that out from the existing Aftermath article ("withdrawal negotiations" section, secessionism, long term economic forecasts) if other editors were keen, and add in additional content as and when we start to get a more concrete idea of what the UK is negotiating to keep, but right now the Aftermath article is afaik the best summary we've got Dtellett (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chemical287. I see that you've been changing the percentages in the votes by quoting them more precisely. I think 2dp is at least 1 too many, (and looks silly for the earlier referendum) but I don't feel strongly enough to argue about it. What I do feel is wrong is your addition of the number of votes for one side, which is meaningless. I can't think of any likely question which can be answered by that information alone. However, a very reasonable question in people's minds might be 'what was the voting margin, in numbers of people?' and I think the best way to display that accessibly is to show the numbers of votes for each side. People can then do a comparison in their head. I realise that with the information you are giving you can still get to the minority number by dividing the majority number by the majority percentage, and taking the difference, but I've only had one caffeine shot so far today...... Further I think that for the earlier referendum, the size of the % majority was such that probably the actual numbers become irrelevant. So I would request either that we quote the number of votes for each side, or neither. Gravuritas (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; simplified it already. — JFG ^talk 12:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Theresa May has just announced that her government will trigger Article 50 on the 20th January 2017 during the 2016 Conservative Party Conference, also confirmed by Iain Duncan Smith Twobells (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"By the end of March..." or "...as early as 15 January..." . Where does 20 Jan come from? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Ghmyrtle, Theresa May announced the date a few minutes ago during the 2016 Conservative Party Conference, I expect we'll have a source pretty soon, regards.Twobells (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the BBC don't mention it in their summary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, its scrolling under the live CPC feed but I've changed the subject header to read 'mid Jan 2017' for now. Twobells (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody understand why Ghmyrtle (talk) reverted the intro to a version only mentioning 'notice was not given immediately' (who said it needs to be given immediately?) instead of writing that UK government has announced to trigger exit earliest in 2017?

Does anybody understand why Ghmyrtle (talk) reverted the intro to a version only mentioning 'Unless extensions are agreed to unanimously ...timing for leaving under the article is two years' (who said that both sides want to agree on an extension of the two years?; one could also speculate that the government does a second referendum, or whatever is conceivable.)

Both Ghmyrtle revisions happened 30 September 2016, as of 20:44. But Ghmyrtle wouldn't answer why he just wrote 'no improvement'.

We could write a lot of speculative scenarios in the intro what might happen. But is that needed? --Thereisnofreename (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean this edit? Please read WP:COMPETENCE. Your text said: "The timing for leaving under the article is two years from when the UK gives official notice. As of Sept 2016, this notice was not yet given following the June referendum. The UK government has meanwhile announced to trigger Art. 50 earliest in 2017. The assumption is that during the then following two-year window..." That is not language suitable for an encyclopedia. If you can't write good English, please don't bother trying to edit here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It is always good to have direct contact with competent people. Being competent, why don't you just enlighten us why it is preferable to have speculations in intro section? What is the rule for choosing the right speculations? And what is wrong about mentioning that the UK government has announced to exit (instead of the misleasing statement that there was no immediate exit)?--Thereisnofreename (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. But, when you edit an article, it is your responsibility to make sure that it is written precisely, using good English, and that it is supported by reliable sources. It's not the job of other editors to clean up after you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, no hassle. As you see the other editors somehow understood that your reverted article lead included speculative and misleading sentences, and was not even supported by the cited sources. Job done. (fyi: I paused editing the article because your 'no improvement'-revert isn't exactly what leads to an improved article, or how do you define teamwork? btw: Nobody asked you to 'clean up' with your alleged 'competence', so why do you complain?) --Thereisnofreename (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be you, not me, who has been pursuing this. Was your wording an improvement? No it wasn't - so it was reverted, and someone else came up with a better wording. All part of a normal, routine day's editing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

At the end of the section dealing with the legal challenge, we have this paragraph:

The Lisbon Treaty, including Article 50, was ratified for UK on 16 July 2008,[96] and had come into force on 1 December 2009.[97] The treaty ratification provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 were in force from 11 November 2010.[98] The Explanatory Note published with the Act describes "treaty" as an agreement between states, or between states and international organisations, which is binding under international law, including amendments to a treaty, and states that "ratification" includes acts (such as notification that domestic procedures have been completed) which establish as a matter of international law the United Kingdom's consent to be bound by the treaty; but mentions that compliance with the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 may apply to ratification of an amendment to a European Union treaty.[99] There are further provisions under the European Union Act 2011.

which seems a non sequitur in this context. I wonder if it was previously in another section and has become orphaned? Or has an editor written a legal argument for one side or other to use? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Dan. You reverted my transfers from the Brexit article to the Referendum 2016 article. You claim in your message that I did not justify my edits, but in fact I did, every one of them. Please explain your concern. 86.154.101.92 (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have been too fast there, I reverted back to your latest version. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 86.154.101.92 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Material about the immediate aftermath of the vote - political, economic, etc. - should not be moved into the article on the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 - which is about the referendum itself. If the material needs to be moved anywhere, it should be placed at the separate article on the Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 - so long as it does not duplicate material that is already there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly it is difficult to predict the future, but current indications on both sides of the Channel are for hard Brexit: the British Prime Minister does not wish to compromise on immigration, and the EU is not considered quick-footed enough to negotiate agreements with Canada in 7 years, let alone with Britain in two years. This means the focus of the Wikipedia article should be on hard Brexit and its implementation (WTO tariffs). The existing long descriptions on the Norwegian and Swiss EU agreements can then be considerably shortened because the Prime Minister has explicitly excluded those for Britain. Opinions? 86.154.101.93 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The article should certainly reflect what reliable sources say about possible processes, but we should not focus exclusively on the option the government favours. I think there is a widespread consensus that the exact process that will be followed is highly uncertain (there will be an extensive process of negotiation, and the chances of the UK government achieving its objectives in full are, shall we say, rather slim), and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would emphasise WP:NOTCRYSTAL even more. This isn't a newspaper, and the fevered speculation and stance-taking on the eventual agreement should be heavily downplayed. If you strip out the speculation and the tub- thumping there isn't much left. The Norwegian and Swiss agreements constitute some of the few hard facts available. The fact that the public statements of various players, combined, point to a hard Brexit does not signify very much at this point- some of them may no longer be on the field when the final whistle is blown. Yes, you can find RS to source opinions that such and such an outcome is likely/ very probable/ almost certain: as in most other forms of war, negotiating plans don't necessarily survive the first contact with the opponent.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Me again. I think both of you are being sidetracked by my humorous "predict the future" remark, sorry. The problem is that hard and soft Brexits are extensively discussed in the media, and by PM May and President Hollande, but are not at all explained here. I suggest we group the existing Norwegian and Swiss paragraphs under a new section "soft Brexit", and then explain the mechanism of a hard Brexit: breakdown of Art 50 talks, WTO admission rules, applicable tariffs. Some of this info is available from the German parliamentary report. And some interesting WTO info was published in The Times today, 27 Oct 2016). Enough to put a paragraph together. Do either of you feel like tackling it? I am exhausted. 86.154.102.105 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this to an extent. Given the lack of knowledge, what the media says (and like it or not the mainstream media is a reliable source) is what we have to go on right now. They do speak extensively of various options, including EEA models and "hard Brexit" models, and we should therefore cover what they're saying.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, WP:NOTCRYSTAL explicitly says It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. Hard Brexit vs Soft Brexit falls squarely into this category. It is not Wikipedian speculation, but reliably soured speculation.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

We should not adopt use of the terms "hard" and "soft" as if in Wikipedia's voice. While various individual politicians and commentators may make various assertions, anything that is put in the article should mention that to date there is no authoritative description of the distinction, whether given in the name of either of the two parties, viz., the UK government or the official organ of the EU authorised to respond. There is little factually to report either way until some decisive event, such as Article 50 notification by UK to EU. The article needs no padding with anybody's passing notion of what is "hard" and what "soft", as if choosing from a box of Black Magic (chocolates), produced first by Rowntree's of York and now owned by Nestlé of Switzerland. Qexigator (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

+ Unlike "hard border", which is more or less self-explanatory and is explained at some length in the source cited, the term "hard Brexit" (in the section headed Consequences of withdrawal) is not self-explanatory, is unsourced, and nowhere explained. It appears in a citation for the passage on "Financial services", but that is inaccessible, probably behind the FT paywall. A websearch offers a BBC item "Brexit: What are the options?" It has a useful Table on "Alternative Brexit models", and under a heading "Hard Brexit or soft Brexit?" states "There is no strict definition of either, but they are used to refer to the closeness of the UK's relationship with the EU, post-Brexit." and then goes into speculative comment about "...at one extreme...could involve...At the other end of the scale,,.might involve..." Qexigator (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

An editor has said "but this isn't true either, it isn't "in progress" yet. the withdrawal process hasn't formally begun. it's still in the planning/preparation stages. Once A50 is triggered, it could be argued to be "in progress". This is a rod we made for our own backs by bowing to the use of the term "Brexit" because "the sources used it". If we use it it should be sourced, but that doesn't mean that because it's sourced we have to use it. Britmax (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how you are connecting these two issues, as they are unrelated. Even if we didn't use the term Brexit, we'd still need to accurately define the subject in the first sentence, ie.:

"The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union is planned following an advisory referendum held in June 2016 in which 52% of votes were cast in favour of leaving the EU." TDL (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the government's announced commitment to trigger the negotiating process by giving notice to the EU by the end of March, it can be said that Brexit is something the government has undertaken to accomplish; but political intent does not amount to a "plan", and so far as is known, as yet plan-making is no more than work in pogress. Qexigator (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"but political intent does not amount to a "plan"" - actually this is exactly a definition of the word "plan". See merriam-webster: "something that a person intends to do." You don't dispute that the government intends to withdraw, hence by definition that is their plan.

Now you've added some text here arguing that a treaty needs to be negotiated for Brexit. That's not true. If A50 is activated, Brexit can happen regardless of whether a treaty is negotiated or not. TDL (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

TDL: Yes "plan" is often used in that way, the question is whether that word is well suited to this context, allowing for the word's other connotations. My edit said no more than what must happen and is still in the preliminary stage: 1_to withdraw from the EU treaties, UK is, like other member states, committed to Article 50, and has been ever since ratification of the Lisbon Treaty following an act of parliament; 2_ the present government is going ahead with this, and is committed to giving notice by the end of March, and thus beginning a period for negotiating a treaty acceptable to HMG and parliament; 3_"Brexit" is understood to be the accomplished fact of withdrawal, after either ratification of a treaty yet to be negotiated, or, failing that, expiry of the prescribed period once time begins to run from Article 50 notification. But the now current simplified version is, in my view, undoubtedly the best so far. Qexigator (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Except as explained above, it's simply not true that the negotiation of at treaty "must happen". As you acknowledge, the UK could notify the EU and then refuse to negotiate and still withdraw. The only thing that "must happen" is the notification. The text you wrote incorrectly suggests otherwise. TDL (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Did "Brexit" refer to UK's "intended withdrawal from the European Union following an advisory referendum held in June" per ? Qexigator (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Surely "advisory" is the problem word here - "following a referendum" would be neutral. Remain say referendum is only advisory, Leave say not. --Lessogg (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read European Union Referendum Act 2015#Limitation:

This Bill required a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union before the end of 2017. It did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution. In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and agreed by both Houses.^[1]

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a matter of emphasis, not law. There is no doubt, as you show above, that this is legally an advisory referendum. But if you emphasise the 'advisory' bit, then you are implicitly suggesting that it can be ignored. Were the referenda on devolution widely reported as 'advisory'- No. If Scotland had voted for independence, would it have been widely reported as an advisory result?- I think not. Hence making 'advisory' prominent is POV- pushing.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that "intended withdrawal" followed by "PM announced that the government intends to invoke Article 50" clears up any ambiguity. I can't honestly see how the word 'advisory' (especially if it encourages readers to explore further) is a problem. I wonder if, following the anon editor's 'deweasling' if the problem has gone away.The opening sentence certainly reads a lot better now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Friedman. I disagree with deleting "advisory" on the basis of your POV argument. The referendum indeed was advisory, and that is an interesting piece of information for Leavers and Remainers alike. However, I would agree with deleting "advisory" on the basis that the lead should not be overloaded with detail which is already available in the main text. 86.154.102.61 (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In the section on Article 50, an editor has added a selective quote from a [non-legislative] briefing note on Article 50 to the EU Parliament written by a member of staff from the Member's Briefing Service. Ignoring for the moment the issue of copyright, it is not at all clear [to me at least] how this improves the (WP) article. Our convention is for an editor to write some text and then to cite the source that justifies it. We can't just copy stuff and then bung it in somewhere at random without any context. To do so in this case just looks to me like cherry picking to push a POV. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Friedman. I find the note well worth mentioning until better information comes along (presumably in the near future). Generally I disagree with removing expert information simply because it leans to one POV or another POV. In my view, both Leavers and Remainers can benefit from pleasant as well as unpleasant facts at their fingertips - know thine enemy. As to copyright problems and context, you may be right, but that is an aspect I do not at present feel qualified to comment on. 86.154.102.61 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

JMF: It may not please your POV, but anyone who reads the source can see that this paraphrase is reporting information needed here that is openly published and available online, and in no way a copvio, and the citation particularly includes the publisher's disclaimer that though the source is an official document primarily for the use of the European Parliament, it is (like an Explanatory Note accompanying UK legislation) for information only and not to be taken by anyone as binding. The text you have removed is this:

• A briefing note for the European Parliament (February 2016) states that a withdrawal from the EU ends, from then on, the application of the EU Treaties in the withdrawing state, although any national acts previously adopted for implementing or transposing EU law would remain valid until amended or repealed, and a withdrawal agreement would need to deal with phasing-out EU financial programmes. The note mentions that a member withdrawing from the EU would need to enact its own new legislation in any field of exclusive EU competence, and that complete isolation of a withdrawing state would be impossible if there is to be a future relationship between the former member and the EU, but that a withdrawal agreement could have transitional provisions for rights deriving from EU citizenship and other rights deriving from EU law that the withdrawal would otherwise extinguish.^[2] The Common Fisheries Policy is one of the exclusive competences reserved for the European Union; others concern customs union, competition rules, monetary policy and concluding international agreements. ^[3]

If you have some useful and positive comment about improving the above paraphrase of salient points of the well sourced and disclosed information, please let us know. To anyone with sufficient knowledge of the topic, the source content of the document appears to be no more than an accurate account of treaty text, and it would not be suited to its professed purpose if it were politically biased. If there is a contrary text available, again, please let us know. Your edsum falsely describes my edit as "selective quotations". Please reconsider carefully, and withdraw. Your earlier edsum implying that the source was merely a private person's blog showed well enough that you were off-track. Qexigator (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is really that I can't see why the material has been added here. It doesn't follow from anything that has gone before. It just seems to have been dropped in at random. I have no quarrel with what it says, nor do I find it biased, [we can do without the ad hominem attacks, by the way], I just don't see what it has to so with anything at this point. This subsection in this article should really only summarise our Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, not create a fork of it. I certainly see why it should be used in that article, but why is it here? If you feel that strongly about it, let it stand. I certainly won't revert it again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. It is likely that this part of the article, and probably others, will need revision as events develop, such as the High Court judgment maybe followed by Supreme Court, or something decisive in parliament. Meantime, I will reinsert, and, of course, you or anyone else is free to add it (or a version of it) elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Towards the end of the lead section, we say:

In the 1970s and 1980s, withdrawal from the EEC was advocated mainly by some Labour Party and trade union figures. From the 1990s, withdrawal from the EU was advocated mainly by some Conservatives and by the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).

I took it upon myself to improve the unsightly duplicated sentence but I was reverted several times by friendly IP editors who corrected my English or my history but didn't bother to suggest a better alternative. Here are the rejected versions:

1. From the 1990s, the impetus to exit the EU switched to some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).

   86.154.102.61 reverted with: Your change is not correct - the EU did not exist at the time Labour and the trade unions opposed EEC membership. It is the EEC which switched to EU, not Labour to Tory

   So I said: OK, might have been confusing; I replaced the "switched" verb and offered:

2. From the 1990s, the impetus to exit the EU was driven by some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).

   86.154.102.61 reverted with: In English, you cannot "drive an impetus". The impetus drives you.

   Not to be discouraged, I replied: Thanks for correcting my English; still we should avoid repeating "was advocated mainly by", so I made yet another variant and submitted:

3. From the 1990s, the movement to exit the EU was driven by some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).

86.170.123.5 reverted with: This is ahistorical. In the 1990s, there was no "movement to leave the EU". There were politicians who held strong opinions. Nothing like the movement in the 1980s for nuclear disarmament, for example.

At that point I assumed that I was in a hole, so I stopped digging and came here for salvation. Can somebody offer a historically correct, grammatically acceptable and æsthetically pleasing formulation? — JFG ^talk 11:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am responsible for the reversion. As I understand it, your motivation is purely stylistic and you wish to avoid repetition of the formula "advocated". However, please consider that the two sentences already contain three contrasts: 1980s versus 1990s, EEC versus EU, and Labour versus Tory. If you now add a fourth contrast ("advocated" versus some other verb), I fear you will lose the reader. As you have seen, some readers are already confused enough into thinking there may have been a "movement" in the 1990s, or that Labour rejected the same organisation that the Tories later rejected (incidentally, Labour's motivation for EEC exit in their 1983 manifesto was solidarity with the communist eastern Europeans). Therefore, I feel the existing "advocated" repetition is a useful stylistic ploy to highlight the two substantial differences between the two sentences. 86.154.101.100 (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

......and unfortunately there is a further problem in that UKIP's later success is obscuring the Referendum party's actions in the 1990s, during much of which it was more important than UKIP.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt you will find any source that claims the Referendum party was significantly responsible for the current Brexit process. They existed for a couple of years, yes they got more votes than UKIP, then their leader died, and they folded immediately (in 1995?). That can go in the history section, if you like. 86.154.101.100 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In the top of the article I changed "Brexit is the informal term for..." to "Brexit is the most widely used term for...", which was subsequently reverted without comment and I changed it back again requesting a reason for the revert. There are countless examples of high ranking politicians using the term in formal circumstances, such as speeches to the EU parliament. Therefore I think it is a mistake to label it "informal" and would prefer this wording as it is more neutral and simply describes how the term is used.185.107.13.58 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed the most common term, this is why the article was re-titled in July. In line with other discussions above and WP:REFER, I have now simplified the phrase to "Brexit is the UK's planned withdrawal" but a debate is ongoing about the lead sentences. — JFG ^talk 05:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A recent series of edits suggests that describing "Brexit" for the opening of this article in a way that is acceptable is a continuing problem. Given that by its title this has become the lead article for the continuing process intended to result in withdrawal, it is of some importance that the article's wording is neutral and acceptable, and as simply expressed as precision allows. The current version reads:

" Brexit is the informal term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal from the European Union... "Brexit" is a portmanteau of the words Britain and exit."

Is this meant to be the same as

"Brexit is a neologism that refers to the concept of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a member of the European Union",

which was in an early version of United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (24 November 2012)? Is "concept" unacceptable? If we take "Brexit" is a portmanteau of the words Britain and exit." as acceptable, we still have to consider whether the use of "Brexit" remains the same today as when it started in 2012, in imitation of Grexit (Feb 2012), and from then on.

Recent versions:

• Brexit is the United Kingdom's intended withdrawal from the European Union following an advisory referendum held in June...
• Brexit refers to the United Kingdom's intended withdrawal from the European Union following an advisory referendum held in June...
• Brexit is the informal term for the United Kingdom's intended withdrawal from the European Union following an advisory referendum held in June...
• Brexit is the informal term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal from the European Union following an advisory referendum held in June...

The first section after the lead sufficiently explains "The term 'Brexit'". Do we need to say at the top: "Brexit is the informal term for..."? I do not see that in this context inserting "refers to", or "is the informal term for" adds anything meaningful, and looks no better than clutter in the opening sentence. What more needs to be said is in or may be added to the first section after the lead. Qexigator (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for "Brexit" to be the first word of the article. Furthermore, we should avoid sentences like "Brexit is the informal term for..." or "Brexit refers to..." (WP:REFERS). Why not go back to a wording similar to the one I suggested a few months ago?: British withdrawal from the European Union, commonly known as Brexit, is a process to be undertaken following the advisory referendum held in June..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Objection to both Qexigator's concern and Ghmyrtle's suggestion. First Ghmyrtle: I find your proposed sentence syntactically complex, so no thank you. Qexigator: I am not too fussed about deleting "informal" in the interests of brevity, but I suspect the reason why there are so many changes to the first sentence is because people realise that Brexit is not a proper word (it is a neologism, a humorous term, an uneducated word invented by foreign bankers, etc), and therefore there is constant re-editing. But especially, consider non-native English speakers who would not realise that Brexit is an informal term which cannot (at present) be used used in legal documents or the like. They need to be warned of the appropriate usage. Compare the non-English Wikipedia sites, none of which use "Brexit" as far as I have seen. 86.154.102.61 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

First one I checked

https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomröstningen_om_Storbritanniens_medlemskap_i_EU

Gravuritas (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree that Brexit is an "informal term". It is a recently coined word that has quickly entered into common usage. It is in the online Oxford Dictionaries here. Wikipedia cannot (and should not try to) deny that. -- de Facto (talk). 21:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about your evidence. Gravuritas: Your Swedish wiki page is not called Brexit (and moreover confuddles the etymology of Brexit), and de Facto, your Oxford Online page lists example sentences which de facto confirm that Brexit is at best a journalistic term and certainly not one that is (yet) appropriate for legal documents etc. In fact the dictionary entry offers Brexit, Brixit, and "Brexit" side-by-side. 86.154.102.61 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The Swedish WP refers to Brexit, and redirects from Brexit, so there is no argument that it does not use Brexit, unless by 'use' you meant 'has a page titled Brexit'.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, no less an authority than the PM has used the term frequently and has even provided a helpful definition of it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Another thought: my subjective impression is that "Brexit" is used in two specific contexts: economic commentary by journalists and financial experts. And secondly, within the term "Brexiteer" as a humorous reference to Leavers. As JMF jokes above, it is beginning to be used by politicians, who presumably have taken it from the journalistic chatter. I have the impression that the various campaigns did not use the term Brexit much, as their vocabulary revolved mainly around "Leave" and "Remain" as per the referendum question. Before the referendum question was devised, people used to speak of "in" and "out" from the 1970s onwards. 86.170.123.5 (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm torn. On the one hand, talking about the word instead of the thing it describes is discouraged by policy. On the other hand there's no denying that "Brexit" is a new term that must be described as such: the event begot the word, and this is how language evolves. The current wording Brexit is the informal term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal… elegantly combines both requirements. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In view of all the above comments, here is a proposed rewording, that says nothing new, but covers the essential points using existing links:

• Brexit is the ending of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. Membership is ended by the procedure stated in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. "Brexit" is a portmanteau of the words Britain and exit. <+> Following an advisory referendum held in June 2016 in which 52% of votes were cast in favour of leaving the EU</+>, Prime Minister Theresa May announced the government's intention to invoke Article 50 by the end of March 2017, which, within the treaty terms, would put the UK on a course to leave the EU by the end of March 2019. May has promised a bill to remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book ...continue as is....

To my mind, the above comments show that retaining "informal" is not well supported, but if some such qualifier is needed, "commonly used" would make better sense in ordinary English. The Transcripts in the High Court proceedings show that Brexit is not yet common parlance in the the High Court (where the LCJ habitually says "OK"), but as mentioned above, it is now widely used practically wherever else the topic is written or spoken about. As a party to the EU treaties, the UK has the right to withdraw in the way prescribed in Article 50. That article applies where a member state is politically and constitutionally committed to withdrawal. If "exit" is here synonymous with "withdrawal", Article 50 tells us that the EU treaties will no longer apply to the UK once a negotiated exit treaty has been concluded, ratified and entered into force. In other words, exit happens when the exit treaty enters into force at the end of the process. That moment is like an actor's exit from (leaving) the stage, or a member's exit from (leaving) a partnership or club. 08:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC) +words added Qexigator (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The opening paragraph certainly needs to refer to the referendum itself, which this version does not do. I also reiterate my point that there is no need for the word "Brexit" to appear as the first word in the article. Doing so constrains the basic explanatory wording that can be given in the opening sentence. There is a strong case for a minimal explanation first, bolding commonly used alternative terms, along the lines of: 'British withdrawal from the European Union, commonly known as Brexit, is the ending of the United Kingdom's membership of the EU.' It is not "syntactically complex" - it is a simple explanation of the word. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes: 1_words added above. 2_The inversion you propose may be at least as acceptable, like this perhaps:

• British withdrawal from the European Union, commonly known as Brexit, is the ending of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. Membership is ended by the procedure stated in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Following an advisory referendum held in June 2016 in which 52% of votes were cast in favour of leaving the EU, Prime Minister Theresa May announced the government's intention to invoke Article 50 by the end of March 2017, which, within the treaty terms, would put the UK on a course to leave the EU by the end of March 2019. May has promised a bill to remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book ...continue as is, and leave 'portmanteau' detail to first section after the lead....

Qexigator (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not thrilled; current version of the first sentence sounds more natural, especially for a casual reader. First define, then refine. Why replace the simple "withdrawal" with an awkward "ending of the membership"? Certainly the withdrawal shall only be complete when the exit treaty enters into force but to my mind "Brexit" covers the whole process of withdrawal, from referendum day to the day when all official ties are cut. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to the changes suggested here. Especially the use of the word "ending". Ending sounds like there is a natural expiry date to EU membership, or that the other EU members might have kicked out the UK. Neither is the case. The current wording "leaving/withdrawing" unambiguously means that the UK has taken this step, and so the wording should not be changed. 86.170.123.5 (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

How about: "The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from membership of the European Union is commonly known as Brexit. Membership is ended by the procedure.... " etc., along the lines suggested by Qexigator Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Best so far. Qexigator (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, convoluted. This happens when you use passive voice (your version) instead of active voice (existing version). Golden rule of Good Prose. 86.154.101.100 (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The current opening sentence, which you apparently support, contains 36 words. My suggestion contains 17 (or 15 if you say "The United Kingdom's withdrawal....").. More "convoluted"? Really? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Passive? Perhaps IP86. is commenting on something else. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Active: "Brexit is the withdrawal rhubarbarbrhubarb." Passive: "The withdrawal is known as Brexit rhubarbrhubarb." 86.154.101.100 (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I was already aware of the difference between active and passive sentences, but thank you for pointing it out. Of course, we do not need to have the word "Brexit" in the opening sentence at all, per WP:BEGIN - we could just say: "The withdrawal of the UK from the EU will occur as a result of the referendum....." etc..... and then explain the word "Brexit" later on in the paragraph. That wording would also be an improvement on the current version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The withdrawal of the UK from the EU will occur as a result of the referendum.... etc.. may look good at first sight, but can anyone say at this stage that such an event will occur? This could be said when the putative treaty (if there is one) is about to come into force, or when the period for that to happen is about to expire. What can be said with a sufficient degree of certainty is that, given the EU treaties and the norms of international law, Article 50 prescribes a procedure for letting EU membership be ended when a member gives the required notice. In fewer words, in simple English, readily understood even by a casual reader or High Court judge:

• (revised proposal) "The United Kingdom's withdrawal from membership of the European Union is commonly known as Brexit. Membership is ended by the procedure.... " etc.

Neither convoluted nor objectionably "passive". Qexigator (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Qexigator, buried in the above fussiness of whether Brexit is informal, common-or-garden, coitus interruptus, or whatever, you make an important statement: "Article 50 tells us that the EU treaties will no longer apply to the UK once a negotiated exit treaty has been concluded, ratified and entered into force. In other words, exit happens when the exit treaty enters into force at the end of the process." My understanding is that this is only one way to exit. The other way is if negotiations fail and Britain leaves by default at the end of the two-year period, without an agreement. Am I right? 86.154.101.100 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

My surmise is that few if any participating in this discussion were or will be in doubt about exit resulting, as prescribed by Article 50 of the EU treaty, in the event of no treaty being agreed or no ratification of a treaty if agreed, as mentioned in my comment above replying to TDL (07:17, 1 November 2016 UTC). Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice: I temporarily removed "is the informal term" from the first sentence following a reader's comment below who noted that the term has acquired mainstream use, a conclusion we reached in July at the page move discussion. This should be taken into account in any rewording of the lead. More precisely, I think we should use "Brexit" throughout the article, while referring to the official names for the related treaties or government positions as being formal. — JFG ^talk 05:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

See today's High Court ruling that Brexit needs a Parliamentary vote and explain why that's important. 100.15.138.239 (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned, in the section headed: Legal challenge: Santos and Miller -v- Secretary of State. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Should this case have its own page? It is being reported in its own right in numerous sources as of today and this will only increase as it works its way up to the Supreme Court. MrStoofer (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There are a number of other articles that would be improved by linking to it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please. It's getting much too long (and legalistic) for this article. Qexigator may be the person for it. EddieHugh (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Others have that task in hand. But the Brexit article should stand by for any further developments, particularly the appeal to Supreme Court and determining events in UK Parliament or emanating from EU. Do not underestimate the importance of retaining here the present information, at least until the final outcome of the appeal is known. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's over the top in detail (names of judges, notes on document labels, 10 bullet points, etc.). It reads like a law journal at the moment, not a general-audience encyclopedia. Of course new info will be needed, but most of the detail can be cut when the separate article goes live. EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It may seem excessive, but until the issues are resolved it is very much part of the political and public opinion scene. I will look again to see what can be trimmed out at this stage, but readers can skip if they do not want the information, while those who are looking for something more than opinionated and partisan shouts and waffle to get a more exact understanding of the current debate can find some of it here. For example. we do not need to follow those who consider public understanding is improved by attributing to Mrs May powers and decisions which are attributable to the government of which she is undoubtedly the leader, at least as primus inter pares. That sort of writing obscures more than clarifies. And we should remember that this is for the information not only of members of the public in UK, who have some kind of understanding of the situation they believe themselves to be in, and many of whom participated in the referendum with their individual hopes and expectations, but those in other countries (including expats) who are taking an intelligent interest and who want a dispassionate account of various aspects that make up the legal-political argument as it moves towards a Supreme Court ruling (sometime early in the New Year?), which, we may hope, will lucidly set out the various points of this complex business, and determine what must be the constitutional way forward, so far as UK is concerned. The article which has been newly started, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, will, once the Supreme Court's judgment has been delivered, become an account of the case as a major legal precedent, and will be open for citable general and specialist comment as time goes by, but in the meantime it is like preparing an article in advance of a royal birth, not knowing whether the child will be a prince or princess, or writing about the next president of a country before the election results are known. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this article needs to include Brexit Social impact, it does a good job including the Economic impact but I think including the social impact its extremely important as well.Jovanna13 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The above two terms are increasingly being used in the UK media and by politicians in the debate about what form Brexit will take. Should we include definitions of these in the article? MFlet1 (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's too early in my estimation. These expressions will eventually become the norm but not yet. The concepts are important however. I'm not sure we have really discussed them in the article yet.

A hard Brexit would be a much cleaner break with the EU, with the UK establishing a relationship with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. The UK would lose access to the single market but it would no longer have to pay into the EU’s budget and would regain control of its immigration policy. We believe such a break would have a much bigger impact on UK economic growth. https://uk-edge.centaur.jpmorgan.com/users/15606-alex-dryden/posts/10479-life-after-brexit-soft-brexit-or-a-hard-brexit Peter K Burian (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Very common terms, it's time they were defined in the article. Rothorpe (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be clear definitions of these two terms since it is already being talked about in the media. Maybe explaining exactly what they mean. Jovanna13 (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)