Talk:Brexit/Archive 4

Should we not also cover positive responses to Brexit in Europe? Some streams of thought, especially French, see this as a positive because it reduces the possibility of Anglo-Saxon meddling (whether British or American Imperialist) in European affairs. There are strains of this both on the left (ie - against neoliberalism) and on the right (in a Gaullist sense). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean 'positive' (=anti-EU) as by Le Pen and Geert Wilders? They were more vocal at the time of the referendum. But in their national elections, that positivism was not used (anti-EU was not a campaign item). -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean positive in the sense that some people feel the British should never have been invited in the first place and the European Union will now be able to be more effective without them acting as an American/neoliberal fifth column within the gate. Which was the view of De Gaulle in the first place and most Communist Parties in Europe. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Claiomh Solais. Franco-British relationships have not been very good since AD 1066, and Napoleon and Pétain did not really help. And now this:

The former Liberal Democrat Minister Jeremy Browne reported that French authorities are pressing for a "disruptive" Brexit, intending to undermine the City of London.[1]

It is not possible to understand Brexit without this background information in Wikipedia. On a political level, to stop the rot, what we need is a European Peace Conference, where the French promise to stop eating frogs and the British solemnly renounce warm beer. But I am getting slightly carried away. 86.170.122.240 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) re Claíomh Solais: Sure those opinions (or sentiments) exist and could have/have had big influence. Note that we now have political parties, institutions (banks, civil rights organisations), scolars (universities), newspapers (in their editorials and news) that weigh in. Very hard to describe these opinions & their weight in an encyclopedic way I think, but probably can be done. Then, can these voices be called 'popular'? Probably the only real popular opinion is expressed in demonstrations and elections, not in Le Monde and FAZ? -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to add that in the article as it looks obvious that this helps to understand the rationale of the Brexit.

In august 2000, the United States International Trade Commission published The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Arrangement With the United States, Canada, and Mexico which consider Brexit as one mean to allow United-Kindgdom participation in NAFTA^[1] · ^[2].

This publication answers a Senate Finance Committee request to the U.S. International Trade Commission on 18 november 1999. In that mind, one scenario considered is UK access to ALENA with Brexit. It considers such a thning might lead to an USA GDP increase by USD 90 millions, with limited effect on UK and EU but this conclusion is considered as uncertain because there have never been any previous member state withdraw from the EU^[2].

In year 2000, Brexit ideology is yet supported by two opposite philosophies: the Gramm one and the Black one^[3].

No, not obvious: there were a number of reasons for the Brexit vote, and little justification for the view that potential US trade was of huge significance. That being so, an obscure 16-year-old US study does not seem worthy of inclusion.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

«a number of reasons for the Brexit vote»? which one?

• net contribution figures range from £5.7 billion (2014) to £8.8 billion (2014/15) is few amount of money against the planned «U.S. exports to the UK increase by $7 billion.»
• everybody understands that by itself $7 billion is of «huge significance», and you would not had had so much money to fund the advertisments for Brexit vote if there were not a «huge significance» behind.
• Alan Sked himself considers that «if Britain came out, she might want to join NAFTA or something, which would be both an interest of Britain and the United States»^[1].

Anyway, the rational of the Brexit is at least 14-year-old as the artcle 49A from Lisbon treaty (known as EU art 50) has been introduced in july 2003^[2], 35 month only after the «obscure 16-year-old US study».

This is why wikipedia article should not hide this background because it is relevant for understanding the Brexit (hi)story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• So, even accepting your figures, why would the Brits have any interest in increased US exports. Replacement of Camembert by Monterey Jack? Did that win the vote?
• Sure, there were references to overseas trade during the campaign, but it was fairly low profile apart from Obama's twittery about the 'back of the queue'.
• ludicrous- trying to generate a conspiracy theory about a treaty having an exit clause. Have you looked at your mobile phone contract recently? And the 14-year/16-year stuff is post hoc windbaggery.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not write that "Brits have any interest in increased US exports". I just understand that UK notified EU with art 50, because of Parliament choice. Parliament allowed art 50 notification because of the referendum result. 17 out of 46 million people voted for Brexit because they have been said to do that. The reason why at that time it has been said to British to vote Brexit remains to be clarified in wikipedia article, but it is quite clear that some people such as Donald Trump or Theresa May have their own ideas about an UK-US FTA.

• If your question is «Is there support for Nafta membership in the UK?» then the answer is, according to the telegraph, «Nafta is seen as an alternative to the EU in British conservative circles. Iain Duncan-Smith, the Tory party leader, supports membership, as does John Redwood, a prominent Conservative eurosceptic. They believe that British and American democratic tradition makes them good bedfellows. Europe is a less democratic creature and European economic practices are harmful to growth. British and US economic priorities are closer, they argue. Both countries subscribe to low tax rates, a limited nation state and a flexible labour market. In Europe sacking workers is harder and tax rates are significantly higher.»^[1].
• You can speak of Obama in one hand, but do not forget the other hand as Condoleeza Rice, President Bush's foreign policy adviser, told the Telegraph in July 1999: «Were the British to come and say with a unified voice, 'We'd like to join Nafta,' I don't think there would be any objection.»^[2]. It would not be fair to provide only one point of view, as long as we do not have a single party.
• As you raise the question of the exit clause, I have to say you raise a good question: why has the exit clause been introduced in the european treaty between april 2003 and 2007 Lisbon treaty. Some people are very clear to say this clause has been introduced specifically for British people. It might be a conspiracy theory if such idea was not supported by French ex-president and other mass media^[3]. for British people should be understood as for the british exit (Brexit). Anyway, it is sure that before this exit clause, exit of one country was considered as rather controversial^[4], if no insulting^[5].

I do not understand your argument about mobile phone. If your question regards the mobile phone contract exit clause answers might be dependant on local law, as long as it is not unified by EU. In France some people have contract avec engagement and other sans engagement, this might be slightly different, but in both cases you might have to perform some formalites to keep your phone number when you change your phone provider^[6]. Anyway you did not provided any evidence that a sui generis thing such as EU might be comparable to a mobile phone contract. Have you looked at your marriage contract recently? Have you looked at your biblical covenant recently? Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

For all those reasons we should avoid ideology and Point of View promoted by such or such party, by such or such breaking news, to keep with facts: verifiable facts, which provide an intelligible story which is accepted by everybody, in the spirit of wikipedia. This does not forbid to give a second rational for brexit, if NAFTA is not the unique argument.

Additional sources (which declare: Conrad Black employs both Kissinger and Gingrich via his media conglomerate, Hollinger International. He is also, a founder-member of the New Atlantic Initiative, while it owns Daily Telegraph.

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1350872/Bush-aide-supports-Britain-in-Nafta.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3604,349430,00.html

In 1998, the Canadian media tycoon Conrad Black, then owner of the Daily Telegraph, a conservative British newspaper, gave a keynote speech at the Centre for Policy Studies, a free-market think tank in London, entitled "Britain's Final Choice: Europe or America?" ^[1]

if Britain joined Nafta while remaining in the EU its exports to the US would increase by £1.9 billion per year^[2].

«A small, vocal minority of the Conservative Party has recently begun advocating the pursuit of a free trade agreement with North America. Originally, these advocates saw joining the North American Free Trade areement (NAFTA) as a viable economic alternative to EU membership.»^[3].Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What you have begun to establish is that there is some level of association between those in favour of Brexit and those in favour of the UK having a free-trade agreement with the US. You could equally well show a similar, or even higher degree of association, between those in favour of Brexit and of free trade with Australia. However, your assertion at the beginning was that the /rationale/ for Brexit was to have a NAFTA free-trade agreement, which is a completely different assertion, and one for which you have demonstrated no evidence. According to your wonky logic, my hair grows because I go to the barber.

Back to the exit clause- I don't have a marriage contract, but I believe that they would normally have an exit clause: in most cases that is their main purpose. Those of us without individual marriage contracts benefit from a generic exit clause defined by the state. Nearly everything, from a tiddleywinks club to NATO (art 13) provides for an exit clause, apart from the UN, so why do you wish to make such a big deal about the mere existence of Art. 50? Wonky logic again- your argument is that the exit clause exists, therefore the dastardly Brexiteers did it, whereas the exit clause exists, therefore nothing.

Gravuritas (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be considered with its chronology, else you will conclude that your hair grows because you go to the barber.

Since when exist the idea of free trade between UK and Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering, if this article should give in one paragraph, some piece of information regarding who is in charge for the UK, according to her constitutional requirements, of the following topics:

• ratification of european treaties,
• ratification of the withdrawal agreement
• decide on article 50 to withdrawal of ratified european treaty
• decide to not conclude any withdrawal agreement
• decide to increase the two year term before withdrawal

For instance, is this the Queen? is this the parliament? is this the executive power?

Which court is in charge of checking such constitutional requirement?

And if the european treaty is a part of the UK constitutional requirements, wile the withdrawal of EU reduce the UK constitutional requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

In respect of ratification of any treaty pursuant to the UK's Article 50 withdrawal notice, there will be three aspects: validity according to international law; validity under UK law, including the passing of an act of parliament to satisfy requirements of constitutional law, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in Miller's Case; and validity for European Union as the other party to the proposed treaty. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions." Vive la difference!

Gravuritas (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be seen that, given the established position under international law and the law of the UK's unwritten (partly statutory) constitution, the weakness of the EU position becomes self-evident, with its various institutions (Commission, Council, parliament) and 27 disparate remaining member states, with their more or less democratic electorates and contending political parties, and mostly with written and republican constitutions of recent origin. Qexigator (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to argue about those topics, please open an Democracy within European union wikipedia article, and Democracy within United Kingdom and Constitution article. This topic is about: Who & constitutional requirements in regard to the treaties and decisions related to Brexit and to the United Kingdom. Two wrongs do not make one right.

Or else, is this democracy when the 48 have to accept the decision of the 52 and the 1 do not accept the decision of the 27? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. The point is that covering 'in one paragraph' 'who is in charge for the UK', as per your original request, is difficult, verging on impossible. No doubt the various players in the UK constitution will have their say before the game is finished, You, and everybody else, will have to wait and see how the game plays out.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Could someone add Theresa May's catchphrase Brexit means Brexit to the article? It has been widely used and I think it deserves a mention.

Kind regards, Chielbuseyne (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC).

brexit means brexit adds nothing to the more important argument of what will be the effects of brexit...a catchphrase using any word such as bread means bread again tells us nothing whereas the one i remember that did was that more means more ...which tells us that man does often wrongly but often by his greed and stupidity think that more is going to improve the situation...however one thing the catchphrase does indicate is that theresa isnt fit to be a our leader by her thoughts that she knows better than everybody else so they had better shut up and do what she says.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddybrad (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eddybrad: Wikipedia is not a forum for personal opinions. Feel free to contribute to the article by citing reliable sources. — JFG ^talk 11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There is fairly regular post-referendum polling, I suggest moving it to a page of its own and putting a graphical summary on this page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. This needs its own place. Can be summarized in this article, however Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean summarised with a graph? I'm not sure how we could fairly/neutrally summarise it with text. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutelypuremilk: I suggest you put your graph on this Talk page to begin with, and then we make a decision whether we prefer your graph over the existing table. Technical question: will your graph be amenable to regular updates? Or do we risk that once inserted in the article, the graph will remain "frozen" as of August 2017? 81.131.172.125 (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the referendum £ fell versus mostly all main currencies ,particularly versus € it lost more than a 15 %.It must be specified in the economic effects.It will weight also on prices,trading,net national wealth and per capita and on nominal and PPP GDPs.Picuslor (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

look up 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' error. Then read the source carefully, and find that it does not say that the fall,is caused by the Brexit vote. Then note that the heading under which you are trying to insert this stuff is 'Economic effects'. Then check the record of the GBP exchange rate over sayna ten year period, and you'll,find that it's been up and down like a whore's drawers. Then stop inflicting this POV. It is by the way, poor form to re-insert while discussing.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok,£ is grown since referendum))))All people know £ weakness.I'm british and by the name you aren't ,you seem lithuanian.Picuslor (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please engage with the facts, and the argument. Have you got to first base? Do you understand a post hoc error?

Gravuritas (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I had 10/10 cum laude in latin))).Picuslor (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So, for about the fourth time, no engagement with the argument, just attempted personal gids and semi- literate drivel on my talk page from you. Conclusion: there is no rational support for your POV insertion. You've had more than enough opportunities to support it. It goes.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Now you can find a recent article of the decline of £ versus.They talk about post Brexit.Game over.Picuslor (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The pound declined in August. Not noteworthy.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not networthy for you.Picuslor (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(sigh). Here's how it works. Read around the subject and try to understand what RS commentators in general are saying about the GBP exchange rate, and to what extent this is due to Brexit. Don't continue to lard the article with variants of the same non-news with an increasing list of references- you've tried that and I've deleted it. You've continued to insert silly comments here and on my Talk page. Now learn the lesson. Make your case on talk. Make your case on talk. Make your case on talk.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you both pause for a while: you've both violated WP:3RR already. Try to find a consensus on this talk page before (re-)adding anything on this topic. My view is that this section (Consequences of withdrawal for the United Kingdom) is about the post-split future, not about weekly/monthly updates on what's happening. What the £/FTSE/inflation is doing therefore doesn't fit in this section. Perhaps a new section could be started, but it's near-impossible to separate Brexit-related effects from broader noise and the immediate effects are already covered in the Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 article. EddieHugh (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you've read this much you'll know that no serious attempt has been made to justify the additional material beyond the creation of a longer reference list to support the POV. As I understand the WP way of working, that means the new material is removed from the article until consensus is reached on Talk. Is this correct? If so, I suggest that you remove the new stuff until justified.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Already done. We can now wait for a rationale/other views. EddieHugh (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

All world knows pound fall .Just you here ignore it.Incredible article.Stay in my former land,now a second world country.Picuslor (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

£ is in free fall also today at 1€=0.9315.All news in the world talk of £ fall and its risks to join parity with € or much more (1.1-1.15).I've shame to be british abroad.I feel like a beggar.Picuslor (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest changing the "political effects" section to a broader "immediate effects" section with "political effects" and "financial effects" subsections where the fall in the pound could be covered. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I sympathise with both points of view here. On the one hand, I find it unsatisfactory that key economic parameters since the June 2016 referendum are not mentioned in the Brexit article, namely:

• fall of the pound by 15%,
• fall in unemployment to 4.5% (lowest unemployment since 1972, albeit on zero hours contracts etc),
• fall in immigration to "only" 250,000 in the past year (mainly a fall in EU immigrants, but also a slight fall in non-EU immigrants),
• fall in house prices

But, do we really know if these are referendum effects? Or Brexit effects? Or would these developments have happened anyway? On the whole, the changes are not as drastic as predicted by most economists. But to be fair to them, the economists based their predictions on Cameron's promise of immediate triggering of Article 50, not the substantial delay we have seen so far. So I have no obvious solution for Wikipedia, but I think if even economists are not able to explain what is a Brexit effect and what is not, we should not attempt to do so on Wikipedia. Perhaps we can add economic effects with hindsight after March 2019. Or when the Bank of England's minutes are published. Or when UK government documents are made available to the public in 30 years' time - that will be an interesting read! 81.131.172.125 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that Picuslor "has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy". EddieHugh (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am about to delete a phrase in the lead, stating "although revoking this might be legally possible"^[1]

This phrase has been the subject of editing disputes, so let me explain.

The first problem with the phrase is the cited BBC reference. I have listened to the BBC webcast, and it makes no such statement. So in any case the BBC reference must be deleted here.

The second problem is formal. The lead should summarise what the main article says. And the main article does not dispute that Article 50 is reversible. The described dispute is whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 (that is the view of the cited legal experts including Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50), or whether revocation requires the agreement of the other EU members (that is the view presented by the EU Parliament and the EU Commission). So an entirely different phrase in the lead would have been needed.

The third problem is weight. Reversibility of Article 50 is a tiny subsection in the main article, and so far, reversibility has not been extensively discussed let alone applied by the main actors (the UK government and the EU Council). So currently the lead should not give undue weight to the legal possibility of unilateral reversibility. 86.170.122.135 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This issue has been settled several times on this talk page, and each time consensus has decided against you. You just wait several weeks and then restart the same argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuman unchained (talk • contribs) 09:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Schuman. Please do not be paranoid - to my knowledge I have not participated in any discussion on this point. According to my memory, there have been back-and-forth edits regarding Article 50 reversibility with acrimonious editing comments on the main page, but I cannot find any discussion on this Talk Page. If such a discussion exists, please point me towards it. If not, please respond to my three criticisms above. I am sure we can work out a solution to the problem. Meanwhile I am reversing your edit not to provoke you, but to make sure you read this. 86.170.122.135 (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Last entry: unfortunately Schumann is now edit-warring, so I am letting him win and I am now signing off. It is not a big enough deal for me. For the record, he now claims there has been a discussion on this Talk Page on reversibiity of Article 50, and claims that I have been involved in that discussion. Neither of Schumann's claims is true, as any Wikipedian can easily confirm by searching for the terms "revoke" or "reversibility" on this Talk Page. 86.170.122.135 (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Schuman unchained has now been blocked for sock puppetry. So ignore him and please keep up the good work. 86.170.121.171 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reasons, there is an enormous amount of documents and links within the various EU & UK departments processes committees etc.

The link below gives an all in one place list of ALL of them in a decipherable order.

For obvious reasons editors got the impression that I am pushing some useless jounos blog link for whatever useless reason.

The thing is, this is exactly the opposite of the maze of links to dig into and dig again. Read the given link and the links in the current article, and you will find how many docs will not be found, and of course not easily by following the maze like a good boy

• A list of ALL official negotiation documents. EU & UK Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no endless documents, because Brexit negotiations will end en march 2019, or any other date agreed by deal, date of the end. There is just the amount of position papers documents necessary to mitigate some of the yet foreseen issues raised by Brexit perspective. The documents coming after Brexit would probably no more be Brexit documents, but rather in one hand the documents for negotiating the future agreement, and on other hand only the documents produced in the context of the WA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent good-faith edits. If there is a significant connection between Scottish Brexit sentiments and the Catalonian events, maybe a brief mention would be appropriate somewhere (not sure). But the recent additions were almost unintelligible, placed in the wrong section, and they added details not explicitly stated in the given source. With such a controversial topic, we should stay as close to the sources as possible. Also, Wikipedia does not need to pick up every single news article ever published. The article should provide a succinct encyclopedic overview of the most relevant information, it does not need to provide a comprehensive documentation with all secondary incidents and opinions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Brtian is not the financial center of the world, New York is and there is evidence to confirm it

You were asked to raise this on the talk page if you wanted to change it; you were also given advice on adding tags to the article (not the talk page) rather than deleting sourced material. Perhaps the advice was not clear. It meant that you should discuss on the talk page before reverting again. Please follow this advice: discuss the matter here with others so that a consensus can be reached and then followed. The source states that the UK (London) is. Something strong is required to counter that. To date, you have presented nothing. EddieHugh (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually have provided sources during my first edit, if you have checked. Perhaps you did not understand clearly enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You know that I checked, because I replied to you on my talk page, telling you that the source you provided "appears to have been abandoned in 2014", and you responded to that. I see that you have yet again reverted without consensus and without reasonable justification (a source of old data does not negate a recent one). I hope that another editor can step in here, because I've reverted your actions enough already and advised you on three talk pages of what you should do, and it's not making any difference. EddieHugh (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a look, and neither NY nor London unambiguously wins the title. If I were to pick one criterion for global financial centre, it would be forex, which London wins- but other criteria would hand the title to NY. I suggest the article is amended along the lines of "...one of the top two most important global financial centres". It isn't of huge significance to Brexit or this article whether London is #1 or #2.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The latest Global Financial Centres Index (No. 21; March 2017) puts London 1 point ahead overall, so I agree that there's not much difference. I would prefer to use the existing source, which is quoted, and attribute the expression in the text (on the lines of "... 'financial capital of the world', as one German newspaper put it"). Otherwise, we will have to use a different source or re-word to avoid misrepresenting the source. The following quote from the Global Financial Centres Index report might also be noteworthy somewhere:

* "Brexit and the US election have had a significant impact. London and New York fell 13 and 14 points respectively."

--Boson (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

After 2 weeks with no further discussion, I changed it to "'the financial capital of the world', as Münchner Merkur put it", following Boson's suggestion. EddieHugh (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that Redom115 has been blocked indefinitely. EddieHugh (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

IP user (86.170.122.165) is engaged in actively trying to include spurious and speculative information via edits for the purpose of furthering his/her own POV. This is evidently contary to WP:NPOV. Furthermore, whilst IP address users do indeed have equal rights on wikipedia, it is beginning to become concerning that we have one IP user who is making substantial edits to the article and whom we can't address via his/her own talk page. Other users have reported disruptive edits of their user talk pages in an attempt to intimidate them, the posting of absurd accusations that single them out on the talk page of the article, and the IP user has even vandalised the page when he didn't get his/her way. I think we should motion to ban IP user 86.170.122.165 (and the range of addresses that they are using) from this article. His/her posts above on this talk page indicate that he/she sees this article as a re-run on the referendum, rather than an attempt to build an encyclopaedic resource about the process that is Brexit. I've used wikipedia for many years, as an IP user, and recently as a registered user, and I am appalled by this sort of behaviour from IP user: 86.170.122.165. Most odd is use of his/her own research suggest and strange claims about Trump and using language like "nail in the coffin of the EU" which is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The assumption of the motivations of other users is also bizarre. I really do think its time to put in place edit protection policies back on this article. Euexperttime (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I object to the panicked claims above made by EUexperttime. If there is anything wrong with the article in your view, then simply go ahead and edit it. Like we all do. And why have you just deleted my discussion contribution on this talk page? Do you wish to prevent others from seeing what I have written? 86.170.122.165 (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that, ironically, Euexperttime has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. EddieHugh (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The introduction to the article makes mention of the UK leaving affecting the feasibility of Germany and Northern EU states being able to meet the blocking minority threshold. This seems a rather odd sentence to make its way into the introductory piece on Brexit, particularly as it is the only claim of a "negative" outcome mentioned in an article on a subject that where there is a very high degree of academic consensus on negative outcomes on a variety of facets of UK life. It's also a rather odd claim, Germany may lose its blocking minority, but the EU will lose a reluctant veto player - it doesn't seem clear to me why one should have precedence over the other.

Of course, what I think is going on, is that in the light of the fact that though a high degree of academic consensus exists for negative repercussions on the UK's economy and international standing, this may not be the case upon wikipedia editors. In which case, the only facet you can all agree on to mention in the introduction is the parochial claim about blocking thresholds in the Council.

I would also point out, after looking at the sections on the effects of Brexit on the EU, that a mix of unintended and intended bias is present in these paragraphs. There seems to be a giant paragraph on blocking minority thresholds, yet the Council has found it easier to move ahead in certain policy areas where the UK's role as a reluctant veto player has proved difficult; defence, and talks of possibly reopening the treaties. These are not mentioned. I would add a point of caution that eurosceptic think tanks, such as Open Europe - which are used as sources here, are keen to promote an image of the "EU needs the UK more than we need them", with one or two of the former senior staff working in the Brexit department as advisors to David Davis. Many of their position papers will state this, and whilst not necessarily false, it quite obviously is not going to make mention of the removal of a reluctant veto player in having positive affects for the EU.

So what would I do?

Remove the claim about the Council blocking minority threshold from the intro. That is an interesting side effect of Brexit, not something worthy of the introduction. I have noticed from this talk page that it was only inserted to placate a particular user who spent his time vandalising the page if he did not get his way - which is hardly a great editorial policy. You should be bold and insert a claim about the effects of Brexit upon the UK, in some neutral manner, whilst preserving the fact that academic consensus on the issue is far from neutral. That will be tough, and I expect some Leave leaning editors to find it hard to accept, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda platform.

Amend the sections on Brexit's effects on the EU to take account of creeping bias from sources and a lack of any mention of positive attributes.

A last word on Article 50 reversal

I have read through the talk page on issues regarding reversal. So, I'll respond to a few. The issue of reversal is not a POV, how likely it will be an outcome is. More so, it is usually appropriate to include in the introduction to an instance of a "process" - which this is in its abstract form - whether or not the process can be reversed. It's reversal is regarded by all legal scholars as possible, the only point of speculation is by what criteria, focusing on whether this would be unilateral (just the UK withdrawing notification), or need the European Council to approve via unanimity or QMV. It has also been mentioned at nearly every summit by the most senior leaders of EU institutions and states leaders as a possibility. Quite simply it belongs in the intro, and if I was a layman wishing to find out about Brexit, it is something I'd want to see mentioned there. I respect your views of dissenters on this, but nonetheless, I am very strong supporter of keeping it in the introduction.

EU explained (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

On reversibility - agreed - back in it goes. Euexperttime (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the text about the blocking minority does not belong in the lead. That would give it too much weight. --Boson (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Coming from a German point of view, I find that EUexplained and Boson and many other Brits are being Anglocentric about Brexit. First, it is simply not up to the UK to decide that happens next, whether hard or soft or whatever. Secondly the major effect for the EU is the loss of Germany's political ally (the UK) which regularly upheld liberal economic principles. The loss of Britain's vote will allow France to dominate the agenda from 2019. See for example this commentary just a few minutes ago in the mainstream German press.. In the Brexit Wikipedia article, the section discussing and referencing the blocking minority and the shift in power towards France should therefore be mentioned in the lead. Otherwise you will not understand the German and French negotiating positions over the coming months, regardless of whether you personally are in favour of hard or soft or no Brexit. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the contents of the main text. Reversibility is currently one sentence and is only a theoretical matter, so is not needed in the lead. A simple statement of fact would be more useful in the lead: e.g. 'negotiations are ongoing, so the effects of Brexit on the UK and the EU are, as yet, unknown'. Anything else is just speculation and has the near-certain consequence of turning the page into a blow-by-blow newspaper-style account of what is happening / might be happening. EddieHugh (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Eddie, you have put your paragraph in the wrong place. I am referring to the blocking minority, not to "Reversibility" - that is someone else's discussion. Please shift your paragraph slightly further up where it belongs. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I assure you, with a European politics background, I am not thinking about this from an anglocentric point of view. I take the point quite seriously that Brexit will have an effect on EU institutions and that there will be winners and losers in that process, just like there will be losers and some winners (maybe) in the UK. However, if I was a layman reading the introductory paragraph about Brexit, for a quick glance, the only negative effect on any entity mentioned is that Germany and some Northern states may lose the ability to meet the blocking threshold in the Council. Not only is this a POV, though sourced by research of one or two think tanks, it is a rather parochial concern. If we are going to mention the EU in the intro, why not include research showing that the EU may now find it easier to institutionalise common foreign, security and defence policies - which was what this past European summit this weekend has been doing as the UK has left the room. (As a fun aside from my own background there is quite a lot of research on how states vote in the Council, and as far as I know from the papers I've read, it's incredibly hard to tell what is going on as there is a) a lack of voting data b) even where this is data, European Council etiquette is that dissenting states will tend to vote with the majority once its clear they are going to be outvoted - so we have no accurate record of their intentions). Indeed, why put the Council in the intro, at all, why not mention the other legislature, the EP will lose the bulk of the members of its two largest eurosceptic groupings upon the departure of UK MEPs, possibly making it easier to push integrationist policies? My point is, that if we are going to mention the effects of Brexit upon any entity, then we have far more to cite about the UK's economic prospects, trading and international relations in the aftermath that though may be controversial for some wiki editors, is far more prescient to the subject. EU explained (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of due weight. Subject to consensus, it would probably be appropriate to have a short paragraph in the lead on the expected effects on the economy, politics and institutions of the member states (including the UK) and the EU, providing a balanced summary of a more detailed discussion in the body of the article. It is appropriate to mention the blocking minority in the body of the article, along with all the other expected economic and political effects that are the subject of mainstream debate. It is not appropriate to single out this one element for mention in the lead. --Boson (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

EU Explained: On a personal note, I share to an extent your ideals. Someone should lock the power-hungry politicians into a room until they work out a reformed EU which will please everyone and put an end to Brexit. Surely it cannot be that hard to put something on the table which will make 5 percent of Brits change their minds. Back in the real Wikipedia world, the lead has to report in a balanced manner what the article says. I strongly urge you to write a section (in the main body of the article) about the new direction that the EU seems to be taking, particuarly with regards to defence. But I doubt it will be suitable for citing in the lead if there are no tangible outcomes (e.g. a new treaty on defence, or a new budget on defence, or an EU attack on the Russian forces in the Ukraine etc), see my comment to Eddie immediately below. On the specific point of the European Parliament, I am mindful that it is the Council which holds the main power, and therefore the Council should be prioritised in the lead over the European Parliament.

Boson and Eddie: The challenge for the lead is the sheer volume of information in the Brexit article, forcing us to be selective. The current lead solves this problem, first by focussing on events that have happened (e.g. the 1975 referendum) or on processes that are in force (e.g. the blocking minority threshold of 35%). If we start adding the more speculative elements of the Brexit article into the lead (such as the possible economic effect on the UK, or the possible development of the EU into a military power without the UK), I predict the lead will be repeatedly wrecked with disputes. Let us not go there. Secondly the lead adeptly balances effects on the UK (loss of access to the Common Market etc) with effects on the EU (shift of voting power away from the northern bloc).86.170.123.99 (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing of contents in the lead should not be allowed to give disproportionate weight to some aspects. There may sometimes be exceptional reasons for being selective (as opposed to summarizing), but such exceptional decisions should be made by discussion and consensus, not by edit-warring. --Boson (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

As I understand it, there was a discussion and a consensus to include a sentence on the effects on the EU. From my point of view, it would now require a new discussion and consensus before overruling the old consensus. N'est-ce pas? 86.170.123.99 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Though I see some discussion, I do not see consensus. It was added recently, before a clear consensus was reached, and it appears to have been contentious since then. How do other see it? Is there a consensus to include the text

"The departure of the UK is also expected to shift the balance of power within the EU, with Germany and her northern allies losing their blocking minority in the Council of the EU."

in the lead (without additional information text about the effects on the UK and the EU)?

--Boson (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I propose to change the heading of this section to make it more neutral and more descriptive of the discussion, in line with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines ("Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."), e.g. : : "Should the lead include information on (1) the reversibility of the Article 50 process and (2) the blocking minority in the Council?" --Boson (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a good idea, it has become too convoluted. Instead, please start a new Discussion section using your new headline. Thanks. 86.170.123.99 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That would not solve the problem that the heading of the current section is inappropriate. If we are to have a new section it would be better to have it solely on the issue of your proposed addition about the blocking minority. We would then have two unfinished discussions on the subject, but it might be worth it for the sake of clarity. Let's wait and see what others say. --Boson (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Boson, I have now checked out the question of reversibility - see my addition today. The lawyers agree that it is reversible, while the EU seem to be denying it (a negotiating tactic?). Interesting. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The section on reversibility in this article refers to the main article where this is discussed in more detail. The section in this article should present a short summary of United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union#Reversibility. It should not compete in size with the relevant section of that article, be selective, or develop separately from that article. Additions should be made there – and there is a lot that could be added (or needs updating) in that article.

I think it is overstating the case to say that "lawyers agree that it is reversible", though we should distinguish very clearly between unilateral revocation and negotiated reversal. Apart from potentially selective interpretations of the law by jurists on one side or another, when looking at sources we might also need to look extremely carefully at precisely what they say, bearing in mind the possibility that UK domestic law, EU law, the UK interpretation of international law (and EU law), and the EU interpretation of international law may differ. People briefing the European Commission or the European Parliament may well be describing what they think is true under European law (and bearing in mind the teleological approach taken by the ECJ), while those briefing UK institutions may be influenced by the UK's dualist traditions and the conventions of international law.

--Boson (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

At least with respect to German Supreme Court judge Guido Di Fabio, I think your concerns do not apply. Clearly he is neither rooted in British law nor advising the British government. Most importantly, his argument is that by triggering Article 50, Britain has not even officially declared its exit. Only declared that it will declare an exit in 2 years' time. Here is the relevant passage (let me know if you need any help with the German - I suspect not.): 86.170.122.146 (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeder völkerrechtliche Vertrag, auch seine Kündigung, verpflichtet zur Wahrung des gedeihlichen kooperativen Geistes zwischen den Staaten, die eine Friedensordnung errichten. Deshalb sieht Art. 56 Abs. 2 der Wiener Vertragsrechtskonvention ein vorgeschaltetes Notifizierungsverfahren, eine Art Kündigungsfrist vor. Bevor ein völkerrechtlicher Vertrag, der ohne Kündigungsmodalitäten geschlossen wurde, wirksam gekündigt werden kann, muss 12 Monate vorher die Absicht mitgeteilt werden: Es besteht der Grundsatz der Erhaltung bestehender Verträge und internationaler Organisationen. Es spricht in diesem Licht alles dafür, dass die Erklärung über die Absicht eines Austritts im Unionsrecht noch selbst gar keine Kündigung wäre, sondern jederzeit bis längstens zur Unanwendbarkeit der Verträge widerrufen oder für gegenstandslos erklärt werden kann.

I have no concerns in that respect. I was making the general point that we need to know the context and be very careful when reading statements from politicians and lawyers. In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, for instance, the lawyers for both sides at least appeared to state their belief that the withdrawal notice was irreversible. They very definitely did not "agree that it is reversible" (at least, not publicly). And when reading pronouncements by Udo di Fabio, it may be helpful to remember that Germany seems to share Britain's dualist approach and has to perform similar contortions when accepting the supremacy of European law. My guess is that the European institutions and their research staff will interpret the treaties in terms of their wider purpose (integration, ever closer union etc.). On the question of unilateral revocation, see the briefing by the research unit of the European Parliament, which states

"… the question could be posed as to whether – once a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU, and a withdrawal agreement has been negotiated – it can, depending on the results of the negotiations, unilaterally revoke its notification and suspend the withdrawal procedure. Most commentators argue that this is impossible or at least doubtful, from a legal point of view. [my emphasis] …"

--Boson (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks: interesting nuance (in bold). Looks like they want to keep the option of threatening the UK with a bad deal and hope the UK will then revoke Article 50. That approach can work with historically defeated nations, but not with Russia, Britain etc. The EU would genuinely achieve far more with the British by extending the hand of friendship (see Quebec, see Scotland). Please let them know, if you have the right contacts. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reading the daily wail. The EU (soon to be 27 independent countries that have agreed to work as one on some matters) has no interest whatever in retaining the UK as an unwilling member. Indeed some will be glad to see it go - xref qualified majority voting discussion above. The UK is already doing a very convincing job of blundering off the cliff unaided. (A50 in March, now almost July and still has no realistic idea of what it wants let alone begun serious negotiations). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, this is an article talk page, right? What the EU or UK "should" do isn't up for discussion, much less which is at fault for what, and much, much less how other editors should change their opinions on any of this. Please, let's keep this section on topic: is the article's into NPOV? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that the apparent agreement between Euexperttime and EU explained is unsurprising, as they are sock puppets. Both (really the same thing) have been blocked indefinitely. EddieHugh (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Trump administration (and other third countries) took position on the Brexit split of WTO deals. Might be this article should give some words about it, but in a better English... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC) </ references>

I would add that additional sources are available, for instance:

• «Seven countries led by the US, including Canada, Argentina, Brazil and New Zealand signed a letter to the EU objecting to a plan to split agricultural tariff rate quotas, or TRQs.»^[1]
• «“We cannot accept such an agreement,” the letter stated. The seven countries are displeased that they had not been consulted on the negotiations.»^[1]
• «There is now a general consensus between UK and EU that TRQs should be divided based on historical imports and consumption.»^[1]
• «Mrs May, (...) presented the deal as a breakthrough for a successful Brexit, particularly as US President Donald Trump was an advocate of Britain leaving the EU.»^[1]
• According to the letter, the TRQs are based on global today's trade architecture, and no calculation of Britain’s tariff-rate quotas could be agreed at the WTO without the agreement of the seven.^[1]
• UK plans to ask that “technical rectification” method be used to establish its new agricultural quotas schedule, to secure approval from other WTO members.

The seven disagree on this last point as according to their letter, “The modification of these TRQ access arrangements cannot credibly be achieved through a technical rectification”

or, according to the FT:

• Trumps would like a “beautiful trade deal” with the UK after it leaves the EU, with a hard bargain.^[2].
• This might induce a risk for the UK to accept opening up beforeany deal^[2].
• The discussion will occur in the week of October 16 (agriculture week) in Geneva ^[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

According to Reuters, the plan will be sent to WTO next week.

Three main issues:

1. the division of agricultural import quotas
2. farm subsidy rights
3. for Britain, continued membership of the WTO’s government procurement agreement, which it is not a member of in its own right^[1].

And according to the BBC, “It's also interesting to note which countries have raised the objection in the WTO. They include three that have been identified as leading candidates for free-trade deals with the UK post-Brexit: the US, Canada and New Zealand.”^[2].

According to the National Intelligence Council, «A range of issues pose a serious threat to the future of the EU, including the Brexit process and its fallout elsewhere in Eu rope»^[1].

I wonder if such a threat might be introduced in this wikipedia article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested that this be temporarily semiprotected because of all the recent IP-driven vandalism. Yes, I know what that would do to me as also an IP, but I think I'm done editing this for a while anyway. 103.208.85.43 (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The English voted Leave, not the British as a whole, still less the UK. There should be some coverage of English nationalism in the article as that seems to be the almost unspoken driver. Fergananim (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How "the English" voted is unknown, but we do know how people registered in England voted. As always, though, if you think these things are important and have good sources that say something of value, then add them. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, while I have a few (http://www.ricorso.net/rx/library/criticism/revue/OToole_F/OToole_F20.htm, http://podbay.fm/show/794389685/e/1497610209?autostart=1, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/brexits-irish-question/), they are few in number. Plus I'd like some input and discussion from other editors. Fergananim (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/10/05/english-nationalism-drove-brexit-and-now-supercharges-the-tories-what-about-the-uk/, https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/tory-talk-of-union-hides-soft-underbelly-of-english-nationalism-1.3025164, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/britain-ireland-brexit-leo-varadkar.html?mcubz=0, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-scottish-referendum-english-nationalism-damaged-union-for-good-a7635796.html, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/18/english-nationalism-rising-hard-brexit-not-way-assuage, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/12/election-britain-brexit-english-nationalism-scotland, http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the-problem-with-the-english-england-doesn-t-want-to-be-just-another-member-of-a-team-1-4851882, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-04/brexit-is-an-english-nationalism-thing, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2041905816666124?journalCode=plia, https://www.britac.ac.uk/brexit-and-union, http://pascalobservatory.org/pascalnow/pascal-activities/events/brexit-reframed-english-nationalism-euroscepticism-and-anglospher, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/22/make-england-great-again-brexit-eu-david-cameron/,

http://www.rotaryclubcentralmelbourne.org.au/Speakers/de1fa3b3-47e8-4028-80f9-135349a15e78, http://politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au/events/brexit-reframed-english-nationalism-euroscepticism-and-the-anglosphere

Your proposal makes little sense to me. The Welsh are clearly not English nationalists yet they voted for Brexit. Same is true for Scottish nationalist voters who turned out the highest pro-Brexit vote in Scotland. What we need to cite is a proper survey which explores the reasons for Brexit. I dimly remember that the principal reason for Brexit was immigration concerns (I think this was identified as a major factor by the British Social Attitudes Survey, cited somewhere in a Wikipedia article in the context of how the younger generation voted). My impression is that the "English nationalism" claim is made by commentators such as Fintan OToole who are unhappy with Brexit, due to the scary effects Brexit could have on Ireland if no agreement with the EU is reached, and are thus not unbiased. So I suggest it is better for us to rely on scientific surveys rather than on commentators. I would encourage you to read the BSA and come up with a draft paragraph here on the Talk page for further discussion. 86.170.121.244 (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where BSA might mean British Social Attitudes Survey.

I assume the text to read, is the one which states that «national identity and cultural outlook were significantly associated with vote choice.»^[1].

It is not impossible that Thatcher played quite a key role in setting the mindset for both topics: British exit and British nationalism; extracts of Les années Thatcher en Écosse : l'Union remise en question (Gilles Leydier):

• «la rhétorique anti-bruxelloise mise en avant par M Thatcher au nom de la souveraineté «nationale» été perçue en Écosse comme le rejet d'une solidarité européenne en même temps que l'expression d'un isolationnisme typiquement anglais contraire la tradition continentale notamment pré-unioniste avec l' Auld Alliance, de l’Écosse»
• «M Thatcher a d'ailleurs revendiqué à titre personnel et à plusieurs reprises son identité de «nationaliste anglaise» » — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

There is an erreur in your French. What is "contraire la tradition" supposed to mean? Perhaps "contre la tradition"? Please correct. 86.170.122.241 (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It should read "contraire à". --Boson (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In original version which bing can found, they write as you write: «contraire à»; see http://www.cairn.info/article_p.php?ID_ARTICLE=RFSP_446_1034

I would like to know if you feel that this article is clear enough on the relationship which might exist between Brexit and the ECJ addressing some topics such as:

• any role any British dislike of the ECJ might have had on the process which led to the Brexit decision (notifying article 50).
• any role any British dislike of the ECJ would have on the process of deciding Brexit to be or not to be a no deal
• any plan to manage dispute resolution if any, after Brexit (for instance without the ECJ)

I assume that to understand the dislike of a dispute resolution organization, it makes sense to compare it to another dislike of an other dispute resolution organization. It looks like such other dislike of dispute resolution organization exists in some other places such as for instance:

• dislike of the NAFTA dispute resolution organization, by the administration of Mr Brexit++
• dislike of the WTO dispute resolution organization, by the administration of Mr Brexit++
• dislike of the Spanish constitutional court by some catalans, and by any Brexiters.

I did not read such thing in the wikipedia article. Where can we find references on such comparison? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP 77.193.104.227. I suggest you are confusing the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights. It is the latter (only indirectly an EU institution) which regularly made negative headlines in the British newspapers in the years before the Brexit referendum 2016, protecting suspected Islamic terrorists from deportation etc. There is a useful and balanced article here in The Guardian newspaper. Good luck with your further research. 81.131.171.205 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is another issue concernin if an agreed deal might be subject to ECJ judicial review, causing delay/rendering it invalid etc. Not yet mentionedLessogg (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

( @ User talk:81.131.171.205 ) : No, “One of the most contentious issues in Britain’s exit from the EU is the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) during and after Brexit. This is because Brexit is ultimately a question of sovereign authority. Who decides the rules of the game when things go awry: a UK judge, or their EU counterpart?”and “We are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — that’s not going to happen,” Mrs May said to her party’s·

·

After a few search and some fast reading, it looks like there are some similarities and some disimilarities:

• Some criticism of the WTO DSS are:
  • “law made by a court is not subject to review by the legislature.”
  • “creation of laws that would have never been accepted by the parties in negotiations?”
  • “the extent to which the Members give it (sovereignty) up is actually unknown precisely”
  • “The question of the common law”
  • “over-interpretation contrary to the legal text.”
  • “lack of WTO rules concerning private counsel,”
  • “non-governmental persons who are not bound by any WTO code of ethics to gain access to privileged government trade secrets”^[2].
  • “lack of DSU provisions prescribing qualifications for appeals to the Appellate Body.”^[3]
  • “what extent compliance with the panel and Appellate Body rulings and recommendations can be enforced.”
• Some criticism of NAFTA’s settlement of investor-state investment disputes
  • NAFTA’s Chapter 11: “there is provision for the settlement of investor-state investment disputes (...) it has simply followed the already well-established model for investor-state dispute resolution.”^[4].
  • “host nation’s sovereignty is diminished by affording foreign investors added power in asserting investment claims in binding arbitrations”
  • “Chapter 11 (...) lacks the procedural safeguards to protect common constitutional guarantees.”
  • “unclear definitions in the Article’s text affect the manner in which it is applied”
  • “A permanent tribunal would "develop a consistent jurisprudence" more easily than ad hoc panels.”^[5]
  • “the secrecy of the proceedings”
  • “effectiveness of sanctions in the form of retaliatory measures”
• In regard to post brexit EC, some concerns are:
  • “is there a ‘third judge’”^[6]
  • “how is it decided which side has a majority on the panel?”
  • “the ECJ adopts a flexible approach which allows it to depart from the wording of the EU Treaties or legislation in favour of a teleological, i.e. purposive, interpretation even where the wording of the relevant provision is neither obscure nor ambiguous.”^[7].
  • “the scope of EU law is incrementally expanding”
• For the CCJ :
  • “If the region hopes to benefit from the soon-to-be-FTAA, it must work quickly to remove the jurisdiction that the CCJ currently has as a court of final appeal for the Anglophone Caribbean”^[8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't change the edits themselves, but part of one edit summary was incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, although it doesn't matter if he's published something, has a PhD, etc. This is an encyclopedia article that covers (should cover) the broad range of viewpoints on its subject matter. Removing bits because they don't fit criteria for inclusion in an academic economics journal, or because the author hasn't been given a doctorate in the exact niche that is being described, is going too far. Similarly, rejecting a Capital Economics report because its authors aren't listed or it wasn't peer reviewed is over the top. Lots of organisations don't list authors – are we to exclude them all? And it wasn't peer reviewed – again, there's no reason for this to be essential. The Sampson publication you added is from a journal that isn't refereed: it "attempts to fill part of the gap between refereed economics research journals and the popular press" ... "Articles appearing in the journal are primarily solicited by the editors and associate editors". That's fine, because this isn't an economics symposium in which experts aim to build a consensus on particular forecasts; it's an encyclopedia article for the general reader, who expects to see more than a purely academic perspective presented. EddieHugh (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What we're getting at is one of the common problems on Wikipedia: the conflating of science with random political rhetoric. In 'impact' or 'effects' sections in articles, there should only be high-quality scientific research and/or assessments by actual experts. Political rhetoric belongs in 'the politics of X' sub-sections. The two should never be mixed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

JEP is a prestigious journal of the AEA. Whether it does blind reviews is irrelevant. Statements made in the publication about the state of research on a given topic are authoritative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a report published by Capital Economics is RS, especially when contrasted to research published by actual economists and when CE's findings conflict with those of actual experts. Just read the report, it's not a scientific study in the slightest. It reads like an extended op-ed and just makes random ill-informed claim. And it's authored by who knows? If it's not authored by trade economists, why should it be seen as RS in its declarations on trade? It also appears to have been funded by a euroskeptic hedge fund manager and the organization appears to be run by euroskeptic financial people, but diving in on the background of the organization is besides the point, given that there is nothing presented that should make anything accept CE's statements about the effects of Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a major irony in arguing for presenting only the analysis/opinions of economics experts in an article and on a topic that exists in part because of a referendum in which following exclusively the opinions of said experts was rejected! The CE report was commissioned and then made public by Woodford Investment Management, headed by Neil Woodford, who is one of the UK's best-known and most successful fund (not hedge fund) managers. So, one company makes money (since 1999) selling economic research and the other aims to make money in part by having/making accurate economic forecasts. Neither has any control over economic reality, but, just as with economists in academia, they make forecasts in the hope of being correct. They are all experts, but with different audiences, different reasons for being and different publication/acceptance rituals. Which view on Brexit & the economy we take or accept isn't what we should present in the article; we should present the different opinions/analyses that exist, in proportion, so that the reader is informed, not told what to think. Presenting the views of (economics) experts of different types and opinions is a step towards that. EddieHugh (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, how ironic! Shall we next head over to the 'climate change' article and add some ill-informed nonsense from non-experts and fringe figures? After all, how can there be a consensus among climate scientists on climate change if the US public elected someone who rejects climate change? Everyone is equally right, right? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And no, an op-ed (read the damn report, it's not a study in the slightest) by unknown figures funded by a euroskeptic is not RS. And no, there is nothing to indicate that the goal behind the report is to make the most accurate assessment, because the "report" makes no assessment in any scientific sense (presumably because no actual experts on trade were involved in writing it). The motivations may as well have been to produce whatever outcome that funder wanted or get media coverage for the firm. Who knows? There's no point debating the unknown motivations of the firm, given that the report is not credible, which is the chief reason to dismiss it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans. Your points would have more force if there existed the “high-quality scientific research and/or assessments by actual experts” which you are wishing for. Scientific research of even moderate quality shows that there are no experts in the field of economic forecasting. High quality scientific research on economic forecasts? Are you not aware of the crap record these clowns have? Are you not even aware that the assumptions underlying e.g the Treasury forecasts were tendentious? Have you not seen the apology that IMF produced? Get real. Nearly all the forecasts are produced with political agendas, with the possible exception of some commercial forecasts. So please don’t conflate economic forecasts with science.Gravuritas (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Short-term forecasts ("what will happen months after a referendum?") which you are talking about are not considered credible by most economists. You would know this if you'd actually know anything about the field of economics (or if you could be arsed to actually read the Wikipedia article in question and the sources in it). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

My comments were not restricted to short-term forecasts. Your implication seems to be that longer-term forecasts ‘’are’’ considered ‘credible by most economists’. But, given the predictive record of ‘most economists’, who cares? So, to demonstrate this high quality science and utter credibility, please point to some successful predictions made by experts which were considered credible by most economists when they were made. If, of course, you can be arsed.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right: I can't be arsed to tell some stranger on the internet how science works. I have better things to do with my time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I already know how science works: it works by making successful predictions on the outcome of an experiment, and if it can’t do that, it ain’t science. Your touching faith in ‘experts’ and the oxymoronic ‘scientific economic forecasts’ belongs in the field of theology. Anyone who is really an expert in economic forecasting would be a multi-billionaire after a couple of decades of successful forecasts. Know many of those?

Gravuritas (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Your knowledge of science matches your knowledge of economics - you haven't a clue. Other than to verify another scientist's results, scientists have no interest whatever in doing an experiment where they know what the outcome will be. Please read Scientific method. Likewise, economists have no interest in gambling on the markets - that's not how economics works either. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

From your chosen wikilink: “The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis”. Didn’t read very far, did you? The point about science is that it makes falsifiable predictions, and if the predictions are generally about as accurate as flipping a coin, then it ain’t science. And if an economist’s predictions are as expert and scientific as Snoo believes them to be, it wouldn’t be ‘gambling’ on the markets- it would be picking up their expertly identified, scientifically guaranteed winnings. So, returning to the proper topic, in the field of economic predictions applied to e.g the future economics of the UK post-Brexit, Snoo’s naive search for authority fails because the experts ain’t expert and the science isn’t science.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"If smoking increases the probability of cancer, shouldn't physicians be able to pinpoint the precise date in which a smoker gets cancer? If they can't, then medicine isn't science and we don't know that smoking is truly bad for you." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

False premise. Desperation showing.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone protect this highly volatile page, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E80:4100:A41D:C5C3:EE94:78BD (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of emotive adjectives such as ‘overwhelming’ consensus is generally inappropriate in a WP article. Use of the term for a survey in which 71% felt one way, and 16% were undecided, is even less appropriate. Given that ‘consensus’ can’t be used for a bare majority, I’d suggest that in these circs, you need about two-thirds to even begin to use ‘consensus’. At some point beyond that, ‘strong consensus’ may be appropriate. But ‘overwhelming’ at 71% only suggests that the writer is too easily whelmed.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYER. This is fine. Volunteer Marek  21:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No attempt to justify the word? Poor show. And parroting yet another WP rule does not make your case. Try engaging with a fact or two, or evidence, or something, to justify 'overwhelming'.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

"Overwhelmingly" is in The Guardian article. I find it peculiar, however, that some editors insist on academic sources and content for some things, then seemingly insist on non-academic information from a newspaper for other things, even when an academic source and description is available. Why not just give the percentages (reported in all sources) and then the reader can judge? EddieHugh (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's a very alarmist article, we don't have to repeat every word it uses. Personally I don't have any issues with the sources being used, just the wording. Don't know about other editors. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think simply using the percentages is appropriate here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There's clearly something wrong with having the sentence There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][excessive citations] in the article. I wouldn't describe as supporting "overwhelming", and even is somewhat concerning. 97% of scientists supporting global warming may be overwhelming, I would call 88% merely "a consensus among economists". power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits, deleting a dissenting economic view and using e.g ‘overwhelming’ amount to POV pushing. I suggest you revert them and take a more balanced view. Gravuritas (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is reliably and abundantly sourced. The self-published Capital Economics op-ed is not a RS, as explained before. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans has been asked repeatedly to remove a clear NPOV violation and sourcing problem that he (I'm assuming gender; correct if wrong) introduced to this article. He still hasn't done it. Yet, three weeks after failing to gain consensus to remove accurately sourced and relevant material, he returns and removes it again! I echo Gravuritas' request: please make the changes and restore what there is no consensus for removing. EddieHugh (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That there is overwhelming agreement among economists that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per-capita income is abundantly and reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A self-published op-ed authored by unknown individuals at a firm is not a RS. Was the Capital Economics text "accurately sourced"? Yes. "Relevant"? Yes. Reliably sourced? No. Due weight? No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

We've been through the CE arguments already and you've added nothing new, just repeated your opinion without reference to policy. In summary: you haven't given valid reasons (just opinions) for removing material giving one point of view, and you've added material supporting another point of view (some of it legitimate and it should be included, but some irrelevant, some not in the source, some of your wording ascribes certainty that is unwarranted, and your latest positioning of information in the lead gives undue prominence). This is an obvious pattern of systematically pushing a POV. Your refusal to address obvious errors which you introduced, or to pay any attention to consensus (or a lack of one), also point towards the same conclusion. This is my last request to you to address these POV matters. EddieHugh (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@SnSn again. If you have any economic understanding, re-read your edits- if not, phone a friend. For instance, you want to use a figure from an article which refers to a reduction in real,income due to the pound’s immediate devaluation on the Brexit vote. Devaluation has several effects, on different timescales, and as the article only covers the short-term effect on inflation and ignores all other effects, the appropriate descriptions for it include ‘half-assed’ and ‘propagandistic’, especially as it then calculates an effect on household real incomes, which by ignoring all other effects, is really piss-poor. But you swallow this garbage and seek to regurgitate a morsel of it into the WP article. You also continuein your naive belief that if a majority (whether overwhelming or not) of economists predict something about the future, then the predicted outcome is guaranteed. Look at the record.

Gravuritas (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Volunteer Marek  06:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

This is most certainly NOT a reliable source. Volunteer Marek  06:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide some reasons? There are also other sources that comment on the report published. EddieHugh (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. It's not a source with "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". It's just a fund management company, hence the things they write are likely to be intended to bolster whatever investment advice they give rather than have any basis in... well, facts and accuracy. Just in general, the personal opinions of fund managers are not reliable except for those opinions themselves. It's basically a WP:SPS. I can keep going, but that should be enough. You can always ask at WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek  23:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But it's not self-published. It was written by Capital Economics (which the Treasury includes in its list of economic forecasters for its monthly reports) and published by Neil Woodford's investment company. They are different organisations. Your suggestion that one of the best-known and most successful fund managers in the UK doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking is incongruous. And they don't give investment advice. And Woodford's stance was that his investments have little to do with the trajectory of the UK economy, so would not be much affected by remain or leave prevailing. Everyone, including academics, has their spin and bias; it's a matter of how much it impinges on what they present. Simply noting who the authors and publishers are has been the norm for this article (while applying the usual principles). Here's some third-party coverage of the research (by Citywire). I await more comments, but am likely to reinsert it, with the Citywire ref. EddieHugh (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The report was written by CE for Woodford, so yeah, it's pretty much self published. The background of CE doesn't inspire confidence either. And yes, technically they don't provide investment advice. They still provide analysis which is practically equivalent. They also invest for their clients and pick stocks which creates an obvious conflict of interest with regard to the opinions they publish. And as has been pointed out already, this isn't peer-reviewed stuff.  Volunteer Marek  21:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I mentioned this in an earlier discussion: lots of academic articles are commissioned and "reviewed" by the people who commissioned them. This is the same process that you describe for the CE research. Just as with those (and with books, newspaper articles, etc.), we can be confident that the CE report was read before being published; if it had been regarded as inadequate, it wouldn't have been published. I addressed the COI point above. EddieHugh (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The economic effects sub-section is one of the largest sub-sections in the article: in fact, it's the largest sub-section with the exception of two sub-sections that provide a historical narrative of Brexit. To claim it's "one small, largely speculative, sub-section of the article" is just dishonest. It's just a pathetic attempt by editors who are hostile towards academia to keep academic content from readers. The study on the impact of the referendum is the only study on the actual post-referendum effects. As such, it's notable enough for the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Now you're being abusive. Look at the long list of sections and sub-sections; lots are not in the lead; perhaps a short summary to the effect of 'Brexit topics commonly discussed and analysed include: the nature of the future UK-EU relationship; the UK's post-Brexit economy; the nature of borders with other countries...' could be agreed. No one is keeping academic content from readers: you added it; it's still there; no one has removed it. I haven't checked any of it yet, although I note that the original source of the inflation study was internally published by the LSE (but it's still worth including). EddieHugh (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize the content of the body. No, that doesn't mean we list the names of sub-sections (that's what the table of contents is for). If you want to summarize more sub-sections, we could do: "There is overwhelming agreement among economists and a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to reduce UK's real per-capita income. Research on effects that have already materialized since the referendum show that the rise in inflation (as a result of the referendum results) amount to annual losses of £404 for the average British household. Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from EEA countries to the UK, and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research. The future of Scottish secession, Britain's international agreements, relations with the Republic of Ireland, and the borders with France and between Gibraltar and Spain are uncertain. The precise impact on the UK depends on a "hard" Brexit (whereby the UK leaves the EU and does not join EFTA or the EEA) or a "soft" Brexit (whereby the UK joins EFTA, the EEA or enters into a special agreement with the EU that retains significant access to the Single Market)". There's no excuse for not summarizing the largest non-history sub-section in the article (note that the history sub-sections are already summarized in the lede). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a list, with lots of detail on one part. What about something like: The nature of trading relationships, effects on the UK and EU economies, the future of Scottish secession, Britain's international agreements, relations with the Republic of Ireland, and the borders with France and between Gibraltar and Spain are commonly discussed and analysed but remain uncertain. EddieHugh (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) That's not consistent with the body of the text. There is overwhelming agreement on what the effect on the UK economy is and the lede should reflect that. This "commonly discussed and analysed but remain uncertain" is just bullshit when it comes to the economic impact. (2) The economic impact sub-section is the largest, so it should obviously be given more text in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's uncertain – they're forecasts. The effects remain uncertain, even if economists come up with similar forecasts. As with the other matters – borders, trade agreements, immigration, etc., etc. – we'll find out in due course and be able to reduce the speculation/forecasting. Lots of things are getting at least as much attention in sources (the actual "relative emphasis" criterion) as economic forecasts – 'divorce bill', in or out of court systems, Irish border, etc. – and lots more will come (particularly a trade deal, if it gets that far), so a simple summary statement is more representative and neutral. EddieHugh (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to you going to the 'climate change' article, removing the language on a consensus among climate scientists and changing the language to "the future of the climate is commonly discussed and analysed but remains uncertain". After all, expert forecasts of what will happen under conditions XYZ are just a silly debate and the guy who predicts an annual -10 °C cooling is just as right as the consensus of climate scientists, right? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add that the other things (you suddenly now want to list those in the lede) are "uncertain", go ahead and add those. Just don't distort the content of the economic impact subsection to misrepresent the overwhelming agreement among economists about what will likely happen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of the stuff Snsn is defending consists of predictions. That’s speculative automatically. And the predictive record in economics of anybody, including that of ‘overwhelming majorities’ whenthey emerge, is poor. So highly speculative is justified. And I’ll take the ‘hostile to academia’ as a barb in my direction, caused by his/her lack of understanding of academia’s position in world economics. I’ll explain the error. If you have a megabrain and wish to spend your life learning & communicating about the Akkadians, you do it in academia because no-one else will pay for it. If you have a similar sized brain and wish to work in economics, a number of very well-funded organisations, including governments and corporations, will pay you to do so. So SnSn’s fetishistic worship of academia as the sole source of information is, in the field of economics, unwarranted. And- a challenge for the n’th time- if he wishes to worship at the feet of some economist or group of them, for their insights on future econ9mic effects then there is no reason for WP to join him unless he produces evidence that the economic predictions of this group correlate well with the outcomes. Gravuritas (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a big difference between WP editors' own predictions (which falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL) and reporting properly the recorded analyses made by WP:reliable sources. Gove may not value the analyis of experts but Wikipedia does and they should be recorded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas, thanks for sharing your opinions. Now read WP:OR and WP:NOTAFORUM. Also WP:NPA Volunteer Marek  23:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Which bit is OR? It doesn't matter, though, because this is just the talk page. The Short-term economic analyses section of the article is now dominated by a defence of economics, which would be appropriate over at Economic forecasting, but is given too much attention on this one: it's (supposed to be) about Brexit, not problems with economic forecasting. A trim is in order. EddieHugh (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your entire comment at 12:21, 22 November 2017. WP:NOTAFORUM applies to talk pages. Regardless, since you're making disruptive edits to the article based on the OR-rants you're posting to the talk page, yes, it does matter. Volunteer Marek  21:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to Volunteer Marek and John Maynard Friedman. There is a persistent and biased belief that there are experts in this field; that these experts are clustered in academia; and that their expertise constitutes WP:RS. Unfortunately, as ‘this field’ is economic forecasting, none of 5he above is true. Despite my repeated requests, no-one has supported the claim to expertise of these so-called WP:RS sources with any reference to a successful record of forecasts in the past. And it is revealing that the only time I’ve ever seen short-term effects put second after long-term effects is in this article now. Presumably somebody wanted to minimise the facts that the clowns provably got the short-term forecasts wrong. As the article stands, and despite some good edits reducing the amount of nonsense in it, the article is POV- pushing. It’s notable that the only means by which they are trying to demonstrate economic damage is via reduced real earnings via inflation due to devaluation, and none of them predicted that. The fact that most academic economists are expressing this POV does not mean that WP needs to follow them down that rabbit-hole.

So yes, I have a POV- that economic forecasts are generally rubbish; that economic forecasts made by a majority, or even an overwhelming majority, of economists, are equally rubbish; and that stuffing this article with only the prevailing academic forecasts because it accords with some editor’s world view is unbalanced. Bringing an undue respect for academia, which is appropriate in many other circumstances and fields, into economic forecasting, is plain daft. Can you all not see that?

Gravuritas (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't really care what your opinion of economics or economists is. Academic research is considered reliable on Wikipedia. Indeed, it is generally seen as the "reliablest of the reliable". On the other hand, talk page rantings by random Wikipedia editors are not. Please stop it with the WP:SOAPBOXing. There's plenty of other forums out there on the internets for that kind of stuff. Volunteer Marek  21:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I see it. While academic perspectives should be included, the balance of academic sources versus others has been lost in the economy section of the article. The robustness of academic claims is also exaggerated. And there is an out-of-place broad defence of economists (will there also be a Gravuritas-inspired attack on forecasters' widely-reported incompetence? I don't advocate it, as that too is not for the Brexit article). So: reduce the 'Academic X, professor of Y at Uni of Z, says...' stuff; include other perspectives; describe and qualify appropriately (e.g. "88% in one survey", "indicates", "suggests"... instead of "near-unanimous", "are", "shows"...); and get rid of most of the stuff that is academics/economists defending academic/economic forecasting. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines which talks about some need to "balance" academic sources with non-academic sources. Given that this is suppose to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid op ed page, that'd be sort of ridiculous. We only include "other perspectives" (sic) to the extent they're based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek  21:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

We're arguing for the same thing. There's nothing in policy that requires something to be academic or gives any privilege to academic sources. Nothing from tabloids has been added to the economy section. But cutting sources without good reason and pushing a POV is definitely against policy. We need to allow some balance. EddieHugh (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

"There's nothing in policy that requires something to be academic or gives any privilege to academic sources." - I did't say "requires". But reliable source policy does privilege academic sources: [If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources]. Volunteer Marek  22:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't privilege academic sources; it observes that academic (and other peer-reviewed) things are "usually the most reliable". That's not the same as prioritising them. EddieHugh (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? You gonna try to Wikilawyer this too? Look, it says right there "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". You can try to pretend it doesn't, but... it does. Volunteer Marek  22:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what post from Capital Economics is supposed to be relevant, and can't find it on this talk page or the recent edit history. The Citywire link is a pre-Brexit argument to vote leave, and generally discounts economic arguments entirely; I wouldn't call it an economic argument at all. I don't see any other references suggested by EddieHugh, please tell me if I have missed one. Overall, I think the suggestion to reduce the 'Academic X, professor of Y at Uni of Z, says...' stuff; include other perspectives is infeasible and this discussion can come to an end. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That's an unjustified conclusion. Citywire at no point presents a leave argument, nor does the CE report. The bit you highlight – the economy is/was unlikely to be affected by Brexit or non-Brexit – is the very point that needs to be included in this article! It doesn't discount economic arguments; it presents the argument that (non-)Brexit would not make much difference to the economy. Surely that's an important perspective. (You may have been led astray by the self-published claims above; the report was not published by CE; it's here, not on the CE site.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Other sources that present a different perspective (either on the CE report or discussing others): Business Insider, CNBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Forbes, Independent. Do you want none of these perspectives in the article? EddieHugh (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra links. Some of them are mostly focused on a political argument rather than economics specifically; I'll keep them in mind when proposing any specific wording for that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Could we pause the major reverting of the economics section and discuss changes? Tags are being deleted, valid concerns removed, edits being made without adequate summaries.... I suggest starting with the first sentence/paragraph and working down. EddieHugh (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not. I've added a NPOV tag to highlight the problems that have been reintroduced following the latest revert. There may be problems with the previous version, too, but reverting without discussion doesn't help. Please discuss... EddieHugh (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this attempt to calm things. I would be happy to,slow things down and take edits/ proposed edits one at a time. Can we start with a simple one? For both the immigration and the economic effects sections, the sub-sections cover long-term effects first, and short-term second. This seems both illogical and contrary to normal usage. Does anyone object to short-term going before long-term, and if so, why?

Gravuritas (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The long term effects are covered first because 1) these are more substantial and 2) it's actually easier to make long term predictions than short term ones. Volunteer Marek  03:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Confusion between predictions and outcomes is making a mess of both the article and your response above. Short-term outcomes are becoming known: that’s more important than speculation/ prediction of the future. Provided the article follows the obvious timeline of short-term preceding long-term, then outcomes can progressively be introduced as they become known, and predictions can be correspondingly relegated to minor mentions as to their accuracy. The most important thing determin8ng the structure of the article, particularly one of this length, is ease of reading and understanding, I would suggest, and time reversals militate against ease of understanding.

Gravuritas (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is an "obvious timeline"; in fact the timeline may be that the long-term predictions were issued before Brexit, while the short-term results are largely based on economic data from after the Brexit vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

What do we know first: short-term or long-term? The very short-term effects/outcomes are known or very soon to be known. Predictions were made for 2016 and 2017. Sequencing based on chronology of effects/outcomes is helpful to the reader, for the simple reason that these, not the predictions or how easy it is to make them, are of main interest and relevance. The length of each sub-section doesn't matter when there's a chronology. EddieHugh (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need two separate sections for "short-term" and "long-term" at all. They are ill-defined terms to begin with, particularly given that the process of Brexit has barely actually begun. We should combine them into one section on predicted economic impacts. But if there is insistence in this somewhat arbitrary split, the most important effects will be those in the long term — because those are the effects which will have the largest and longest lasting impact. Writing from an encyclopedic perspective looking back, what has happened in the last year is relatively unimportant compared to what will happen over the next 25 years. It's hard to say that Brexit has done anything when it hasn't actually happened yet in any meaningful economic sense because Britain is still part of the EU (trade regulations still the same, transnational workers still in place, etc.) As the cited sources discuss, such short-term predictions relied entirely on attempting to predict market and consumer behavioral reactions to increased future uncertainty, which is not the same as attempting to predict the economic results of X million fewer workers in the UK or Y trade barriers erected between the UK and EU when and if Brexit actually becomes reality in a day-to-day legal and economic sense. tl;dr: Focusing on so-called "short-term economic predictions" is misguided because the key economic impact of Brexit won't happen for another 15 months. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

One aspect that there appears to be confusion about is between the effects of the Brexit vote and of Brexit (which hasn't happened) itself. The stuff about the short term in there right now is just about the effects of the vote, not of Brexit. Volunteer Marek  15:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Economics and Brexit will be important, but not that much can be said about them right now, since economics is as much art as science. Adding "overwhelming evidence" and such throughout really does seem pushing POVs, as does separating long and short term to get the "correct" message out, and then by ordering them for "importance". I suggest turning the section into a typical WP "opinions on good and bad stuff" point-counterpoint prose, specifically trying to avoid any hint of promoting anything. (And maybe reduce the whole section by 50% or more; details on opinions aren't generally noteworthy.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

One more time. Your personal opinions about economics as a discipline are completely, utterly, and wholly IRRELEVANT to this article. All that matters if the sources are considered reliable, and they are. Volunteer Marek  15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of combining the two sub-sections in Economics, especially as the separation is recent anyway (and I support the other things A D Monroe III proposes). EddieHugh (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't ignore Wikipedia policy just because you feel like it. Volunteer Marek  15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What policy? I started this section to try to gain Wikipedia:Consensus (a policy). Shouting at people that their opinions are irrelevant doesn't aid that. There's a lot more than 'is something a reliable source' to consider, as others (dare I say a consensus?) have pointed out. EddieHugh (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:RS. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with ADM& EH on combining and shortening. Disagree with VM: sources being WP:RS is a necessary condition for inclusion, but is not a sufficient condition. Articles would clearly be unreadable if all RS were included: editing must include a selection process, and, for instance not give undue weight. Considerable chunks of the economics section should be pruned. Like EH, I am puzzled by VM’s reference to an (unstated) WP policy.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first, this seems to be a proposal to remove under the pretext of "combining". Second, if there are RS you wish to include please let us know. Third, the sufficient condition for inclusion also isn't "does Gravuritas like it". Fourth, there's no undue weight here as the economic questions are central to analysis of Brexit. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Who is presenting OR? Giving an opinion on the talk page is not OR. And what exactly about RS is being ignored? The two things – combine sections and trim – are separate; there's no pretext; just an argument being presented for each. No one (I think) is arguing that economic matters should be removed or downplayed, but there are legitimate concerns over structure, quantity, wording and relevance in some parts. These have now been expressed by several editors and need to be addressed. EddieHugh (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The nature of these "concerns" has been pretty much "I don't like what economists have said about this topic". That's too bad and that's not a "legitimate concern". Volunteer Marek  20:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

We've moved on (all of us, I hope) from the 'I don't like it' line. There is a consensus to combine the two parts. Again: several editors have expressed concern that the economics section is too long, has problems with wording (especially over-stating certainty) and has problems with the relevance of some of the contents. These are specific, unaddressed problems and none is 'I don't like it'. EddieHugh (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There really is no such consensus. How about you make a proposal as to HOW you wish to combine the two sections and then we can actually discuss something concrete. Volunteer Marek  02:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not difficult: back to the same structure that existed before the contentious changes and split. I think this was the last point before the change. It was only a week ago. EddieHugh (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this section, based on a story in The Independent really relevant? Isn't this debate more or less covered by the immigration section? It was presented as if it was a "scientific" view and turns out the story actually comes from some dodgy pseudo-scientific psychology department in London ( <WP:BLP violations removed>). Very hippie-dippie Green Party stuff). Not exactly hard science. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's great you feel that way. But it doesn't have to be "hard science" to be a reliable source. You can always ask at WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek  13:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it is undue weight for a minor study.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it relevant (the first question to consider, before 'is it a RS?')? Not to this article. Some interpretation of the referendum result is relevant, because it's been taken into consideration in the subsequent UK negotiation positions (e.g. control of immigration is taken to be important). But a psychological analysis of voters is not relevant to the Brexit article. The IP's two other insertions (on lorries queueing and on the WTO) don't have relevance or context established either, so can safely be removed.

(As an aside, the article appeared because someone paid the 'academic journal' to publish it. See how much they charge. I make it US$2490.) EddieHugh (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What? Of course the reasons why people voted for Brexit are relevant to this article? WTH?  Volunteer Marek  15:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that some interpretation of reasons is relevant, but that psychological analysis is not (e.g. it has little or no effect on anything). If you think that including an attempted psychoanalysis is relevant to the article named Brexit, then explain why. EddieHugh (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not?  Volunteer Marek  05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Try WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So: why include it? EddieHugh (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't justify WP:ONUS. Anyone can come to the talk page and obstruct and then claim "no consensus". But unless you give policy based reasons (not meta-policy, like ONUS) for exclusion, then your comments and objections are irrelevant towards forming consensus. Volunteer Marek  14:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not relevant. This article is about Brexit, which is the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the process of that happening. A psychoanalysis of voters in the referendum might be relevant at the referendum article, but it's not relevant to this one. Claíomh Solais did make this point in the very first sentence. And a policy has been given, as you requested! (What is a "meta-policy"? Onus is part of Verifiability, which is a "policy"). EddieHugh (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first this is not "a psychoanalysis of voters" so stop misrepresenting the source or portraying it falsely. It's a fairly standard analysis of voter behavior that is quite common in social sciences. Please stop pretending it's something weird (or as the guy above claimed "hippie-dippie"). It's not. Second Frontiers in Psychology is a regular peer-reviewed journal with, afaict, a good impact factor. Finally, it's completely false to say that "someone paid the 'academic journal' to publish it". That comment just betrays a total and complete ignorance about how the publication process works. You submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal, you pay a submission fee which covers the costs for the journal. You also have the option of making your article, if published "open access" - meaning anyone can download it. For a fee. That's not "paying someone to publish it". It's pretty standard for almost ALL published work.

I'm still trying to decide whether these comments are motivated by dishonesty (the BLP violations and name calling aimed at the author) or ignorance (this "paid to publish" comment, the false portrayal of the study as "psychoanalysis"), or both. As Wittgeinstein said, if you don't know what you're talking about then you shouldn't open your mouth. Volunteer Marek  17:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue (relevance). EddieHugh (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard to address "the issue" when so far all that's been presented is a completely false picture of the source. Volunteer Marek  18:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Snoogansnoogans. Not for the first time, you have accused me of a ‘gripe against academia’ or equivalent, in two edit comments, and further claimed that this is the reason for my edits, ignoring the reasons that I stated. By contrast, what I have actually said with regard to academia and Brexit is: 1. Economic talent is not confined to academia 2. Academic economic forecasts, like most economic forecasts, are poor. So please desist from these personal attacks, read the reason I have given for an edit, and assume good faith. I am not the only editor who believes that the section has shortcomings. Gravuritas (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Snoogansnoogans. You’ve just reverted my edit with a description of ‘bizarre weasel attempt’. Why so insulting? The subsection was headed ‘Long-term economic analyses’ in the ‘economic effects’ section. I deleted ‘economic analyses’ and stated the reason- these are not analyses, they are self-described as surveys. What do you know, that the authors do not, that allows you to call these surveys, analyses?

Gravuritas (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where you get "surveys" from, but these are actually part of the series, described as "Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists". Volunteer Marek  02:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your quote is regarding the publication, not the individual article, so it provides no support for distinguishing between analysis and commentary, or just any other thing the publication finds interesting. The second source in that section is called ‘Brexit survey’. The third is Brexit survey 2. The fifth source is an article about a poll. That’s a synonym for a survey. Etc. The surveys have it.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to this or to something else?  Volunteer Marek  05:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You cherry picked two or three sources out of a dozen to justify your unjustified change in wording. Sorry, no. Volunteer Marek  05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No: I don’t need to cherrypick- I am not trying to label the whole subsection as surveys, I’m arguing that ‘analyses’ is not appropriate. I’ve demonstrated above that a number of the cites are surveys, not analyses. In order to justify the current heading, you need to show that a sufficiently large number of the cites are indeed analysis. So which cites are you claiming to be such?

Gravuritas (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This is straight up WP:WEASEL. The series is described as analysis. A survey CAN BE an analysis. A few - not even a majority - of the relevant pieces use the word "survey". So what?  Volunteer Marek  14:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it’s weasel to describe these as analyses. Which ‘series’ is described as analysis? Do you mean the byline of the publication from which a few of the cites are made? Of their many articles, how are you selecting which are analysis and which, commentary? Without a detailed cite for ‘analysis’ applying to a significant number of these cites, then it’s WP:OR.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, this is dumb. What's the difference between a "survey" and a "analysis"? If anything this source is a "survey of analysis...es.s", whatever. "Analysis" is a perfectly accurate description of the source. Volunteer Marek  17:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is dumb, but not on my part. Try a dictionary for the difference between analysis and a a survey. My proposed edit was to change , under ‘economic effects’, ‘Long term economic analyses’ to ‘Long term’. The shorter title avoids the spurious description of ‘analysis’ which in this context is a weasel term trying to convey extra authority to the cites. And academic stuff not described as analysis should not be reported as such in WP, as you no doubt know. I don’t know for what reason you and your companion in arms are opposed to the change, but please stop throwing accusations around and stop ducking questions. Start from ‘Which series is described as analysis?’

Gravuritas (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

All of them. As already pointed out above. Volunteer Marek  18:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So that’s a fail then. No detail, no quote, no page or para references, and the reason for rejection of this blanket assertion has already been given. You’re not trying very hard to engage substantively with this discussion, are you?

Gravuritas (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm just not interested in playing your little games. It's already been pointed out that the collection of sources here comes under an explicit heading "analysis". There's several studies in the paragraph which are obviously "analysis" not "surveys". You're insisting that every single source being used in the section must scream to the world "we are an Analysis, not a Survey" or you get to do what you want. That's not how this works. Enough. Volunteer Marek  20:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence is a misquote, unlikely to be accidental. Your quotation earlier referred to “....analysis and commentary...”, not an ‘explicit heading “analysis” ‘. Third sentence: which studies are you claiming are analyses, to justify the overall heading that you are defending? As mentioned above, if they don’t claim to an analysis then it’s your OR to claim that they are. 4th sentence: a straw man, miles away from what I’ve actually said. It’s hard to believe that this concatenation can be generated honestly.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, a study doesn't have to proclaim "I am THA ANALYSISSSSSS!!!!" for it to be analysis. This is a waste of time. Volunteer Marek  22:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So, no acknowledgement of your misquote; no identification of which studies you claim to be analysis; no apology for your strawman distortion of my views. Just an upper case shout. No substance, again. Please address the points.

Looking at the number of fights raging across this talk page in which you are involved, with a large number of your comments in these other disagreements also imho displaying non-engagement with the salient points, please consider whether you might be engaged in non- constructive editing. Can’t you just kick the dog instead of us?

Gravuritas (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Snoogans once again. A repetition of your false accusation “Gravuritas has made his hostility towards academia and economics clear in the discussions above.” Please withdraw it. Gravuritas (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In the third paragraph and indeed the "impact on the United Kingdom" section, Scottish secession is probably too high up the list and the issue of the nominal border with the Irish Free State too low down. The Scots bottled it when they had an opportunity to vote for independence in 2014 and since that time the SNP has actually lost ground massively (they dropped 21 seats in the UK elections this year to unionist parties; this may be because Sturgeon's personality is less charismatic than Alex Salmond, but still it occurred). The Scottish thing is realistically a non-issue, while the Irish border has proven to be far more weighty and problematic during the Brexit process. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The border with Ireland has become more prominent/important. When the article settles down, we could look at restructuring some bits: the Ireland bit isn't really just "Impact on the United Kingdom", so "UK-international borders" or something fuller could be a better section to put the Ireland, France and Gibraltar sub-sections into (I suppose that Scotland could stay in the Impact section, as that's UK-internal). Other suggestions are welcome. EddieHugh (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ireland is much less important than Germany and France, or Spain, Italy and Poland. Before we mention Ireland at all, we should at least have a brief statement from the German, Polish, French etc perspectives. The German position is they want to prevent the EU from slipping through their fingers, the French position is they want the London banking business, the Polish position is they want protection against the Russkis, the Irish position is they want to hang on to their successful low-tax-regime, and the Brussels leaders want to expand their control and uphold migration in a desire to become a European USA, etc etc. Instead of explaining this, all we get is British navel-gazing in the Wikipedia article. But I have news for you: Germany, not Britain, is writing the rulebook. 95.121.128.107 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly obvious to any neutral observer that certain users should outright stop contributing to this article. User:95.121.128.107 for example has given a ludicrous assessment of EU politics that boils down to crude, reductionist, and frankly hilarious assessments of EU member states' motives and is trying to justify his editorial preferences on this. Elsewhere on this talk page we have users attempting to argue for academic consensus, in some cases quite significant consensus, on economic arguments, for example, to be given equal weighting with sceptics. It has become clear that this article has become a rallying cry for eurosceptics or if we are to use the pejorative, Europhobes, but I'm surprised that editors like User:EddieHugh are not intervening against these. 129.67.116.130 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to discourage reverting and encourage discussion. Part of that involves me minimising reverting and inviting further discussion. Greater coverage of what Brexit means for other countries is a good idea, although I wouldn't word it in the way 95.121... did. Contributing to the article is different from contributing to the talk page, and constructive changes to either are welcome, but especially to the talk page at the moment. EddieHugh (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Righty-ho. Ireland is in the Franco-German firing-line for its low corporate taxes, and Dublin could have become a dangerous competitor for Paris with regards to banks relocating from London (Dublin being English-speaking, closer timezone to NY, and susceptible to economic pressure from the UK). Hence Irish "concerns" on the border are right now being politely pushed aside by the UK and the EU26 and trade talks will go ahead regardless in December (also because everyone else has lost patience with the sluggish formation of a functioning German coalition). See the Coveney interview on the BBC today. And that is what needs improving in the EU: small fry like Ireland must have the same weight as the bigger fish, otherwise the EU is in danger of disintegrating. 95.121.128.107 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)