Talk:Brexit/Archive 8

It looks like MPs might vote on the 8 options:

• La motion B dispose que le Royaume-Uni quittera l'Union européenne sans accord le 12 avril prochain, conformément au calendrier fixé la semaine dernière par les dirigeants européens.
• La motion D propose elle un accord dit de "marché commun 2.0" avec adhésion au marché unique européen et arrangement douanier.
• La motion H suggère que le Royaume-Uni reste membre de l'Espace économique européen (EEE) et se joigne à l'Accord européen de libre-échange.
• La motion J propose que l'accord de Brexit intègre un engagement à négocier avec l'UE une union douanière permanente et globale portant sur tout le Royaume-Uni.
• La motion K reprend le plan du Parti travailliste, avec union douanière et alignement étroit sur le marché unique.
• La motion L appelle à une révocation de l'Article 50 (dont le déclenchement a lancé formellement les négociations sur les modalités du divorce) si le Parlement ne consent pas à un Brexit sans accord, et donc une annulation du Brexit.
• La motion M demande un référendum de confirmation de tout accord de divorce.
• La motion O suggère que le Royaume-Uni chercher un "managed No-deal" (un Brexit sans accord 'géré') s'il n'est pas possible de trouver un accord de divorce^[1].

Those 8 options should appear on the "Read" page, with the number of MPs who voted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.83 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You can already with it here: Meaningful_vote#Indicative_votes_(27_March_2019) Emass100 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Could we please have those translated into english? GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Google Translate renders them as follows:

• Motion B states that the UK will leave the European Union without an agreement on April 12, according to the timetable set last week by European leaders.
• Motion D proposes a so-called "common market 2.0" agreement with accession to the European single market and customs arrangement.
• Motion H suggests that the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) and join the European Free Trade Agreement.
• Motion J proposes that the Brexit agreement include an undertaking to negotiate with the EU a permanent and comprehensive customs union covering the entire United Kingdom.
• Motion K takes up the Labor Party's plan, with customs union and close alignment on the single market.
• Motion L calls for a revocation of Article 50 (the triggering of which formally initiated the negotiations on the terms of the divorce) if Parliament does not consent to a Brexit without agreement, and therefore a cancellation of Brexit.
• Motion M asks for a confirmation referendum of any divorce agreement.
• Motion O suggests that the UK seek a "managed no-deal" (Brexit without a "managed" agreement) if it is not possible to find a divorce agreement

As I recall without rechecking, that translation source is not acceptable for Wikipedia content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Can people stop reverting my edit when clearly I've replaced a image of a timeline where Brexit was set to happen March 29th (which it didn't) with a new timeline of Brexit happening April 12th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfodudeUK (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Taking into note the NPOV tag put on this article, I note that at current, the derogatory term "Remoaner" is included as a definition in the article in the terminology section, under "Remainer", yet the derogratory term, "Brextremist" is not. I propose, and would find it hard that the request could be denied given both a multitude of Reliable Sources demonstrating its wide usage and the former's inclusion, that Brextremist is hence included, and the definition for Leavers now read's as follows, also using the anchor "Leaver", which is far more common than "Brexiter":

Leaver

Those supporting Brexit are sometimes referred to as "Leavers".^[1][2] Alternatively the term "Brexiteers",^[3][4] or "Brexiters" has been used by some media outlets.^[5] Likewise, the pejorative term "Brexremist", a portmanteau of "Brexiter" and "Extremist" has been used by some outlets to describe Leavers of an overzealous, uncompromising disposition.^[6][7][8] 62.99.53.95 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support – If the derogatory term for Remainer is the article, the widely used derogatory term for Leavers should be in the article too. As the above user making the edit request has demonstrated, it is widely sourced and in use. Inclusion of the term "Brextremist" is also timely given its definition applies to those supporters of Brexit who have adopted a puritanical resolve, now, ironically preventing the delivery of Brexit. This protected edit request was made two weeks ago, there is no good reason for its lack of inclusion. 91.192.2.168 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Done, in line with consensus Railhis (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone has absurdly put a note saying 'add information to correct the article' when of course, it's locked by its owners. This paragraph is biased: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing , [8][9][10] while pro-Europeanists , who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership." The correct term(s) are things like 'remain supporters/remainers and 'leave supporters/Brexit supporters/Brexiters/Brexiteers'. These are the sort of terms used by everybody, politicians, media, etc. Brexiters are pro-European and are not eurosceptic.86.187.169.128 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect; "pro-European" has long been the descriptor in academic litereature and common parlance for those who support European intergration, as can bee seen by navigating to the relevant wikipedia page. This wikipedia article is not a place for you to push "Leave" campaign slogans like "Love Europe, not EU." It's extremely transparent. Stop. 91.192.2.168 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed two tabloid sources (The Sun and the Daily Express) that had been used to support a description of the word "Remoaner". I added two reliable sources instead - an academic book by a university lecturer and two linguistics professors, and an Open University article - and I adjusted the text, as per those sources, so that it actually defined the term remoaner, rather than just saying who used it. The text was reverted by Railhis to again use The Sun as a source, with the definition of remoaner removed, and replaced by just a description of who uses the term ('sourced' to The Sun). The Sun is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and the article as edited by Railhis no longer defines the term remoaner - it just says it is derogatory, and used by "pro-Brexit media outlets". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that version of accounts is even close to accurate. You ammended the definition of remoaner to read "Remainers who moan about the referendum result". I reverted it to its previous definition believing that the way you defined it was not in line with WP:NPOV. Richard Keatinge came up with a compromise solution: The derogatory term"Remoaner" (a blend of "remainer" and "moan") is sometimes used by Brexiters to describe adherents of the Remain campaign. I have accepted that.

Seperately, and again misportrayed by you in your talk page comment, and obvious from my edits and description of them on the main page, I also KEPT your academic sources, whilst also using the Sun source as an example of a "pro-Brexit media outlet", as was given in the definition. Whilst the Sun is not an RS, it is an RS of what appears in the Sun, and the Sun is one of the biggest pro-Brexit media outlets. However, I have provided an official Oxford dictionary defintion instead. So all is good. Railhis (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Prior to my edit there was no definition of remoaner - it just said it was derogatory and used by pro-Brexit media outlets. If you read the excerpt from the book by the linguistics professors (here), you will read that it defines remoan as "to remain in a mindset of moaning [about the outcome of the referendum]". This is the basis of the text I used to define the term. This is nothing to do with NPOV. It is a definition by a reliable source. There is no "compromise" between a Sun-supported non-definition and an academic definition by people who specialise in analysis of language. And please read my comment above more carefully before saying I misrepresent you - I said that you reverted the text, which you did. You reverted the text but kept the sources - what's the use of that? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Reading through other talk page comments indicates that the overly aggressive manner in which you write is not an isolated issue on this topic. I suggest you stepping back. The definition of "Remoaner" was evident from the previous description would stood on the article for at least 1 year,which indicated it was portmanteau of "moaner" and "Remainer". However, as state previously I have accepted Richard Keatinge's compromise definition. Why can't you?

On the separate issue of The Sun, I have also accepted its removal, but stated that there was a case for its inclusion of the newspaper as an example of "pro-Brexit media" coverage utilising the definition. I did not take the definition from The Sun. I have however, now included a definition from one of the official Oxford dictionaries, published and overseen by the Oxford University Press (OUP), which defines "remoaner" as "a name given to a person who believes that the UK should remain in the European Union and does not support Brexit." If that's good enough for the OUP, it's good enough for me. Railhis (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The definition that you have provided is less precise, and ignores the source by the linguistics professors. Remoaner is generally applied not to all Remainers, but those who do not accept the referendum result. And if you have a complaint about my comments here ("the overly aggressive manner in which you write"), either raise the issue at a suitable noticeboard, or refrain from instructing me how I should conduct myself. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

definition of Brextard (do all words deserve to be lexicographically accepted?)

• https://www.google.com/search?q=Brextard (derogatory slang for wikt: Brexiteer, usually used by Remainers [aka Remaintards] - etymology: Blend of Brexit + -tard [< retarded]).

Remain + -tard (prefix + suffix not a blend)

1. REDIRECT Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom

use that code above, it works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:D800:F438:E7DC:ABB6:BA1 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

redirect created and points to Brexit until such time as the article is split out. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British from the European Union. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I propose that sections Domestic impact on the United Kingdom and Impact of Brexit on bilateral UK relations be split into a separate page called Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom. The current page seems WP:TOOBIG and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Emass100 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Surprised that this has not come up on the talk page before, evidently. Shouldn't there be a definition of Lexit in the "Terminology and etymology" section? I'm speaking as an American with an outside (but avidly interested) perspective on UK politics but, even from across the pond, it seems like the term has currency in the Brexit discourse and would be worth defining. It follows from the phrase in the lead: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing". The page Lexit currently redirects to Withdrawal from the European Union, which leads me to suspect the term "Lexit" may be used in national contexts beyond the UK (after all, any EU nation could in theory have a "left exit" of its own); nevertheless, it seems worth defining in the UK context on this page. Thoughts? —BLZ · talk 06:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

For my own part, I have never heard this word in British reporting about Brexit. — JFG ^talk 06:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Searching for "Lexit" on the Guardian's site (Lexit site:www.theguardian.com) brings up 322 results. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that a lot or a little?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

new dates need to be changed as well as old Mahri8 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideau^talk 15:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone add in why leavers are also referred to as Quitlings? Is it linked to Quislings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is - but it's not a very widely used term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone add in a section and find out what happened to this>

50 pence Brexit celebration coin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been delayed - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/16/commemorative-brexit-coins-delayed-amid-confusion-date-departure/ Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that the dates are 1973–1998. Is that just to mark it as a sample, or has Brexit really secretly been going on since 1998? SpinningSpark 13:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As the caption says.... "A commemorative 50p was issued when the UK held the presidency of the EU in 1998". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change X (While serving as Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab said the UK will not pay the financial settlement to the EU in a no-deal scenario.[21] The UK Government's estimate of the financial settlement in March 2019 is £38 billion.[22]) to Y (If the UK were to strike a no-deal with the European Union over Brexit, they would be due to pay a financial settlement of £38 billion. Although, Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab has come out and said that the UK will not pay the financial settlement if this were to occur. Johnatela (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Johnatela: Have you got a source for this? As far as I've been able to gather there probably wouldn't be legal recourse for this to be recovered outside of a future agreement between the EU and UK. It's likely the EU would still consider it an outstanding payment but that requires a different source and more specific language. The original isn't quite correct either though as it implies no money would be paid when Raab actually said the amount paid would be lower according to the given source. Also, how would one strike a no-deal? That's just failing to strike a deal. Although even that's not strictly true because the UK's struck a deal with the EU but can't get it to agree with itself. PriceDL (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion last month in March about a tag for the article to indicate that concerns had been expressed among various editors. The editor John Maynard Friedman stated on 17 March 2019: "Being bold, I have changed the tag from template:npov to Template:Unbalanced because IMO the latter is a better reflection of the dispute within Wikipedia terms."

A month later, I don't think the dispute within Wikipedia terms has yet been resolved. Indeed, there is nothing in the talk page archive or in the current talk page to state that the various editors who expressed concerns are now happy that the issues have been settled. Therefore, until there's a consensus that the issues have been resolved, I'm restoring the Template:Unbalanced tag which was removed from the article on 19 April 2019 (UK time). Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an argument that this amount of time is sufficient to contribute as much properly sourced balancing material as there is. However, given that this is fractious topic, I propose that the tag be removed on 17 May (no two week extensions!) as two months is certainly enough time for the challenge to be addressed: at the end of that time it will be reasonable to suppose that the article reflects the balance of opinion of wp:reliable sources (which may not be the same as reader opinion but that is not Wikipedia is about). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this recommendation. POV and other tags are expected to be temporary measures and are not intended to be a "badge of shame" for the article. The onus is on whomever tagged the article to propose and add balanced content within a reasonable time frame. If this time frame is not met due to inactivity or failure of the person tagging to address and correct the article content, then the tag should be removed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think these are unreasonable tactics which prove that this article is unbalanced.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Brexit/Archive 7#Change of tag and the lead paragraph at WP:TPG. If you have issues re the article, please participate in resolution of these issues through improvement of the article as improvement is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Unbalanced and Template:POV clearly states as Wikipedia Policy that, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." This is policy and is not unreasonable tactics. If the tagging editor cannot propose text or changes to address the reason for the tag then the tag can and should be removed after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I thought one of the main issues was not just the balance of brexit and remain positions in the overall text, but the prominence of the remain arguments in the lede, which has not (and it seems is not allowed to) be addressed Jopal22 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is titled "brexit" so it predisposes that much of the article will focus on leaving the UK since "remain" is assumed to be the status quo absent brexit. It just naturally flows that leaving would garner more of the articles focus since "remain" simply means maintaining the status quo (single market/customs union). More remain arguments and materials would enhance the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It was I who put the "unbalanced" tag on, not because I actually believe that the article is unbalanced (I don't), but as a way to break the deadlock over the POV (oh yes it is / oh no it isn't) pantomime. "Unbalanced" explicitly invites those who feel that one viewpoint is not adequately represented to actually do something about it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The tag you originally placed was removed by editor User:Sunrise several days ago. The newly placed tag was put there by User:Kind Tennis Fan, so it now falls to them to propose and assist in making the necessary changes to justify the tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(Summoned by ping) Yes, that's correct. If a discussion about improving the balance of the article does not materialize within a few days (or materializes but stops later on), then any editor is permitted to remove it again. Saying that an issue is not resolved is not considered to be a valid reason to keep it. If the issue is intractable, especially on such a highly visible article, then it should be brought to the neutral point of view noticeboard so that it can be resolved. Sunrise (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added and remain positions to the article lead in an attempt to deal with the unbalanced tag and the issue of a lack of remain arguments in the article lead. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't work. We'd need reliable sources for those positions (ideally ones that demonstrate that they're relevant and represent substantial mainstream thought on the topic.) And even then, they need to be added to the body before the lead. Also, even if we do produce opinion cites to support the idea that eg. people arguing for Brexit are arguing this (which is something we could mention somewhere), I object to placing it in the same paragraph as economists and other experts - it'd clearly be WP:FALSEBALANCE to try and weigh op-eds and the like against reputable scholars we can cite for statements of fact. We'd either need to find similarly weighty non-opinion sources arguing that position, or construct the sentence to make the consensus of mainstream economists more clear. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Currently there is no active discussion of any issues on talk; therefore, it's entirely appropriate to remove the tag. If you feel there are still issues, you need to start (or resume) discussions to try and resolve them - but the purpose of those tags is to alert readers of active discussions on talk that they can participate in, not to serve as a red mark against the article. More simply, if you want to restore the tag, you need to identify specific, actionable problems with the article that you think should be addressed, and actively participate in discussions about them. From a quick glance over previous discussions, I don't think there's an actual POV / balance issue; it feels like people are arguing for WP:FALSEBALANCE, ie. they want us to put "both sides" equally in the lead regardless of their coverage in reliable sources. That's not how WP:NPOV works - the final paragraph of the lead summarizes sections cited to high-quality non-opinion sources and mainstream experts, so we'd need similar sources disagreeing with them to present it as an active debate, and not just eg. here's an opinion columnist who doesn't agree with what the economists say. Mostly, if people do think there's a balance issue, the best thing for them to do is to try and find high-quality sources that represent the position they feel is omitted from the article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should be removed. There is a valid concern that the article lacks remain arguments in the lead, but I view this as more due to the nature of the article (it's about brexit and not "bremain") so it follows much of the article will focus on the leave arguments. But I also think the article is fine without them. Since I am involved in the discussion feel free to remove the tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, my sources for this content are the youtube videos of Jeremy Corbyn's speech before the House of Commons following the second Brexit vote. He cited fears of a recession and The Brexit minister is the source of the comments about free trade agreements post-brexit. My sources are UK lawmakers. I can quote the youtube video since the positions of UK MP's are certainly reliable and authoritative. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made another attempt to represent the remain arguments in the lead. I hope that helps to balance the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you who oppose "remain" are attempting to represent it. How unbalanced is that?!--Jack Upland (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

We are actually supposed to do that; see Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. WP:NPOV requires that we cover all aspects of a topic to the extent and with the weight that they're reflected in reliable sources, even aspects or positions we disagree with. And, more generally, as that essay says, writing to cover stuff you disagree with is one potential way to work towards an acceptable compromise in a dispute. The tricky part in this case is that we have a reasonably wide-spread opinion that isn't backed by much (if any) reputable scholarship. Either way, though, the best thing people who want it added to the article / lead can do is dig up good sources for us to use, so we can discuss how reliable they are, how much weight they should be given, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please review and comment on the following text which addresses "remain" points of view. One ref discloses a confidential Bank of England forecast regarding recession, the other 4 refs chart the UK Brexit Minister's acceptance of only 16 billion in EU trade contracts out of 117 billion of the original total contracts between the EU and UK. Feel free to alter the proposed text. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Proposed "Remain" Text

Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing, while pro-Europeanists, who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership and maintaining the customs union and single market, with Labour Party leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn citing that the UK economy will experience a recession and lack stability if the UK leaves the EU's single market.^[1]

The Brexit Minister, Stephen Barclay, has stated that leaving the EU single market and customs union would allow the UK to craft and enter into it's own free trade agreements with both the EU and other countries and long term would benefit the UK by removing trade limitations and releasing the UK of contractual obligations related to a variety of EU related trade agreements imposed by the EU on its members.^[2][3][4][5]

I haven't been checking this page too often, but I'm not sure what has happened to this discussion; my understanding is that the biased tag (later unbalanced tag) was placed on the article in response to concerns expressed of a lack of leave arguments, not a lack of remain ones. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I said "remain" instead of "leave", and other editors have followed that!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Article says, "The Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, pledged during the campaign for the 2015 UK General Election to hold a new referendum—a promise which he fulfilled in 2016 . . . ." [Emphasis mine.] Was there an old referendum? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC))

1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum. It's linked in that same paragraph, only a few lines above the reference to the "new" referendum. Doesn't seem inappropriate to me, given the broad flow of the historical overview there in the intro. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the wording of the phrase "These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit." to "These estimates differ depending on whether the UK exits the EU with a "hard Brexit" or "soft Brexit" or similar to fit with the grammar used in the surrounding paragraphs.

The phrase can be found in the section Impact>On the United Kingdom>In the long term KermitTheFish (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@KermitTheFish:  Done — MRD2014 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Please" should be deleted from the 'Customs Union' section of 'Terminology and etymology'. "Please see" does not belong in an encyclopaedia article. 71.235.184.247 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. See MOS:NOTED. I changed this to {{see also}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Article states (with no immediate citation),

"The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy." [Emphasis mine.]

The sentence has no footnote. Is it even possible to verify such a sweeping generalization with reliable sources? Just some Economist saying it is so, establishes nothing. There would have to be a valid definition of who is "an economist". Would it be only those who have Ph.D. from accredited universities? Then who has made a poll? Is there a source which makes a claim based on a poll of 90 percent of those who have PhD in economics? Then what would a "broad concensus" be? (The words can be weasel words.) Would a broad consensus be that 90 percent of a poll of 90 percent of the PhDs agree? And is the whole concept valid? Does the questionable sentence attempt to reduce a scalar quantity to a binary decision? Is the question "reduce" vs "not-reduce" so that it would be valid if income dropped 0.000001 percent? Should not such an argument against brexit be stated in terms like: "90 percent of the 90 percent of PhDs polled state that income will go down 5-6 percent"? But is there any such data objectively collected? Isn't such a statement as appears in this article unverifiable for lack of sources which are really reliable? Who took what poll and when?

The statement also is in the present tense. Such a statement has to be in the past tense to remain valid, as ideas of economists change over time. An "is" quickly becomes false in time. Thus such a statement should say like, "On April 15, 2019," a poll of economists stated that income WAS likely to to reduce." ("Likely" is another problem with possible weasel wordiness to it. How likely? What is the probability?)

On the issue of reliable source, there is also the question as to how reliable the predictions of economists are, and particularly, how reliable are the predictions of economists about the income change to be effected when treaty alliances are broken? Do we speak about matters which have reliable sources, or matters of opinion? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC))

(1) There is no need to describe the consensus in past tense, because there is nothing to suggest that the consensus is out of date. Furthermore, this is not how consensus is described in Wiki articles on other matters. We wouldn't for example say "There was a consensus on date X that human activity contributes to climate change" and then cite a source from date X. (2) The language of a "consensus" is sourced to secondary RS coverage, peer-reviewed academic studies and surveys of leading economists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The statement is totally erroneous. The Brexit Minister has been working on the post brexit trade agreements and his work completely refutes this outdated statement. I will remove it for now until balanced reliable sources are found. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Point to me to one RS that says that any or all of the credible studies on the impact of Brexit have been refuted or that there is no longer a consensus among economists because "the Brexit Minister has been working on the post brexit trade agreements." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As of March 2019, the size of the "divorce bill"—the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements—and relations with Ireland and other EU member states remains uncertain is an erroneous statement, the current negotiated trade deals completed by the Brexit Minister result in a landfall of over 111,000,000,000 (111 billion) pounds saved per year in duties, tariffs, and other monies which the UK would annually have to pay to the EU. It is no longer uncertain since the Brexit Minister has done the due diligence and instrumented these deals, so that statement (which is from a 2017 speculative prediction) is completely false. Also, the statement The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy. is not supported by the total landfall in saved expenses which stop the EU from taking out of the UK's pocket for over 30 years.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Am I wrong for thinking that a claim about a "broad consensus" would require a through amount of research and that the burden of proof is on the claimer? Or is the burden on the doubter so that the doubter is required to supply Reliable Sources that say that any or all of the credible studies on the impact of Brexit have been refuted and that the doubter must presuppose that there are such credible studies? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC))

The burden is on the person claiming the content is adequately supported by current, up to date references. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we use WP:RS, and WP:RS clearly describe a consensus. The burden has been met. For those insisting that RS are wrong, the burden is now on them to show that RS dispute the consensus description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your sources are from 2017, which is very dated. The recent sources I provided show just how out of touch these so called economic assessments are. Little more needs to be said about it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you had no RS to back up your claims, and that the sum of your argument (your WP:OR) is somehow that the net payments into the EU are so massive that all the harms to the economy dwarf in comparison (?). This should also put into context the foundations behind the arguments that this article violates WP:NPOV... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources I provided demonstrate the progress made by May's government in negotiating trade deals. Little more needs to be said about it, the current materials from 2017 in the lead are out of date, and amount to gazing into a crystal ball and are about as accurate as such. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that all these economic assessments did not take into account that the UK government would negotiate a few trade deals? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that the current content about the state of the economy is dated and needs to be updated to take into account recent events. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This one seems recent, though? If you want more recent stuff, surely that's the kind of thing you'd want to see added? --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So brazen and shameless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor removed a peer-reviewed May 2019 study authored by Barry Eichengreen about Brexit's impact on financial institutions, with the ludicrous suggestion that the study is somehow unreliable. The study should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support inclusion, however, the reports conclusions need to be explained somewhat so the average reader who is not an economist understands why these impacts may occur and what will cause these events. Amazing how much progress can be made when we work together to get consensus :-). I am unable to access the full document from the link you provided which will allow me to read the entire paper. Do we have a better link to the document? Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)^[1]

This is not an article about the economic impacts of Brexit, or the predicted economic impacts of Brexit. It is a broad-scope article that should briefly cover all pertinent aspects of Brexit, which, as has been stated on this page before, is not just an economic phenomenon. There is already a paragraph in the article about predicted effects on the financial sector, given in broad brush strokes. There does not need to be an additional sentence that quotes estimated figures on one specific aspect, particularly as there are sub-articles that are more suited to greater depth of coverage. The study that was added deals with estimates and predictions; the study abstract states it "provides a survey of the still limited literature on EU membership and international capital flows" and "provides new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment" and concludes that "the impact on cross-border capital flows to and from the UK is likely to be substantial" (my emphases). I have not suggested that the study is somehow unreliable, but that it deals with estimates. I do not believe there is justification for such additional estimates in a broad-scope article that already mentions general predictions about the financial sector. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that simply blind quoting from this document without explaining the reasoning for its conclusions is not helpful to most readers. Unfortunately, the paper requires a fee of $39.95 in order to access and review the entire document and unless we can locate a better link to read the entire document and take it in context it will be difficult to obtain consensus for it's inclusion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to cite gated content per Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, we as Wikipedia editors should not be analyzing and interpreting studies, as if we were peer-reviewers. We simply report the findings of the study, which by any account is a strong WP:RS. Also, there is no value in adding in-the-weeds text on how the authors evaluate cross-border bank flows or what methodology they use. We should just report the findings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I challenge your assessments on the ground it appears that you have not fully read the source document. Without reading a source it is impossible to determine its relevance or context. Also, Wikipedia is a not an advertising arm of the peer reviewed community for promoting and advertising their studies to attempt to get readers to spend money with pay per view websites. We need reliable sources which can be reviewed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You have no clue what I've read / haven't read. As for the relevance of the study, the abstract alone should make it clear that it's relevant and what the context is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the abstract does not provide sufficient context to determine its relevance for me to support it's inclusion. The fact the document requires a fee of $39.95 to read it means that the average reader will be unable to get a good idea as to it's rationale. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your failure to access content is not a legit reason to exclude content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Then go and purchase a copy of the document (on your nickel) and post the pdf somewhere that all of us can review it. The abstract alone does not provide enough context to determine whether or not the paper is relevant or cumulative (repeating previous content) to the article. When you have the document post a link here so we can review it, or locate a public, free source for the content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to violate copyright here. Can you please explain how on Earth you are unable to deduce that a study providing "provides new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment" has something to do with Brexit and that it provides an original (i.e. "new") finding? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a presumption that academic content and assessments are free from copyright claims. If the content is copyrighted, as you suggest, then it doesn't belong here. If there is not a non-free version of the document, case closed since we as editors cannot review the document to assess it's relevance. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain how you are unable to deduce that a study providing "provides new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment" has something to do with Brexit and that it provides an original (i.e. "new") finding? Pretending to be obtuse is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That something is new and concerns Brexit does not in itself mean that it warrants inclusion in the article. As I stated above, the article already has a paragraph of general statements regarding the financial sector. The article should not be a coatrack for predictions and estimates about the economic implications of Brexit. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please understand, I support inclusion of the suggested content and the paper, but we have another editor who has stated that the document does not directly assess Brexit economic impacts, and you need to satisfy that editors concern. I am not going to spend $39.95 to do that and since our average reader also will most probably not spend money to read the document, I am unable to refute the previous editors concerns -> User:PaleCloudedWhite. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

??? I've had enough of this. I've started a discussion on the RS noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the RS noticeboard says the edit is fine. Go ahead and include it in the article provided that User:PaleCloudedWhite is also in agreement. I think their position is that the content is cumulative, so you still need to address their point of order. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

My point, as I've stated repeatedly, is that this is excessive detail, based on estimates, covering an area that is already covered overly generously in my view, within what should be a broad-scope article that is already 73,000 characters long. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

^[2] - Here is a free access link to the document in question. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The section on Impact is sub-divided into "On the United Kingdom" and "On the European Union". These are treated asymmetrically.

"On UK" starts with a disproportionate and tendentious discussion of "Economic effects" subdivided into "Immediate", "In the long term" and "In the short term", followed by "Inequality" (from economic pov) and "Financial sector" (from financial services pov). These headings are not used in the EU part of this section. The reciprocal effects for UK being free from EU "Structure and budget" are not discussed.

The result is that the information about all these forecasts or assessments is unbalanced, as between the negotiating parties, and inherently NPOV unreliable, perhaps tending to polemical.

The UK section continues with sub-headings for information about topics which affect reciprocally both UK and EU, and would mostly be better presented if treated as such in a single UK and EU section, or another article: Relocation of agencies, Energy, Fisheries, Health, Academic, Migration, Scotland, Transport (subdivided for Aviation, Rail, Road traffic, Shipping), Bilateral relations (sub-divided for International agreements, Security, European Union, Border with the Republic of Ireland, Border with France, Gibraltar and Spain, Relations with CANZUK countries). Qexigator (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the sections 'impact on the UK' and 'impact on the EU' should be merged into a big 'impact' section where relevant content from the two sub-sections gets merged into similar sub-sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the now current version of the "Impacts" section, should we reconsider moving parts of it to the other articles that cover the same topics, such as Brexit and the Irish border, Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit, Impact of Brexit on the European Union, Economic effects of Brexit? Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the length is disproportionate. Many of the "impacts" mentioned are predicted and therefore not yet "impacts" at all. There was a discussion about splitting it off and I think the consensus was in favour of doing so. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What criteria can we use to decide what to retain and what to move? Is it editorially NPOV practical (avoiding OR or SYN) to distinguish text about outcomes necessarily resulting as from the end of the negotiating period (currently in or before October 2019), and other consequential (mostly more conjectural) results? As I see it (reviewing Wikipedia articles and links), the following could be grouped in a category of unavoidable happenings but with uncertain "impacts", depending on first, the terms allowed for during an uncertain interim period under the currently proposed Withdrawal Treaty and Political Declaration, if agreed by UK legislation, and secondly, on UK domestic policy and legislation (currently guesswork):

• Outcomes depending on the terms allowed during an uncertain interim period under the currently proposed Withdrawal Treaty and Political Declaration, if agreed by UK legislation before the end of Octyober 2019

• Borders between the UK and Gibraltar, and EU member states: Republic of Ireland/NI, France (Calais), Gibraltar/ Spain
• European Union institutions
• Legal system
• Relocation of agencies
• Transport
• UK bilateral international agreements
• UK-EU relationship post-Brexit
• UK relations with CANZUK countries.

That leaves a residual category, also with uncertain "impacts":

• Possible consequential outcomes

• Academia
• Economic effects
• Energy
• Fisheries
• Health
• Migration
• Scotland
• Security
• World Trade Organization.

Qexigator (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it needs trimming/moving elsewhere, especially as much of it is speculation and theorising. Content that can be moved to a more specific article covering its subject should be moved there. What's left should be summarised and characterised appropriately (as informed opinion, or whatever) in a few sentences. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

All of the above, all of the sections, look only at economic impacts, the impact on migration. They do not consider the effect of not having the EU decide on what’s what in Britain any more. Therefore, the section will be glaringly incomplete. Is it necessary to follow the Remainers’ agenda in the structure and ignore the positive effect of the stripping away of control from Brussels? Boscaswell talk 01:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is Brexit on that date, Plus it said on ITV news© it will be on 31 october So its oR - RobloxFanEditor 02:08, 18 May 2019(UTC)

This is an example: “The growth of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 2010s and the influence of the cross-party People's Pledge campaign have been described as influential in bringing about a referendum.” True, of course, but it is only part of the reason. And stating the situation like that is overlooking the real reasons why over 50% voted Leave. It wasn’t just because of some campaigning, such an assertion is deeply insulting to the voting public. In the way it written is an implied suggestion that people only voted Leave because of some campaigning. Over time, people could see the ever-increasing encroachment on their lives and on democracy resulting from the succession of treaties, and the declared desire of many in the EU that it should become a European superstate. Everyone living in Britain knew this. Some were happy with that or wished to be unaware of it, but the majority weren’t. No doubt there’ll be those who think that this piece here is mere grandstanding. By all means think that if you want to, but we come back to what I say at the start, that it was far more than mere campaigning which had 51.7% people voting Leave. Boscaswell talk 00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I am on board with you saying the lede overall is unbalanced, and you could argue the statement doesn't belong in the lede. The statement itself though is not as bad as you make out as it says "influential in bringing about a referendum", not "influential in getting people to vote leave". The reasons for a referendum are different from why individuals voted to leave. I think UKIP and the People's Pledge campaign are widely thought to be what pressured Cameron to agree to a referendum. Jopal22 (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"A fork on a saucer." Maybe the article would be improved by adding that image. If it implies "having your cake or eating it" that could be said by any commentator about both or either side of the debate or negotiation, so OK per NPOV balance? If it would violate OR or SYN in the text, why not let it be used in the infobox. Qexigator (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The whole article is overlong, and in some ways "unbalanced", but the timeline will continue growing for an indefinite period, that is, until the UK finally becomes a fully "third country" outside EU jurisdiction, or the UK withdraws the withdrawal notice altogether (revocation). Given that we are watching the brexit cookie forming/crumbling* in slow motion, the ingredients, timing and final shape and taste of the end result is unclear, and it is uncertain what criteria editors can accept in the meantime for separating information that, after the event, will be of ongoing relevance, from details of what will be regarded as outdated past events, such as occurred before the 2016 referendum or in the successive negotiation phases after the referendum. *(Jack Lemmon to Shirley Maclaine, The Apartment, 1960 movie). Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"people could see (...) the declared desire of many in the EU that it should become a European superstate. Everyone living in Britain knew this." As I do not live in Britain, I was just wondering who in the EU would desire it become an European superstate.

• Might be the euro-federalist party (EFP) which with 12581 or 0.06% votes is ranked #21 in France, after ESPERANTO, but before UNE FRANCE ROYALE ?
• or might be, if super means super, the MEPs who want to have a "super group"?

This edit request to Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to change this line (4th paragraph from top of article):

"The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy.[a]"

to this:

"The broad consensus among economists is that 'if the UK left the EU and the single market' it would likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy.[a]"

The reason is that the survey the reference to the Independent article is based on did not ask the economists about 'Brexit' but that which I enclose in single quotes, and this is taken from the survey itself, which you may wish to link to. Whatever the article said, the actual findings of the survey have been garbled in the process resulting in inaccuracy, hence it is better to link back to the source, which is here: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/economists-views-brexit I'll leave it to your discretion on exactly how this is best formatted, but please do correct it as the meaning is wrong. 2.97.33.138 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor 16:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't need a consensus on this because it has been misquoted and you can check it yourself. It's objective, not subjective. Please take a proper look at what I'm commenting on, because your response shows misunderstanding.2.97.40.193 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the IP editor does have a valid point. To say, as we do 'that Brexit will likely reduce' requires a definition of Brexit, which depends on who you ask. There is wide range of possibilities from the the Norway option to the Mauritania option. So it would be better to report the source as accurately as we can, especially since it side-stepped the trap that our text walks into. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The article

• states that "Brexit .... is the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.... At present, Brexit is impending under the EU Treaties and the UK Acts of Parliament, and the current negotiations pursuant thereto."
• Lists in the Terminology section variants

• ranging from "Clean break Brexit... means the UK would leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement"
• and "No deal Brexit ... means the UK would leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement"
• to "Slow Brexit... a longer period of political uncertainty in which members of Parliament will debate the next steps of Britain’s departure from the European Union"
• and "Soft Brexit ... any deal that involves retaining membership in the European Single Market and at least some free movement of people according to (EEA) rules".

Does the source support attributing the commentator's opinion to the whole range indiscriminately? Qexigator (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Would be quite interesting. --BJforSR (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not in this overloaded article. Is there a UK Conservative Party leadership election, 2019 or some such? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: the article is at 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, but I will create a redirect from the title you used as that's a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If I was from a country that has no dog in the ring over Brexit I would read the Impacts section and consider the British to be irrational for leaving because it is overwhelmingly negative with little to no positive aspects.

For a start the section is not balanced as the subsections tend to emphasize negative affects on Britain while not mentioning positive/negative effects on Europe. For example in the academic section it states "The UK received more from the European agencies and institutions for research than it financially contributed" then presumably that means more cash for research in other EU countries. Given a simple economic model of the market place without further explanation the two sentences in the fisheries section "Brexit would lead to higher prices in seafood for consumers (because the UK imports most of its seafood). British fishermen would be able to catch more fish, but the price for UK fish would decline." need more of an explanation. The section on security mentions the problems for Britain, but not for other European countries--for example Britain exporting troubles to other European countries as happened during The Troubles. It also does not mention the advantages to Five Eyes of the reduction of European institutions oversight and potential meddling (eg as happen in 2000–2001 Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System).

If I was from a country that has no dog in the ring, then I may not be aware of the benefits that some consider to be worth the economic cost. It has been pointed out by several observers that many leavers were from those regions that were left behind economically and work in minimum wage jobs they just do not believe that things can get any worse, and so might get better. A second group are those who think that the economic costs are outweighed by the constitutional benefits as was shown in the recent YouGov poll of Tory members.

To understand this apparent turkeys voting for Christmas one has to include in the impact section the perceived non-economic benefits that accrue if Britain leaves in October 2019 as perceived by Leavers. If UK leaves without a deal, then the British government and Parliament recovers control of some areas of competence that have been ceded to EU institutions, for example the UK Supreme Court will become the Supreme Count of the land with citizens having no right to appeal to the European Court of Justice. There are others Such as MPs being able to hold HMG to account for all aspects of government, and it is that sort of thing that needs to be in the section on impacts if the section is to have a neutral presentation of the issue. -- PBS (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "feelings" section. It's about effects. The political arguments for/against Brexit and/or the reasons why people voted LEAVE/REMAIN can be included in a separate section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Where in what I wrote do you infer that "feelings" come into it? -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Re European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
When will the United Kingdom rejoin the EFTA after leaving the European Union? :/ --62.63.238.25 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Who knows? but as the 'red lines' stand, British membership of EFTA is ruled out (single market participation, free movement, co-decision with ECJ). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

But WHY!? The United Kingdom MUST return back to EFTA after leaving the EU, because of that 2016 referendum! Otherwise, it'll be totally unfair! :O --62.63.238.25 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think that?

Yes, I know that the leading Brexiteers proposed before that the UK would adopt the "Norway option" (= EFTA) but afterwards declared that it meant totally walk away. The referendum question was "do you want the UK to leave or remain" and, unlike constitutional referendums in other countries, exactly what was meant by 'leave' was not legally defined beforehand. Being formally an advisory referendum, it was for Parliament to decide what it meant and the Conservative Government decided that it meant leave everything and the Labour Party voted with the government to invoke Article 50 without any practical plan of action. I must stop there as this is at risk of contravening wp:NOTFORUM.

I have not seen anyone of note say anything in the past three years about rejoining EFTA and indeed the indication from at least Norway is that the UK would not be ever so welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is significant news: it effectively makes Labour a Remain party, with the Conservatives and Brexit Party as the Brexit parties. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Except that it is not accurate. Read Corbyn's statement closely and you will see that, pace May, nothing has changed. He is still saying that Labour wants a GE and, it it should win, will negotiate its own version of Brexit, just not the "Tory brexit", but leave still means leave. The reference to a referendum is only that IF there is a second referendum (which Labour will not try to make happen) THEN he will campaign for remain. The probability of having to deliver is negligible. It is "just a different way of fence sitting".^[1] And it is not just vox pop: an LD spokesman said^[2]

Except except .. a Tory-Hard-Brexit resembles driving into a wall in 100 mph. Corbyn wouldn't do any such stupid thing. A Labour-negotiation may well end in a result that pleases the UK, and a third referendum can then be held. On top of all this Tory-mess (and remember it was Tory-PM Heath who brought UK in, in the first place - and the first referendum (1975) came as Harold Wilson had returned) the current PM now wishes Corbyn to appologise to the Jews (!!!). I think that just proves she thinks in terms of British Jews vs British non-Jews. Boeing720 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

“a Tory-Hard-Brexit resembles driving into a wall in 100 mph. Corbyn wouldn't do any such stupid thing. A Labour-negotiation may well end in a result that pleases the UK, ” Please understand, Boeing720, that all of that is opinion. Boscaswell talk 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, to a certain degree I have to appoligise. I got a bit carried away. Still a third referendum isn't written off by Corbyn. Have you studied the consequences for the hardest possible Brexit ? Britain would not be like Norway or Switzerland today or like Britain before 1973. There are quite a lot agreements and regulations between the EU and those countries, and it was the same between Britain and the EEC before 1973. At a no deal Brexit there will suddenly be no regulations at any level. Within a few weeks after 31.October, shipping, air traffic, transfers of money etc will sees to be, between Britain and the EU, as there will be no rules for them. Within a few weeks just everything will close down. These are the prospects for the hardest possible Brexit. And it's not any punishment from the EU, but just a consequence of the lack of regulations. I haven't read anything on NATO, but I doubt that alliance can function together with a no deal Brexit. And it seems fairly clear by now, this is just what the Tories desire. Boeing720 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The subject of this section is whether the Labour Party has switched to a second referendum by default, or not. Your speculation is wandering into WP:FORUM territory. Britmax (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki is not a forum. There are doubts about what Labour's position actually is so let's stick to what reliable sources say. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a rename discussion at the above page which people may be interested in, to rename it to No-deal Brexit. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Brexit will provide additional costs (€6.5m or £55.7m) for taxpayers, if ex-EMA's american tenant has to be paid €6.5m for the first year, as a result of the UK's decision to leave the bloc. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/22/wework-us-brexit-european-medicines-agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.251 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The court case R (Miller) v Secretary etc. is mentioned. But there is no word on who brought it - and why etc. (‎2001:16b8:5c53:ce00:c562:1456:9084:cae7 06:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The information about the case is readily accessible by the inline links. Qexigator (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Specifically and quite early in the article, under Timeline then 2017: 24 January: The UK Supreme Court rules in the Miller case that Parliament must pass legislation to authorise the triggering of Article 50.

I think your query confirms that the article is too long and too detailed already without bogging it down in even more detail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"In the event of a No Deal Brexit, UK aviation would seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British flyers." should be "In the event of a No Deal Brexit, UK aviation would be seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British flyers." 194.78.36.66 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! aboideau^talk 15:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This line in the article "This was included in the Conservative Party manifesto for the election." should include a reference to the full text of the manifesto which should be most unbiased source of information, in addition to the two news media summaries already cited.^[1]

That sounds right, we always favour secondary sources over primary sources, the news summaries demonstrate notability. I don't see why we need to include the original manifesto, primary sources are typically more biased and political manifesto is a good example of where this might occur. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was looking at it from the perspective of 20+ years from now, someone looking back trying to find out why the referendum was initiated, and being able to quote from primary source material is generally considered good at least for research papers. I never realised that it was Wikimedia policy to only reference secondary sources of information. That seems odd to me, and I do agree that any political manifesto is biased, but it is still a primary source of information.

79.97.229.225 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC) longtimereader1 13 August 2019

The German press translates Mr. Berkow's statement "...I will fight it with every bone in my body to stop that happening" as 'er werde "bis zum zum letzten Atemzug kämpfen" and Der Spiegel even uses it as the filename of the page:john-bercow-kuendigt-boris-johnson-kampf-bis-zum-letzten-atemzug-an-a-1281808.html.

In everyday verbal usage this German phrase is meant without dark connotation but in written speech that connotation definitely looms in the background: The 1-1 English re-translation of the German press translation would be "fight to the last breath". I doubt that his original phrase has this connotation.

The 1-1 German translation of the original phrase would be "mit jedem Knochen meines Körpers" what is very uncommon in everyday usage. But I think that the common German phrase "mit Leib und Seele dafür streiten/kämpfen" (= "fight with heart and soul") is much closer to the English original. --Moreevo (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It may be that Der Spiegel's translation is perfectly apt. If Bercow said those words, he may have chosen them carefully in a way that most English speakers (including Der Spiegel's political reporters and editors), sufficiently alert to his customary bombast and self-esteem in respect of his function as HoC Speaker, will see for what it is, nothing more than a declaration of intent to act in any way he can "to stop that happening", a statement from him that is unsurprising in the circumstances, whether or not he could equally have said "to the last breath", which would recall Macbeth's well-known words "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow ....Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,/ To the last syllable of recorded time;/ And all our yesterdays have lighted fools/ The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!/ Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more. It is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/ Signifying nothing". Qexigator (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the expression "fight with every bone in my body" in British English? Can it really have the meaning "fight to the last breath" (->fight to the bitter end, fight without limits, fight with gloves off)?? Or does it signal dedication and the willingness to go to great lengths but without recourse to going ugly? --Moreevo (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It means that he will use every procedural means available to him. As he must if the Executive gets above itself, since in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, it is Parliament (not the Executive) that is sovereign. See War of the Three Kingdoms and the Glorious Revolution.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It is remarkable that this article contains such a biased piece of pro-Brexit propaganda right in its introduction. The truth is that the Withdrawal Agreement was drafted to avoid conflicts in Northern Ireland and that no backstop would mean a hard border and the return of The Troubles. A possible source for this is the Withdrawal Agreement itself, but I'm sure the editors of this article want to keep it this way: an unbalanced pro-Brexit propaganda piece. Rominator (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted that assertion from the lead as it is not a summary of any body content (per WP:LEAD) and in any case is unsourced. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Rominator (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The DUP have argued (citation somewhere) that the WA would change the constitutional status of NI to the disadvantage of the Unionist community without their consent, contrary to the principles of the GFA. The Nationalist community argues that Brexit itself changes the constitutional status of NI as expressed in

the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union

— preamble to the associated Treaty

without their consent. So the text was defensible but unbalanced and didn't summarise any body content. --Red King (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of breaching WP:NOTFORUM, it might be argued that the people of Northern Ireland were consulted and voted substantially against this change in their constitutional status. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor of this and related pages, but I note after some reading that the Belfast agreement apparently says that under the now-defunct Thresa May proposed deal people born in Northern Ireland (NI) were to be able to retain their EU citizenship. That may be defunct now and, if so, it might be an issue in NI. If WP:RS sources show it to be an issue worth mentioning, info about it ought to be presented on whichever detail page is most appropriate and mentioned/wikilinked from other pages where it is relevant. The Northern Ireland page might be a more appropriate place for details on this than this one (Brexit is briefly mentioned there). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not the draft WA that did that but rather the GFA, which recognised the right of people born in NI [to a British or Irish parent] to be "British, Irish or both". (See Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity), So yes they can assert their European identity through their Irish identity. Any edits to the NI article are potentially controversial so it may be best not to add anything until the dust settles. Meanwhile, see Brexit and the Irish border. It looks like citizenship is the least of their problems except to the extent that it will allow them to go look for work in Poland. Auf Wiedersehen, Pet time again! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A comprehensive trade agreement would be highly preferable to "lots of fantastic mini-deals". It would be bad if Britain would have to sign a series of mini-deals with the U.S., perhaps would even have to look from year to year. What is Boris Johnson willing to offer to get a comprehensive and lasting agreement, perhaps the Bermuda Islands and Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha and more leverage over the Strait of Gibraltar? Wouldn't that pale in comparison to the high-flying American Greenland deal plans? The backstop with a back-up stop (i.e. distant expiration date) would be in accordance to the vote and British and European needs. --Moreevo (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. I'm afraid this has crossed the wp:notforum line and will have to end here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

When reading this article, I cannot find what the unilateral political declaration says. This is a weakness of this Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article of the withdrawal agreement suffers this same problem.

Nothaynes (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

3 September: "A motion for an emergency debate to pass a bill that would rule out a unilateral no-deal Brexit by forcing the Government to reach an Agreement, get parliamentary approval for no-deal Brexit." Come again? Is that what it was? Nothing about forcing the PM to request another extension? 4 September: "The Benn Bill ..." what exactly is the Benn bill? Boscaswell talk 04:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)