Talk:Brexit/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Simple prose on Brexit: how do things work now vs. before (without the politics)

Is their an article that just describes what is actually happening as a result of Brexit? Not all the political machinations of years of various factions and people wanting one outcome or another. Just a simple set of historical statements that shows what changed beginning/after 1 Feb 2020?

Something like:

• customs used to work like this, now they work like this+
• border crossing of ppl and goods: formerly like ..., now like ...
• sovereignty of the nation state to do certain things: UK can now do x, y and z whereas formerly such were the purview of the European governmental bodies
• etc.

But not all the political stories and opinions of politically incentivised people.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess this is the same query that the IP user have been asking. The thing is, there have been very much political uncertainty about Brexit like all the time. Now Brexit have happened, so there is no turning back, but the transition period does that nothing really have changes right away, except that UK is no longer in any institutions. EU law still apply in the UK. Some things are settled in the Brexit withdrawal agreement. That article contains some info, but it is very underdeveloped. The future relationship is still up for negotiations and there is another cliff-edge in December next year and there is quite a distance between UK's and EU's wished, so I guess the uncertainty will continue for a while. I think the answer is nobody knows yet. ― Hebsen (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean December this year, 2020. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I quite agree with N2e. We need a proper Brexit article which explains things. As to your specific question, my understanding is that the major change before/after 31 Jan 2020 is that with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK is now permitted by the EU27 to negotiate international trade agreements. I am not sure however whether the UK is allowed to implement such agrements before 31 Dec 2020. I doubt the Brexit article will provide the information, it is too self-absorbed with fascinating distinctions such as whether a human is left, or radical left, or extremely left, or left of centre, or centre-left. Or whether someone left the centre using the right-hand door. 31.4.157.125 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainties to be addressed, with one paragraph/section for each:

• EU eurostat data are changing in February (population, lands, GDP, ...);
• MEPs changed: Front National takes one seat to the British Party;
• Bank of England is independent;
• No more British mayor in 2020 French elections;
• UK is independent in the WTO;
• Complying with the WA, an agreement with Norway was achieved, for the Brexit purpose;
• The UK benefits from a transition period to negotiate independently its own trade agreements;
• The UK is no more limited to spend less than 3% of the GDP;
• The EU has a budget to secure.

Uncertainties are partly dealt by the trade deal negotiation documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.175 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

One more point: British citizens would soon not qualify to work as cabin crew with​ Ryanair: "Applicants must have the unrestricted right to live and work in the EU" https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-job-cabin-crew-application-manchester-airport-brexit-eu-a9316596.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.175 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey IP's, I know you cannot edit this page directly, but I suggest you begin writing this somewhere else, with citations of course. Then we can later merge it into this article at an appropriate location. I think Impact of Brexit would be the right place to put it, that article is not semi-protected. Currently it have a lot of projected consequenses, so that also needs updating now that there is at least some certainty. Alternatively in Brexit withdrawal agreement, but I don't know how directly related to that it is. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you, as an editor directly responsible for blocking the Brexit article from free editing, are not trustworthy. You cannot try to control the world forever. At some point you have to let go and let the experts take over. 31.4.129.60 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

“We could do a deal with America in 48 hours. Just yesterday the Trump administration were describing us as their best ally in the world.

Brexit is done.

Now, and since February the first,

We could do a deal with America in 48 hours. Just yesterday the Trump administration were describing us as their best ally in the world. - Nigel Farage https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-trump-post-brexit-trade-deal-48-hours-uk-us-a8253476.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

And Nancy Peliosi could shake hands with Trump in two minutes, if he still knew she was there! When they actually do a deal, or try to do a deal, that might be notable enough to add to the article. However, it's interesting to hear Farage speak his mind on the situation, but the only purpose of his statement is to keep people interested and hopeful about Brexit. These words do not define or particularly affect Brexit. That's what this article is for. The guidelines aren't immediately specific about this, but the statement is trivial towards Brexit, which is avoided in most circumstances, sorry. ~ R.T.G 12:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Need a new section, named "Exit day" or something similar

The actual exit needs to be covered in the text. It should be the final (more likely semifinal) subsection under the "process" section. Right now the only documentation of the January exit is in the lead; it needs to be expanded on and cited in the text. I don't have time to do that right now, but will someone please create this? There is a lot to cover: the approval by the European Parliament on 29 January, the finals days in Britain, and the reaction/celebrations/protests etc. in Britain on 31 January. It's summarized in the timeline, but IMO it needs its own section in the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, totally agree. I think it should be called "Ratification and departure". The problem is that for the last half year, all developments have just been tacked onto the timeline, instead of being added to the appropriate sections. I actually think we should branch out the timeline to its own article, it has become very long at this point and not just highlights the big things. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let Timeline go to its own article, like Glossary of Brexit terms, and create a section for "Ratification and departure", but we need to allow for developments in the Implementation/Transition Period now set to run to the end of the year, and consider whether that, too, will need its own article, or could, at least initially, simply be added to the Timeline. Qexigator (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I thought the idea to move the timeline was great, so I did it. Mgasparin (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have opened the section, but cannot claim it is altogether "done".[2] Qexigator (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Good with a split. I have converted much of the information in the timeline into prose and placed it in the new subsection. There could be something about how the departure was marked (Parliament square party, Johnson message, recording of Big Ben bong, EU removes UK flag), but otherwise I think it is good. ― Hebsen (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The Brexit being at exactly midnight, Brexit night should be more accurate than Brexit day, unless you are from Kiribati.

Also you deal with January, but actually Brexit did not occur on January: the Brexit being at midnight, the first day since the Brexit applies is on February the first, while the UK remains an EU member till january the thirty-first.

Then, you have two things to deal with: the day before Brexit with many talks for both leaders (the UK one and the EU one) and the day after Brexit with the first Brexit consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.166 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Eh? Our article says, with a source, that the withdrawal happened at 11 p.m. GMT. GMT is the time zone most of the UK uses during winter months. It's true that for major parts of the EU including Brussels (as well as Frankfurt, Luxembourg City and Strasbourg) which use Central European Time it was at midnight, although there are some parts of the EU that use UTC (whether GMT or something else) and others Eastern European Time etc. But Brexit affected the UK most of all and for them it clearly happened on the 31st so in January. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean you have no source to say Brexit occurred during the night?

The main effect of the Brexit was on the European parliament, and the new MEPs who allow to reach a number of 701 MEPs since February the first FR EN

You just cannot say that Brexit occurred on January, because such a claim would be false in most of the EU, even if it is locally true on some island. In wikipedian English that would be POV rather than NPOV.

That why the clearest way to be both global and encyclopedic is to say it occurred during the night.

Anyway the British time shift is not a matter of such an importance, for instance we just say the United Kingdom's membership of the EC come into effect on 1 January 1973, without more accuracy on the exact time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.167 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV, we should note that the matter was considered to be of such acute importance that the UK Parliament's Act expressly stated the hour of the day, in order to synchronise with the time stated in the UK-EU Treaty. UK Acts do not usually state the hour, and if a day is named, then the Interpretation Act deems it to have come into force at the beginning of that day, so that "31 January" would operate as from midnight 30/31 January GMT. On the morning of 1 January 1973 UK entry to membership was reported as "at midnight last night". If there was a timing difference, it was evidently not considered to be of any practical importance. Qexigator (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"in order to synchronise with the time stated in the UK-EU Treaty" Do you mean article 185? Is there any time stated within article 185? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.167 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

On reconciling GMT with CET for the purposes of UK-EU treaties affecting exit day see, e.g., [3], [4][5]. etc. Qexigator (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Eh? Portugal is not an island, nor is most of its territory on anything that would normally be considered an island..... Anyway as I already pointed out, our article says that Brexit occured on 31st January 11 pm GMT. This is fundamentally true, wherever on the earth you are, or even if you are not on earth. Saying Brexit occurred during the night is far, far, far more confusing than accurately reporting it occurred at 11 pm GMT on 31st January. Your claim that the biggest effect of Brexit is on the EU parliament is frankly dumb. Even for most EU MEPs this isn't true. The effects of Brexit on the EU are far reaching. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

28.5 million hits for "Brexit Day". It's going to be called Brexit Day, there is little doubt. ~ R.T.G 23:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The article has included a section on Exit day from 31 October 2019. It is specifically about the date defined in the UK legislation by that name. It is in section 6 "Political developments within UK", and the current version also has a "Ratification and departure" section as proposed in a comment above. From that moment the "transition period" (per Treaty) and "implementation period" (per UK legislation) began to run concurrently, and theUK government has published its objectives (see Timeline of Brexit). This article's "Exit day" section is not necessarily what various websites responding to "Brexit day" are discussing. The topic "Brexit" is about much more than the moment in time when the UK ceased to be a member of the EU. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Should times be done with the 24-hour format?

Hi

Just wondering if times should be in the 24-hour format, i.e. 11 p.m would be 23:00? Wagnerp16 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The time of exit is stated as 11 p.m. as it is in the UK legislation. It is of legal significance, and it coincides with the time of midnight CET which operates in Brussels and most of the countries of the EU. Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Slightly different but the EU (withdrawal Agreement) Bill uses "11.00 p.m." which is not the current presentation either. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what format the law or the sources use, we should use a MOS:TIME compliant format, and probably use the MOS format closest to that first used in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

To simplify the discussion you could also write midnight in Brussel. Midnight is midnight. Also, the international withdrawal agreement does not specify neither 23:00 nor 11:00 pm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.144 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This article isn't about the "international withdrawal agreement" though, whatever that is, it's about Brexit - the UK leaving the EU - and that happened at 11 p.m. UK time. And the UK laws switching the old EU-derived laws off, and the new independent laws on, said that was to happen at 11 p.m. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It matters in this case, as stated above:

• NPOV, we should note that the matter was considered to be of such acute importance that the UK Parliament's Act expressly stated the hour of the day [11.00 p.m.], in order to synchronise with the time stated in the UK-EU Treaty. UK Acts [practically never] state the hour, and if a day is named, then the Interpretation Act deems it to have come into force at the beginning of that day, so that "31 January" would operate as from midnight 30/31 January GMT. On the morning of 1 January 1973 UK entry to membership was reported as "at midnight last night". If there was a timing difference, it was evidently not considered to be of any practical importance.
• The article has included a section on Exit day from 31 October 2019. It is specifically about the date defined in the UK legislation by that name. From that moment the "transition period" (per Treaty) and "implementation period" (per UK legislation) began to run concurrently. Qexigator (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity with easy fix

Hello busy editors ☺
sentence 1 is found in the article; without prior knowledge, it's rather ambiguous. Either using sentence 2 or sentence 3 instead would resolve the issue. Please change the article accordingly. Thank you ☺

1. Conservative prime ministers Thatcher (left) and Cameron (right) used Eurosceptic rhetoric while being in favour of the UK's membership and the development of the European Single Market.
2. Conservative prime ministers Thatcher (left) and Cameron (right) used Eurosceptic rhetoric while being in favour of the UK's membership in and the development of the European Single Market.
3. Conservative prime ministers Thatcher (left) and Cameron (right) used Eurosceptic rhetoric while being in favour of the UK's EU membership and the development of the European Single Market.

--92.195.183.13 (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Since "membership" can only refer to the EU, no problem that I can see. Errantius (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Membership can be understood as „membership in the single market“ and I would have understood it as such through inferring from context. I don't see where the problem is in adding literally two characters to resolve the issue by making it clearer. Please change it, there's no harm done in being clear and it's a tiny edit, too. Thank you --92.195.255.238 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It can, but only at a stretch. Its clear it means membership of the EU.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not crystal clear, as the EU and European citizenship were established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993. Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, was a British prime minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990.

Indeed, In the 1980s, when the economy of the EEC began to lag behind the rest of the developed world, Margaret Thatcher sent Arthur Cockfield, Baron Cockfield, to the Delors Commission to take the initiative to attempt to relaunch the common market. Cockfield wrote and published a White Paper in 1985 identifying 300 measures to be addressed in order to complete a single market. The White Paper was well received and led to the adoption of the Single European Act, a treaty which reformed the decision-making mechanisms of the EEC and set a deadline of 31 December 1992 for the completion of a single market. In the end, it was launched on 1 January 1993. In that way, the EU is British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.49 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What else can it mean?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Very bad incipit?

Hi everyone. Today I modified the incipit of this article as it felt extremely truncated. I speak English as a second language so bear with me if this phrase sounds bad only to my ears.

"Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/;[1] a portmanteau of "British" and "exit") was the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU)."

As I was expecting, Errantius (talk · contribs) reverted my change, stating that the first statement has to be as concise as possible. However, "Brexit was the withdrawal" still doesn't sound good to me at all. Again, consider the fact that English is not my mother tongue, even if I use it everyday. Could the phrase:

"Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/;[1] a portmanteau of "British" and "exit") was the process of withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU)."

be a better choice? It doesn't add a lot of characters! I Don't want to modify unnecessarily the article only to see it reverted again, let's first see if anyone has something to say :)

Thank you!

P.S. I'm Italian, and this phrase translates directly to "Brexit, un portmanteau di "British" e "exit" è stata l'uscita del Regno Unito (UK) dall'Unione Europea (UE).". Everyone in Italy might feel the same as me. Possible correction: "Brexit, un portmanteau di "British" e "exit" è stata il processo di uscita del Regno Unito (UK) dall'Unione Europea (UE).

My first language is English (although I can read Italian) and "was the withdrawal" sounds fine to me—it includes both process and outcome. WP in one language does not have to consider whether something might seem strange if translated literally into another language.

Entirely separately: I can also advise you to reconsider your username, "Stormtrooper", which is typical of neo-Nazis. Errantius (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I can understand. It just sounded wrong in my head :) Thank you nonetheless. Anyway I chose Stormtrooper over 10 years ago (Italian wiki) during my Star Wars period. Nothing nazi involved, and I don't think anyone that has ever been in a cinema or on the internet would think of the Nazi as first choice. If you want to be precise, Stormtrooper is usually also referred to the German WW1 trench assault troops, and only loosely (and incorrectly) to the Nazi SA. Thank you again anyway!

Edit: I always referred to SA with their correct German name. I now understand that in English they can be collectively referred as "Stormtroopers", even if I thought "Brownshirts" was the common name. I have not been that much around the editing side of Wikipedia, if my username is a problem I'll request a change. I still stand by my "it's an innocent quote of Star Wars" stance though :) Stormtrooper (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation, which I fully accept. However, it is common in English for neo-Nazis to sign messages (often threatening) with Nazi-associated names such as "Stormtrooper" or "Thorhammer". Thus: welcome to WP:en, but I think it would be better if you would use a different name. Because you have made very few edits in WP:en, it would be best to discard this account and open a new account with the new name: WP:RENAME. Errantius (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As a native speaker of English, I agree that the first sentence sounds wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

When the article began in October 2015, it referred first to UK joining in 1973, and continued with the 1975 referendum up to the European Union Referendum Act 2015.As another remarks above, "withdrawal" has the fortunate ambiguity that it covers both the Article 50 negotiating period and the single event at the end of it. as extended to end of January according to UK and EU law, and includes the period before then. Qexigator (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

What about something like "Brexit occurred when the UK left the EU in January 2020"? (I think the etymology doesn't need to be the first sentence.)--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Commenting as a native speaker and writer of English: the present "Incipit" is fine as it is, and could well be chanted to the Tonus peregrinus, as used for Psalm 114 ("When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language") in some Anglican places where they sing using John Merbecke's setting of the Book of Common Prayer.[6] Anyhow, J.U.'s proposed change would not be an improvement, Qexigator (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Great one, Qex! Maybe we can end on that note. Errantius (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's still bad.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

British EU exit

I think for remainers and also 27 countries EU citizens British EU exit makes more sense for the international English. As well as US, Australia and Canada. Otherwise it is not very clear what UK is leaving and exiting, is this some Antlantic agreements or what?

I think Brexit is a kind of secret code word that makes unclear of what kind (where from) British are exiting. It is a kind of naration saying "We are angry and we without a question exit" (Th.May) but it is not clear where from. Since it is a EU and a 28 countries Union leave process, it becomes clear that this is a mood decision made possible after leaving a union of otherwise happy EU countries is unclear to EU and even non-EU observers. We can see how even countries like China are happy to work with EU.

So lets keep up with the correct phrase. See also EU exit term and article. --Alexsports (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Brexit" is a highly popularized term known to every English-speaking outlet I can think of and thus satisfies the requirements for being a common name, which is what we use. While "Brexit" might be ambiguous in nature, its usage in recent years has cemented its meaning. This is unlike "British EU exit", which is made up gibberish, rarely used, and still just as ambiguous. There is no need to disruptively change this every time you see it. IceWelder [✉] 14:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact Brexit is not an English name from the English language. The correct common English term was Leave, which is both British English and american English. Brexit term is some kind of globish used for propaganda, and nobody exactly understands what it means, except Theresa May who clarified that Brexit means Brexit.

In full English language we can say that Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. Note also that if Brexit' is well known by the day to day media coverage during the 2010-2020 decades, the term Brexit might remain unclear in the next decades/centuries, and also for some reader who is not familiar with the European context.

The term Brexit is only good by the fact that 5,068 wikipedia pages do contain it.

That is the reason why the title is not so good, and not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.189 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with User:IceWelder. The name "Brexit" has become globally familiar and the event is not known generally by any other name. If it needs explaining in decades to come, it will hardly be unusual in that. Errantius (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the term Brexit should be kept because of how common it is in the news and in discussions about Britain leaving the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshalliday20 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Brexit "was" or Brexit "is"?

This have been changed back and fourth since 1 February, and we should agree on what to use. Arguments for "was" is that UK officially have left the EU, and arguments for "is" is that there is still a transition period and negotiations ongoing, and a lot of things are still unresolved. What should we use? ― Hebsen (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Use "was". We have to make the demarcation somewhere, and the official and irrevocable departure is the right point to use. Yes there are unfinished business, but there will be for years to come. ― Hebsen (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • • When I attempted at rewording the first paragraph (see below), "is" became the natural choice. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also we have to take into account future readers for whom this will be then past.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. It depends whether it is seen as an event, which happened at the end of January, or a process which is ongoing. What do reliable sources published since the end of January say? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Use "was" - The United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31st. That was "Brexit". This BBC article sets out clearly that the UK has left the European Union, that Brexit is the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, and that happened on Brexit Day which was the 31st of January. [7]. The transition period means the UK is bound by many EU rules, similar to the way Norway is bound by certain rules too, but that in no way means Norway is in the European Union. The article must make clear that the transition period is ongoing as are the negotiations for the future relationship, but the rest should be in past tense. RWB2020 (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  RWB2020, not true. That's when the transition started. We don't leave until 2021, and that's when most of the adverse impacts really kick in. Guy (help!) 10:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Use "was" - Using the definition of Brexit in the article's lead, we now have to refer to it in the past tense. I suspect the "is" usage is related to a political belief that the transition period is not "real" Brexit. If the sources supported that belief (which I don't think they do) we would have to re-define Brexit in the lead. Tammbeck (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Use "is" It is referred to in the present tense in the Telegraph: "A hard Brexit is more likely...."[8] Other sources refer to a post-Brexit deal. Of course Brexit can mean either an event or a process. I prefer the present tense because the article is about the process rather than what happened on one day. Of course all this will become academic by 2021, because the final agreement will have been reached. TFD (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Use "was" The United Kingdom has already left the EU. There will be some more talks on their future relationship, but Brexit (The UK leaving the EU) has already occurred so it should be past tense. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Use "refers to". The opening sentence remains clunky.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Subject to others' comment, I will make this change:

• Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/) refers to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). The word is a portmanteau of "British" and "exit". Qexigator (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Qexigator, that seems appropriate, since it resolves any need for us to decide. Guy (help!) 14:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Would that not go against WP:REFERSTO? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Use "was" - as "Brexit" is a synonym for "withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU", and that is now in the past. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Use "refers to" - Jack Upland's compromise covers all the bases.Tammbeck^Talk 15:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

... but is against good practice - WP:REFERSTO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"...sometimes used inappropriately...", but not here: it avoids pedantry of saying "is sometimes used to denote an event happening on "exit day" and sometimes the ongoing process due to end later". Qexigator (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"Refers to" is bad english, and this is a bad compromise. "Refers to" is used to give context, but does actually define Brexit as the withdrawal itself. I mean, both "second referendum" and "withdrawal agreement" also refers to the UK's withdrawal from the EU. A better compromise would be to choose either of the two tenses, and then have a footnote containing what you wrote above. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How can a grammatical sentence be "bad English" when it is a better choice of good editing than attempting to arbitrate in this particular instance between 'is' and 'was', given that neither is conclusively, or even predominantly 'correct', beyond the determination in the law of UK and EU that 'exit day' has occurred, while there is an after Brexit negotiating period terminating at the end of this year. Qexigator (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Use "is" - The fact that the article continues to be updated with current, rather than historical, events, means that the process described in the article is still ongoing. So, the article should reflect that, while obviously making clear that, in legal terms, the exit from the EU has already occurred. Using formulations like "Brexit refers to..." is a bit weaselly and against good practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Attempts at finding a better wording

I think the issues is that we are trying to sum up the current status in the very first sentence, as the first paragraph is too long to do that, and also contains process details. I think we should change the lead so the first paragraph only focus on the current status. Here is a possible rough take on the first paragraph, without wikilinks and the like:

Brexit (<IPA + portmanteau>) is the United Kingdom's (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU). While the departure took place 11 p.m. GMT on 31 January 2020, the UK and the EU is currently in a transition period, scheduled to end on 31 December 2020, during which they are negotiating their future relationship. As agreed in the withdrawal agreement, the UK remains subject to EU law and remains part of the EU customs union and single market during the transition period, but is no longer part of the EU's political bodies or institutions.

It appears "is" becomes the natural word to choose when doing it this way. The process stuff in the current first paragraph should be moved to the appropriate places in the lead. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the wording now edited in by Qexigator is poor, but this wording goes into unnecessary detail that should not be contained in the opening paragraph. My suggestion is:

Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/;[1] a portmanteau of "British" and "exit") is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). The UK ceased to be a member of the EU on 31 January 2020, and transitional arrangements will conclude on 31 December 2020...

Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

...'will'...? Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Legally, yes, and it would be WP:CRYSTAL to say otherwise - but it could say "... is expected to..." if you preferred (though I think that is too weak). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the lead as it now stands, as we can all see, is the result of a series of accretions while the process up to Brexit (Jan.2020) was going on, and it could be improved with a rewrite in view of the events happening in the current post-Brexit negotiating period. To meet the concerns expressed about 'refers', my proposed opening sentence would be:

Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/) happened when the United Kingdom (UK) withdrew from the European Union (EU) on 31 January 2020, and transitional arrangements began for the period ending on 31 December 2020.The word Brexit is a portmanteau of "British" and "exit".

Qexigator (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying that Brexit "happened" is no better (worse, in fact) than using the word "was", and it takes the position that Brexit was a single event rather than being an ongoing process. I repeat the question I asked some time ago - do reliable sources, on balance, treat Brexit as a one-off event that has already happened, or as an ongoing process of disentanglement that is continuing, at least until the end of 2020? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is that, in one context it is process, in another an event. The period before exit day, when the single event happened as determined by UK and EU law, was a process always going toward that event, during which time attempts were made to postpone or frustrate the happening of the event. But exit on exit day was a decisive event separating the pre-event process from the post-event process. For editing, we need not be partisan about this, or too precious, but aim for something that allows for both aspects, as succinctly as we can. UK membership undeniably ended at the end of January, for better or worse, according to the pov of any given reader, and irrespective of any editorial inclination or crystal ball. Qexigator (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all. My suggested wording of the opening sentence simply says that Brexit is the withdrawal. The discussion over whether that withdrawal is an event that has happened, or is a process that is continuing, can be dealt with in later sentences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Just a reminder to all that we're talking about an interim solution. I hope we can all agree that Brexit will have unequivocally happened after the end of the transition period. So I can live with "is" "was" or "referred to" in the short term even though none of these is optimal. Tammbeck^Talk 18:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Brexit will have unequivocally happened after the end of the transition period: that is what the law prescribes, but the successive extensions of the Article 50 period is enough to show that the parties (UK and EU) may decide otherwise, and NPOV editing must be open minded. Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The question being how the term "Brexit" is publicly used, it seems to be used with a clear difference between two meanings. One meaning, with a primarily economic focus, refers to a process that is scheduled (but only scheduled) to be completed on 31 December 2020. The other, with a primarily political focus, refers to an event within that process, on 31 January 2020. Each meaning finds legitimacy within its own focus and WP should not consider whether either of them is right or wrong. Nonetheless, a choice may be necessary editorially, since attempting to maintain the ambiguity throughout the article would be likely to make the article incoherent.

Thus I would go along with and develop Ghmyrtle's suggestion, to read:

Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/;[1] a portmanteau of "British" and "exit") is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). The term is used with a primarily economic focus, to refer to a process scheduled to be completed on 31 December 2020; it is also used, with a primarily political focus, to refer to the moment in that process, on 31 January 2020, when the UK ceased to be a member state of the EU, no longer participating in its governing institutions. For clarity of exposition, this article will employ the term in the latter, more inclusive meaning.

Errantius (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Broadly agree with that, but propose amending second sentence to read thus:

When the term is used with a primarily economic focus, it refers to a process scheduled to be completed on 31 December 2020; when used with a primarily political focus, it refers to the moment in that process, on 31 January 2020, when the UK ceased to be a member state of the EU, no longer participating in its governing institutions.

Qexigator (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Reads well, but sounds a bit ORish. Do we have RS that there are two different understandings of "Brexit" dependent on political/economic criteria?Tammbeck^Talk 09:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We should not go into an unnecessarily detailed explanation of the process, and alternative meanings of the word, in the second sentence of the article. The question of terminology is of interest only to a few editors here, not to the wider readership. I still favour my simpler version of 17.25, 3 June 2020. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think you should ever have a first sentence that doesn't concretely explain what the term refers to. But that's what you have here. The first sentence should refer to the chronological period in which this is occurring.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

So what would you propose as an improvement, in view of above comments? Qexigator (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tammbeck^Talk and was supposing that there are two meanings as I have described, both of them in common public use and thus of interest to our readers. They seem to be the meanings that this debate, apparently informed, is about. Then "what the term refers to" (Jack) is twofold and both references should be mentioned at the outset. Or, if someone can show that in fact only one of these meanings is in common public use, let them show that and we can go with that meaning. Errantius (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Given the above comments, the article could be improved by inserting an explanatory NPOV sentence at the top of the terminology section:

When the term Brexit is used with a primarily economic focus, it refers to the period ending on 31 December 2020; if used with a primarily political focus, it refers to 31 January 2020, when the UK ceased to be a member state of the EU, no longer participating in its governing institutions.

Qexigator (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should go with Ghmyrtle's suggestion, or variants thereof. It clearly defines Brexit, and then immediately states the two dates, leaving it to the reader to interpret whether Brexit is a process or an event, and whether it has happened or not. We can only achieve that by using "is". I oppose the formulations by Qexigator and others. I don't see how the sources support the claim made. I also don't think it is accurate. Can we really sharply determine whether "Brexit" refers to a process or an event, solely based on whether the focus in on economics or politics? The context seems much more important that the focus. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with your last point. As Qexigator and I prefer, each focus should qualified as "primarily". I had considered saying not only "primarily political" but "primarily political and legal", but feared unproductive queries on the meanings of both ... I think we don't have to "sharply determine" the difference here: all we have to do is indicate sufficiently how the term "Brexit" is publicly used. The fact that there are these two uses may be clear and there is sharpness in the dates, even if the reasons for either of the uses cannot be identified precisely. But then, having recorded two different uses, we have to make—and state at the outset—an editorial choice as to which of the two (presumably no other) the article will employ. Or the article might avoid employing the term "Brexit" and prefer throughout, perhaps, "British withdrawal"—but "Brexit" is neater. Errantius (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion shows that we as editors are not really able to find a satistactory solution to the question, given that, as far as I know, there is no clear cut source better than the ones I have cited above. I do not think we will be failing the readers by not recasting the present article as if the distinction is recognised and understood by public commentators and there was a clearly discernible consensus on the point among them. My personal (editorial NPOV) preference at the moment is not to tamper with the present lead in this respect.The situation is still fluid, and we should wait for the "final" event to happen, currently due on 31 December.Then will be a time to consider some rewrite of the article and the lead, and perhaps open a new article for the aftermath. Qexigator (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Qexigator. The status quo might be the least bad option until the end of the transition period (whenever that ends up being). Tammbeck^talk 07:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. How about including some hidden text in the opening sentence: "Do not change "is" to "was". Although the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, there are currently transitional arrangements in place which will conclude on 31 December, so that the entire process should not be referred to in the past tense." Or something along those lines. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Or this-

- For shorter hidden text: 'Do not change "is" to "was".UK membership ended 31 January 2020, and period of transitional arrangements ends on 31 December, '

-and insert at top of Timeline section 'UK membership of EU ended on 31 January 2020, beginning a period of transitional arrangements set to end on 31 December 2020.' Qexigator (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer the last sentence in the hidden text to not be hidden, but this is fine. As Tammbeck has said, this is only a temporary solution. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. We should not use comments to tell editor to not change text, per MOS:COMMENT, so maybe the first sentence should be Please discuss before changing "is" to "was". or something like that. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's good to go now, I will do Timeline section, but leave hidden text to someone who knows how, Qexigator (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have inserted the comment. ― Hebsen (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Good outcome. Errantius (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Where is the history section?

Where is the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.215.154 (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we need one?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Put it back.213.205.197.2 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Crucial information on coinage missing

A central reason why the EU did not wish to let go of Britain was that all those euro and eurocent coins need to be melted down and re-minted, with the new coins showing a map of Europe without the United Kingdom. The cost runs into billions. Also there is a political angle, whereby the island of Ireland will have a bite missing. Could someone who is pecuniarily endowed please take a photograph of the new and old euro coins, and upload it to the Brexit article? Likewise, a photograph in Wikipedia of the 50p coin celebrating peace and goodwill to all nations would put a smile on many readers' faces. Many thanks. 213.205.197.2 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would they need to recall coinage? Old coinage generally stays in circulation if the denomination hasn't changed Please provide a source for your assertion that coinage would be recalled. Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What an odd objection. Are there any stamps with "British Empire" in circulation? Of course not. Even the BBC ignore southern Ireland in their weather forecasts.213.205.197.2 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A thousand pardons, Acroterion, you are right. The Wikipedia article Euro coins#External links states that the United Kingdom is still set to adopt the euro. Hence it makes sense that the UK remains depicted on the euro coins. 213.205.197.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request is for two things:

1. "Judgement in the Court of Appeal (before Hickinbottom LJ and Haddon-Cave LJ) before also went against the applicant." seems very awkward to me as a legal layman. If this is an editing error as it looks to be considering the structure "before Joe Bloggs and (before) Fred Bloggs", please remove the "before" I have emboldened.
2. the article mixes straight punctuation (such as the vertical apostrophe: ' and typewriter speechmarks: ") with slanted / curly variants (such as: courts’ job). Just like the formatting argument about hyphens or n-dashes, there are vocal proponents on both sides of the debate. In both cases, the fact remains that even on 104-key keyboards, there are buttons for hyphen and straight quotes and there are no buttons for n-dash or curly quotes; these need to be produced by inconvenient means and are difficult to get right (for example, which way the apostrophe should curl in "the '60s"). Inevitably this leads to inconsistency in the article formatting because a minority know and care enough to style their submissions "properly" with deep Unicode while the majority of us just stick to ASCII. For the sake of consistency and convenience and pragmatism until the day keyboards support these special characters, I request that the article be edited replacing “ and ” with " and replacing ‘ and ’ with '. It may look prettier for those who notice if the entire article were consistently formatted properly, but it isn't, so this will just make it consistently formatted. On the font / screen I am using, I can't tell the difference between hyphens and *-dashes but if you can and they're inconsistent and you are, please consider homogenising them too.

Thanks. 49.179.26.117 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced article: remain bias

If you have real suggestions for improvement, by all means tell us, but don't just trash the article just because you don't like it. Mgasparin (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm a Remain supporter; I assumed this article in Wikipedia would present both sides of the argument. Instead it presents every aspect of Brexit from the Remain perspective. It reads like an argument with someone whose counterarguments have all been removed - indeed it reminds me of that photo of Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky where Trotsky has been edited out. There is no discussion of detailed sovereignty; the entrenchment of corporate interests; the prevention of radical reform; the immigration flexibility argument (this is particularly relevant now that there is an offer to Hong Kong); individual sanactions; etc etc. Despite the enormous amount of work that has gone into this article I'm afraid that a fair recommendation would be to have to taken down until something more balanced can be produced. The article used to be informative around 2016-2017. Then a group of "agents" took over and trashed it by introducing a political angle (you can still see traces of this tribal left-right ideology in the abstract) and removing passages which make the EU look weak or unpleasant. The people behind it seemed to be full-time professionals. Now that The Blond Tousle-Haired Saviour has become PM, the pro-EU agents have largely gone away and some of the bias has been corrected. But it is still a trashy article compared to what it used to be. I have sometimes thought the professionals are Irish agents fearful of Ireland losing its tax haven status once they lose Britain as a free-market ally, or whether they are EU agents fearful of the reputational damage caused by a member leaving. Or London-based Labour Party and Liberal Party activists who thought that denouncing Brexit would be a vote-winner. Or City bankers who are reluctant to lose the lucrative (10bn/year) euro currency trade in London. The only remedy is to remove the "protection" from this article and allow experts to rework it. But nobody here is willing to relinquish power and give editorial control back to lowly Wikipedians. The agents' trick was to unblock the article briefly, then generate an aritificial edit war, and then block it again for long periods, while trashing any protests in Talk pages with irrelevant minutiae to cover their tracks. Mark my words.213.205.197.2 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Absolutely biased; This looks like a blog! I could not agree more with that. Absolutely pathetic, it shows how the pseudo center is acting nowadays, this is at least authoritarian, they ignored and removed conservative views about Brexit. Cheers from Brazil, and good luck with the authoritarian New Left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.182.33.246 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a forum for your views on conspiracies. Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving this page

It appears this talkpage is still being archived on a fairly frequent basis but there doesn't seem to be a notice indicating how long a discussion has to be dormant for this to happen. Llewee (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently the bot is set to archive after 30 days of no activity in a thread, which seems to be working quite well right now. Mgasparin (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Agriculture and Fisheries Acts (No mention in article)

There is currently no mention or articles for the Agriculture and Fisheries Acts 2020 that have now received Royal assent and are currently on the statue book, please can we create articles and also put a mention into the main Brexit article as they both major pieces of Brexit related legislation. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nicola Sturgeon addresses journalists over Brexit.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Cultural references

You’ve stated that in “general” those from the arts voted to remain in the EU. This is an assumption and not a fact. You will need to provide evidence of this otherwise the million plus more votes in the UK would suggest otherwise. Jleel (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Jleel, your point is well made. It is a very broad statement and one which is hard to quantify. Perhaps we can change this statement to say "there was public support from the those in the arts to remain in the EU" as this supports the idea without creating the impression that all or most in the arts supported to remain in the EU. This statement could be supported by citations to those in the arts who publicly came out in support of remaining in the EU. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

And likewise, support for Leave. Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Brexit

The economic outlook was varied depending on which economy expert asked. Since Brexit the economic impact is impossible to measure due to Covid. You may want to update your info. Jleel (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Jleel, please make specific and sourced suggestions as to how the article can be improved. This article's talk page has had a lot of editors complaining about perceived biased without making any suggestions as to how that should change and needs no more of it. Best, Caius G. (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dates

The article seems to use "31 January 2020" and "31 December 2021", but these aren't quite accurate dates for the UK's exit. It's either 11pm on the respective dates in UK time, or 12am, i.e. 0:00 the following day in EU time (Central European Time is one hour ahead of UK time).

I think it would be clearer to say the UK left the EU at the beginning of 1 February 2020 Central European Time, and the transition period ends at the beginning of 1 January 2021 Central European Time. —ajf (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've clarified this. I know it's a bit ugly, but I think it's worth mentioning the timezone to avoid confusion over 31 versus 1. —ajf (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Blog like" articles in Wikipedia

This article is overwhelmingly anti Brexit, it shows much more arguments against Brexit than the inverse, looks like the important and popular parts showing the reasons for Brexit were deleted, and which includes: 1. The bureaucratic system currently entrenched at EU harms the liberal economic tradition that is common to every major Anglophone country (Specially USA and UK), and this system is expressed in UE and it's laws, that imposes a lot of restrictions in fishing and farming. The model is French, 'heavy', it's like Macron's paradise. 2. Of course Britain will be fully independent, and the migration to UK is forced by EU policy regarding migration, it is based on political correctness, ignores the religious, etnics and cultural conflicts that are common in countries like UK and US, countries that receives a massive number of migrants every year. And that unskilled workers will compete with the local blue collar workers in unequal term (They are more likely to accept receiving less money for the same job, with is still considerably a higher sum than the money they were used to make in their home countries). 3. The article says that the lack of a liberal voice like that of the UK in the European Union will harm the efforts from other liberal countries to modernize the UE. But, the inverse is also true, the UK will be free to turn itself a more liberal country, taking by example the United States, Singapore or Hong Kong, not France, Germany or Denmark. 4. A more independent aproach to global affairs will not harm UK's prestige, as the article says, but it will put more emphasis in the British identity and point of view, it will not be a part of the UE, but a entity that can disagree and chalenge Brussels resolutions and it's global ambitions independenly. 5. If UK move forward to a system like that of Singapore, based on economic freedom, and exporting oriented economy it can achieve a high degree of economic progress. And that can affect the economy positevely balancing the harm caused by the lack of econonomic integration with UE (It can sign bilateral trade deals all over the world and make the country more competitive, actually, Mercosur and India are important players at the global stage, but even more important is the topic of the trade deal with the United States of America).

I think a lot was ignored here, and it's not coincidental, even "Remain" voters are criticizing the article for it's one sided style. I think it's important to show contradictory opinions, and that can be found all over the internet, in pro Brexit documentaries and journals.

It hardly seems worthwhile to include (and discuss) the results of public opinion polls taken after the results of the Referendum were announced. They were not definitive at the time and are of decreasing interest and value with the passing years P R Hastings (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers from Brazil, and i am sorry for the neglecting of the English language, possible at some extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.182.33.246 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any pro-Remain bias in the article. Merely pointing out (with citations) the consequences arising from Brexit according to people with expert knowledge of the relevant areas does not in itself constitute bias. MFlet1 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lay of any PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The question of bias has been raised multiple times now and should be taken seriously. I understand why it can be perceived bias towards remain. The articles does a very bad job of explaining why UK voted to leave EU. The background says there areurosceptics, but fail to say what that belief is based upon. It presents a number of events that happened many years ago, but fail to explain the underling causes behind them. The referendum-section does not mention the arguments the two sides gave in their campaigns, instead only presenting the results. There is a voter demographics section, but it mainly consist of statistics about who voted what. The lead contain no information about causes, instead having a too detailed focus on process. There seems to be something good in the referendum article and the causes article, perhaps we can integrate something from those articles here? ― Hebsen (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

When I read you, I understand there is bad here and good elsewhere, but that is rather vague and not specific. Element to add in this article should be facts and should be sourced.

The reason why the parliament chose Brexit is because the parliament tried to comply with referendum result. That's a fact, isn't it?

The anti-Brexit bias from this article comes from the fact there is no clear pro-Brexit plan, but if the Tories, the SNP or the Labor have a clearly documented pro-Brexit strategy, of course, wikipedia could document it... Could we document those plans? or May plan? or Johnson plan?

The first argument is strange: 1/ Macron was not president when Brexit was voted 2/ Migration provides workers in unequal term (working poor) in UK, USA, EU and French Guyana. This is not related to Brexit 3/ Just means Brexit is Brexit 4/ Council resolutions (...) have no legal effect but they can invite the Commission to make a proposal or take further action, and the UK is (was) part of that Commission 5/ The UK now has FTA with South Korea, Switzerland, Israel and South Africa part of Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom. No agreement yet agreed with Mercosur, India, the United States of America or even more import for the UK: the EU and the EEA... wikipedia is not a crystal ball but the link to Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom could be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.221 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree this gives an unbalanced view and fails as an encyclopedic article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

To the “User talk:88.136.208.221“;

Well, first of all, i did not said Macron was president when Brexit was aproved. You misunderstood most of the text. I said it looks like Macron’s paradise (The EU and it’s system). I cited a well known politician, and said he likes the bureaucratic system that the British rejected. 2. The fact that the migrants will compete with the local blue collar workers in UK and can make the things more competitive for them is absolutely related to Brexit, it is a reason why blue collar workers voted “Leave”. It’s a reason for people to vote “Leave” and that was ignored here, that is the point. 3. You worked well in your support of the one sided style of the article, but even if it was true that there is no “plan”, the article can be provided with FACTS, about the reasons why people voted “Leave”. There is some pools that were made and that should help in sourcing this assumptions and social issues that concernes the British people and made them vote for Brexit. The article can be sourced and be unbiased, at least everyone should take that as a goal (Writing, or trying writing unbiased articles). 4. Again i didn’t said it has a FTA with USA, or the other countries that i cited, i mentioned it SHOULD have, now that Brexit is done. You said my text says “Here is bad, there is good, but vague and not specific”. But the reasons why people vote doesnt need to be specific, the text is not vague, you just wasnt able to understand it, and interpreted it in a vague way. I am not being literal everytime, you should not interpret it this way. We Brazilians have this same issuea while talking to the Portuguese, cause they are known for interpreting everything literally, the other users got what i mean, i am sure is the way you talk and interpret, it’s only a cultural incident. 5. I disagree that the FTA with UE is more important, and i only mentioned it (FTAs) as a good prospect now that the Brexit is almost complete, i did not said anything more than that. Nor that it should be in this article or that “Wikipedia has crystal ball”. You should work on that, cause you interpreted most of the text poorly, my apologies if my type of writing contributed in this sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.77.70 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page to discuss the article, not a forum. If you have any sourced content to add to this article, you can either do it directly or suggest it on the talk page. Your comments read like an argumentative essay rather then specific suggestions as to how to improve the article, which is what I believe the other editor was getting at. Caius G. (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Everyone here knows what Wikipedia is, an argumentative essay is exacly what the article is, and as I am in a TALK page, i don’t need to source it, until I decide to put it in the article, everyone can search for it and then add to the article, it’s about showing REASONS, and popular OPINIONS that were neglected in the article, and that is what i am exposing here. I don’t need to change the article, this is a TALK PAGE where people can discuss about mistakes in the main article. I did not asked your opinion about what should i do. Almost everyone here got what was the point. I am not concerned if you don’t want to read it. Even those who disagreed answered to the specific parts of my text that were related to the neglected informations in the article. The article itself contains similar assumptions but supporting the Remain cause. Once more i am explaining that the text is about the bias present in this article, and what should be added, with it’s respective sources. Indeed, if anyone just has to get a sourced information and add to the article unilaterally, this talk page should not exist. So there is a reasonable motive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.202.87.236 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If you were responding to my comment: Please re-read it. I am not asking for you to source your arguments, I am telling you that this is not the place to discuss Brexit in general, but the article. Your comments on it have been very vague and more related to Brexit in general than the article in particular. If you believe that any of the supposed benefits of Brexit you mentioned deserve entry in the main article, you can either do so directly or suggest ways to do it on this talk page instead of engaging in a debate on the merits of Brexit. Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Brexit a few years on; public intellectuals and changed minds

Several years after the referendum, some public intellectuals have made public statement about changes to their positions on Brexit. Don't know whether it will come to warranting a mention in the article, but seems like might be a good idea to begin to just collect notable people changing aspects of their position on Brexit here.

Here's an interesting one I read this morning, with extensive rationale provided on which parts have changed, and why.

• Maybe Brexit Isn’t So Bad After All : The events of the last year should prompt a reassessment of the European Union’s virtues, Tyler Cowan, an economist. Formerly pro-Remain; now considerably more nuanced.

I no longer think Brexit is a bad idea. I’m not ready to endorse it, because I don’t feel comfortable with the nationalism and populism surrounding so much of the Leave movement, but I no longer wish the referendum had gone the other way. To be clear, I still believe the pro-Remain arguments I and many others made four years ago. Even two years ago, I would have argued that the U.K. is better off as part of the European Union, for all the well-known pro-trade, pro-migration and pro-cooperation reasons. The problem is that, especially in the last year, the EU has become a less workable political union, especially for the U.K.

It seems that we should simply be aware of sources on the historical shifts as time moves on; and we will have some corpus that might improve the article over time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Another example: James Whale, controversial radio DJ, was strongly pro-remain until 2018, and changed position to be in favour of Brexit from at latest 2020 onward (maybe earlier, don't know when position changed between 2018 and 2020). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:9D01:C800:4C1F:7950:AFE6:CFD8 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Northern Ireland

The article lede as it stands is both incomplete and incorrect in regards to Northern Ireland. I therefore propose the following amendments to the lede. Please make sure any relevant parts finds themselves into the body of the article as well:

It continued to participate in the European Union Customs Union and European Single Market during a transition period that ended on 31 December 2020 at 23:00 GMT (00:00 CET). Under the terms of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, Northern Ireland continues to participate in the European Single Market in relation to goods, and to be a de facto member of the EU's Customs Union.

AND

Following Brexit, EU law and the Court of Justice of the European Union no longer have supremacy over British laws or its Supreme Court, except in relation to Northern Ireland.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

45.175.236.146 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References

47 years of membership in EU?

Under "Ratification and Departure" we have this text: On 31 January 2020 at 11 p.m. GMT, the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union ended 47 years after it joined.

Shouldn't it be made clear that the 47 years quoted includes membership of the EU's predecessors too, rather than just the EU. Especially considering that we didn't join in the exact sense of the word anyway. 2600:6C5A:657F:F417:5433:B1F4:B8FA:32B7 (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Article protected

This edit warring of "was" vs. "refers to" was getting out of hand, so I have fully protected the article for now (which is not an endorsement of the current version). Please sort this out on this talk page before making any such changes again. Remember that edit-warring can be sanctioned even if WP:3RR is not broken. Pinging all involved parties: @Caius G., Currywuss, Vmjmurphy, PaleCloudedWhite, Dave1966uk, DeFacto, and Beavotron. Regards SoWhy 21:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Beavotron, Currywuss, Vmjmurphy, Dave1966uk, please familiarise yourself with WP:REFERS and the Use-mention distinction. If you believe that Brexit is ongoing, changing it to "refers to" won't do anything. Instead, you might want to change "was" to "is", a change I would not support. Best, Caius G. (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 January 2021

I believe it is essential that 'Brexit was..' is changed back to 'Brexit refers to...', as soon as possible. Wikipedia should be politically neutral. ‘Brexit was... ‘, an attempt to relegate the ongoing disruption of an entire continent to a single political event in the past, is a clear sop to one side of the debate. On the other hand, ‘Brexit refers to...’ is politically neutral and favors neither side. Beavotron (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Aren't you also User:Dave1966uk, User:Vmjmurphy and User:Currywuss? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Erm, I don't quite know what's going on here, but I'm User:Currywuss. (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Erm, your view on the use of the phrase "refers to" seems somewhat similar to that held by User:Dave1966uk, User:Vmjmurphy and User:Beavotron?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Fairly new to Wikipedia, didn't know that every editor has to have a unique point of view? Currywuss (talk) 10:22, 31 January (UTC)

if only I knew how to edit here ... hope I'm getting it right... I can assure you I am the one and only Beavotron. You know what they say about imitation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beavotron (talk • contribs) 22:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. They say "imitation is the sincerest form of sockpuppetry". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So rather than just taking the p**s, how am I supposed to prove my identity here (IP address?) and actually discuss the article in question? Currywuss (talk) 10:45, 31 January (UTC)

Somebody could request an admin with checkuser rights to perform a WP:SPI? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well you're the one making the accusations, so I guess this is your job. I have no doubts about my Identity. Currywuss (talk) 10:59, 31 January (UTC)

Martinevans123, see here for the SPI. "Possilikely" that some are related. Caius G. (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Much obliged. It seems that User:Beavotron is unrelated. So perhaps it's all just a terrible coincidence. If Beavotron wants to make another request, they may get a better response than the one I gave. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

On the question of "was" versus "refers to", not only is there WP:REFERS, which recommends avoiding "refers to", but also it isn't actually clear to me why "was" is considered by some to be 'not neutral' - I mean, which side is it supposed to be favouring? Also, with regards to the comment that using "was" is "condamning [sic] to the past tense the ongoing process of disruption of an entire continent" (made in this edit summary), there are many historical events, going back to the English reformation and probably before, that still have repercussions within Europe today, yet nobody regards that as a reason to refer to them in anything other than the past tense. On the question of socking, I note that though Beavotron and Currywuss have not been fingered at the SPI (Currywuss appears not to have been included for investigation for some reason), both those accounts use American English. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Currywuss feels the need for a re-run of the SPI, in order to clear their username? But regardless of the outcome of that process, it would appear that, for at least those reasons you have just outlined above, any editor(s) requesting this change will be disappointed. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Currywuss has no idea how to arrange a re-run of an SPI, why someone is suggesting she writes in American English, or why she is supposed to need to "clear her username". In a word, this feels like experienced editors trying to intimidate newbies with their knowledge of Wikipedia bureaucracy. No thanks. Currywuss (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC). How about a little more encouragement Martinevans123 and a little less jargon? Currywuss (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If we can't use "refers to", then let's just use "is". Brexit is currently making headlines in the UK, it is an ongoing situation and referring to it in the past tense does not match up with reality. Currywuss (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention to "intimidate newbies with my knowledge of Wikipedia bureaucracy." Thanks for adding something to your User page which has made the link to your user page turn blue. You seem to have picked up the basics of editing very quickly. Regarding the question here, my understanding is that it was a legal requirement that Brexit happened on 23.00GMT on 31 December. That was a month ago. So it's in the past. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Currywuss, 'Brexit' is a noun and defined in the Oxford-powered Lexico online dictionary as "The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union."[9] As the UK withdrew from the EU on 31 January 2020, I am not sure what your point is. Please describe the evidence you have that supports your apparent claim that the UK is still a member of the EU. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What "apparent claim"? Nobody is claiming that the UK is currently an EU member. The word Brexit is being used in the present tense by very many news sources - it is ongoing.

• Bulleted list item
• Bulleted list item
• Bulleted list item

Currywuss (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Currywuss, All that those sources show is that a past event (Brexit) is (unsurprisingly) still having an impact. It will continue to have an impact in the future too, but the fact remains that Brexit took place on 31 January 2020 and was the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion, lets focus on the proposed change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Currywuss wishes to understand "why someone is suggesting she writes in American English", see this edit summary. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC) User:Currywuss now identifies on their user page as a native English speaker. But that doesn't make any distinction between British and American English. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Excuse me, Wikipedia police Martinevans123. I take it you are basically here to chase newbies away. Currywuss (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC) I see. You think I'm the "Wikipedia police"? I questioned the identity of four editors, two of whom, along with User:Itsmedolly, have now been shown to be "Possilikely" sockpuppets. I have no intention of "chasing you away" by simply reporting what's on your user page. But you're a "newbie" who's been here for nearly 10 years? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC) That's the impression you give, yes. And I've never edited a talk page before yesterday, so all of the above constitutes my first experience here. Currywuss (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Your edit history shows that you edited three different Talk pages before yesterday? But I think I get the gist of what you are saying. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC) This is quite off-topic, I'll hat the section if nobody objects. Caius G. (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 2 February 2021

change "provisionsly" to "provisionally" in para 3 Sendhilkumara (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cultural References

This whole section is tendentious POV, and the most dreadful waffle besides. It should be axed, and replaced with a selection of different examples of artistic explorations of brexit. A piece of pro-Brexit art would be the Spectator’s 01FEB2020 “Done” cover. However, most creative types were against Brexit, so the selection would likely lean to the anti side.q2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:F9D8:8A26:E223:4522 (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, we would also have to keep copyright in mind - I don't think we can just use a picture of it. I do believe that the inclusion of a piece of pro-Brexit art would make the section more interesting, however. The section does not go into detail or get very concrete, if that is what you mean by dreadful waffle. It serves as a rough overview of the topic given that it has a main article dealing with culture and brexit linked in it. 15 (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Mmm unsure if they would count, rather than as reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Before Brexit

Hard to understand, disorganized thoughts about Brexit. WP:NOTFORUM. Please focus talk page discussions on improving the Brexit Wikipedia article. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In 2016, or rather in January / February 2016, I was on the page of The Spectator magazine several times. This was a page from The Spectator, where you could write the online conversations yourself (without paying) about a vote on whether Great Britain would like to stay in the EU or maybe leave. Then I wrote to The Spectator online that Zurich is probably what Prime Minister David Cameron should clarify. As far as I know, The Spectator then informed Prime Minister David Cameron to consider perhaps Zurich. According to the information, Prime Minister David Cameron has sent people to Zurich to check this. Then the people came back to London and informed Prime Minister David Cameron that it was really Zurich. This was led by the staff of Prime Minister David Cameron and then Prime Minister David Cameron decided to hold an election on 06/23/2016. This information that it is Zurich came from the Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg (Studentenverbindung) in Heidelberg. And also my dear Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg has one person who looks a little (40%) bit like Nigel Farage, but 19 years younger than Farage. You can see him on the website www.xing.com with the name Simon Jaenicke. I just think it's right. Because at least three Hamburg Airbus people (one from Schleswig-Holstein (Kiel, Friedrich Kerchnawe) (Christian Democratic Union of Germany), Artur-Norbert Koepp from the north-east of Poland (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) and one man from Colombia (Social Party of National Unity or more left) and his wife from Russia (also an Airbus employee) was also were uncomfortable for me. Airbus employees were unbelievably bad at me, even though I was a very good employee and was at this time a member of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Meanwhile, Emirates canceled the A350XWB, because I probably did a good job for the A380. I wanted that Airbus to have problems with the wings that are made in the UK. Where exactly do I have to write this on the Wikipedia Brexit page, when if you accept that? Wname1 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC) We would need sources, ideally ones which are accessible online. Unfortunately, purely oral accounts fail WP:V. Best, 15 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC) When I worked for Airbus in Toulouse, I flew to Cambridge for my birthday, where I knew some (Germans) there :). Wname1 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Wname1, I realise! I should have been more precise: We would need published, secondary sources, such as newspaper articles or similar. While a fun anecdote, we unfortunately cannot just go by your word and add it to the article. 15 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC) 15, I know the best thing I should do is ask The Spectator. But I don't know if it's easy. Wname1 (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC) 15,I have sent at least 3 to 4 on different mails to The Spectator, which have not responded to me until today. I will probably still write down sentences on the BREXIT page. If this is not from another user: what will write about it, I will write my sentences on the BREXIT page, so that it is clear why BREXIT came about. I will of course give you time to clarify this if you wish. Wname1 (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Inherent bias.

In spite of multiple complaints over the years, this article still conveys an overwhelming impression of "anti-brexit bias". Far too much space is still given to what is essentially "pro-Remain" propaganda, yet almost no space is given to the propaganda of the other side. In terms of "external interference" for example: we should be clear that there is, as yet, NO convincing evidence of significant Russian interference on behalf of the Leave campaign, whereas it is clear beyond doubt that (for example) the EU and the US President (Barack Obama) both interfered, quite blatantly, on behalf of the Remain campaign. Furthermore, several UK government departments, including the Treasury, released economic predictions during the "purdah period" which purported to be impartial, but which events have now shown to be wildly exaggerated and biased towards the Remain side. Given that Brexit took place almost two years ago, and that (at the current time) it does not seem to have had any discernible macro-economic impact, I suggest that the apocalyptic predictions of pro-Remain economists are now redundant and should be deleted from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you're engaging in WP:Original Research. The predictions were made and attention was paid to them, hence they are clearly worthy of inclusion no matter their accuracy. If you believe them to be inaccurate, you can bring up (ideally academic) sources that say so. 15 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

--148.64.9.58 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)This complaint hasn't aged well as it seems to rely on Brexit having had little effect on the UK, this has been proven to be false.

Impact

Genuine, good-faith question: is the Impact section really about the predicted impact during the political campaign? And not the perceived impact after the withdrawal?

I just ask because there are various events going on that have (rightly or wrongly) been widely attributed to the impact of Brexit, but they don't seem to be covered here. Most currently, the 2021 United Kingdom fuel panic buying is an issue hotly debated. Is there a space for these to be mentioned, in the most diligently WP:NPOV manner imaginable? Cnbrb (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the impact section should (in part, given that it only happened recently) talk about the "realised" impact. I think the complexity of the issue has discouraged editors from updating the section. 15 (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Both impacts should be addressed:

• The expected (predicted) impact (during the political campaign) is the reason of the Brexit.
• The perceived/"realized" impact should effectively be in the ("realized") impact section.

If they differ, it should be noted where it differs. Else both impacts could be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.154 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

binding

This article says the referendum was 'not legally binding', this is a lie! The British Government repeatedly said the result of the referendum would be carried out (including to every household in writing!), including at the dispatch box which counts as the law. Stop being so biased.

You need as RS saying it was legally binding.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

UK & European Atomic Energy Community

There is no mention of any kind at the top of the article regarding the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) or anything to say that as a result of the trading and cooperation agreement between the EU and that the UK is now a associated state to the organisation. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC))

Single market/customs union maps

Main article: Northern Ireland Protocol

The European Single Market as of January 2021

  EU member states

  Other states

The European Union Customs Union as of January 2021

  EU member states

  Other states

I've removed the following two maps as I'm not sure they're correct/helpfully informative – shouldn't NI be represented as aligned to the single market on the map (perhaps light blue, like Sweden, Switzerland etc.?), and possibly also on the customs union map (maybe in a similar manner to Turkey)? Any input would be appreciated. As it stands, these appear to contradict the article content. I recognise it's a technically complex issue and the UK as a whole has officially left the single market. However, I'm not sure how NI exemptions to single market access compare to Switzerland's exceptions, for example (are they not comparable?), and I'd presume it's far more closely aligned with the customs union than Turkey, which is shown on that respective map. Pinging map creator Rob984. Jr8825 • Talk 16:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You might have to go for some sort of checker-board pattern, like maps showing Crimea.

• NI is in the UK single market and the UK customs union: goods from NI can move to GB without any controls.
• NI is also in the EU single market: goods from NI can enter the EU without any controls (subject, like every where else in the EUSM, to EU standards compliance).
• The Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol (as originally negotiated as part of the Brexit withdrawal agreement and EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement negotiated and signed by Johnson and Frost specifies that goods from GB enter NI on the same basis and subject to the same controls as they enter e.g., France. For reasons we need not bother with here, the UK side wishes to renegotiate that aspect of the agreement within a year of having signed it but I doubt that the outcome will affect the mapping.
• the Protocol only applies to goods, not to services, And there is no Freedom of Movement except for British and Irish citizens (per Common Travel Area).

IMO (!), the NIP is not as good as the Swiss deal but it is better than the Turkish deal. To say "it's complicated" would be a classic understatement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fedegarb, Jovanna13. Peer reviewers: Jovanna13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Umachoudhury. Peer reviewers: Achatty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"soverignty nonsense"

What is the unacceptable difference between these versions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

See when did you stop beating your wife and party political broadcast. Neither belong on Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, a substantive answer would be much appreciated. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What's wrong with this version? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It is expressing a political opinion in wp:wikivoice, contrary to WP:NPOV.

If something like this is appropriate for inclusion in the article, then (a) it needs to be evidenced by a neutral third party reliable source and (b) be balanced with the contrary view that the UK never lost its sovereignty in the first place, also evidenced a neutral third party reliable source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess you could have adjusted the sovereignty bit. The rest was just a stylistic change?Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The UK did not regain its sovereignty because it never lost it in the first place. It was at all times free to leave the EU. TFD (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That is also a political viewpoint and equally cannot be declared in wikivoice. (But, more accurately, the UK agreed with the other nation states to pool sovereignty on an equal basis with each other. Before someone mentions the fact that Article 50 is relatively recent, this is immaterial except to the extent of formalising the process for leaving. The UK continues to share sovereignty with other nations, for example as a member of NATO. Only North Korea could be said to be truly sovereign. This too is a subjective political perspective and cannot go in the article.) Please, let's not rerun the referendum debate, it is pointless. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Embarrassment of predictions

The too often false and too often one-sided predictions about Brexit evident so many places and reported here at Wikipedia without sufficient balance is now becoming evident. How do we fix the articles about Brexit on Wikipedia. The collapse in sterling, house prices, GDP, employment etc etc forecast by the World Bank, the Bank of England, so many should now be reflected as being wrong! 1GBP = 1.21EUR is the best since well before even the referendum, and above average since 2009. One example. At some point the "everything bad is because of Brexit, everything good despite it" narrative must be changed to be more objective. Until then it's an embarrassment here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe but any claim must be sourced to an RS, if they are then that is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, but there was pre-Brexit a popular opinion among the WP editing class which reflected the internationalist elitist academic progressive anti-Brexit consensus. Fair enough, perhaps. But today the articles now read incorrectly and no longer reflect what many of the quoted sources now say. Meanwhile what's here becomes embarrassing. I merely nudge the editing class here active that some revisionism is necessary for accuracy's sake. WP should not now be predicting what was perhaps reasonable to predict back then because the predictions, not all but many, now appear much more questionable. We need to say in many cases that '<prediction> was made by <rs>', was not is. We need to speak of Brexit - an ongoing process, yes - as having actually happened already! I'm all for correctly sourced material, of course Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As we now post Brexit I think we can remove the predictions and go instead with the "what happened". Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This must be a general problem when editing currently ongoing events on Wikipedia. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It is, but this one has (in a sense) ended so we no longer need predictions, we can see what the results are. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"Predicted" is not accurate

True, but much of the section "impacts" seems to be just that, expectations or potentialities, so it either needs rewording or renaming. So unless it is post-Brexit analysis of actual trends it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did UK's politicians and people pursue "Brexit"?

The lead is in clear POV-pushing state. The motivation given in the lead for Brexit is nothing more than "scepticism". I understand that it is embarassing for many to say that in the 21st century UK proved strongly in favour to curb immigration and the same people will strongly object to how I just phrased things but saying nothing about it is blatant POV-pushing. If anyone wishes to help in mentioning the actual motives and arguments of the Brexit supporters, including the belief that the economy will actually greatly improve because of it, you can help here. Nxavar (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and the lead summarizes what the rest of the article says. If the contents of this article are not being accurately summarized in the lead, please offer your proposed changes here. If the article content itself is in error or not summaring the provided sources accurately, again, please offer your proposed changes.

I would note that the statistics suggest that Brexit is harming the economy, not making it better. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Even the Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom article lead doesn't care to explain motives or arguments. The only "extra" is that in the UK "national sovereignty" is relatively more important that the rest of EU member states. It's the worst spin on a subject I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Nxavar (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The stats show the contrary. I note also GBP has not collapsed against EUR as forecast by the great & the good. Similarly unemployment is down, despite contrary prediction. Similarly with house prices, up not down as predicted. I note Shell moved head office to London, that car manufacturers have announced new projects and investment, despite predictions. Pre-Covod almost all the Remainer predictions were being proven wrong. Now I think you blame Covid economics on Brexit. As ever, if it's good news it's despite Brexit, if it's bad news it's because of Brexit. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I you care to provide RS for it, we can discuss adding it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, I do not want to run into a consensus wall or fight additions word for word. Unless someone agrees that the current situation is indeed outrageous, I am not a UK citizen and not so keen to fight battles for this. Nxavar (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

But we can't sign a "blank cheque" we need to know what exactly you want to say, and how it is sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I do have the blank cheque of WP:BOLD, I just was too startled to use it. Nxavar (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to make an edit do so. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Brexit time point

The article currently states that Brexit took place "... at 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020 (00:00 CET)." - My understanding is that 00:00 CET on 31 January 2020 is 24 hours before 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020. In other words 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020 is the same as 00:00 CET on 1 February 2020. 212.64.228.100 (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

00:00 is ambiguous, which is why the military never use it and always say 23:59 or 00:01. I think it is reasonable to assume that readers are intelligent enough to understand that we are talking about the same moment (2020.01.31 23:00 UTC) and don't need to be spoon-fed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Major edit on lead

Hello, I just completed a quite extensive edit on the lead. Among others, it adds the following info:

a) The rejection of the deal by the Parilament led to the postponement of withdrawal date.

b) The withdrawal "happened" after a deal was passed by Parliament.

c) The transition period is about implementation and fixing details.

Comments are welcome. Nxavar (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Brexit 2.0

Brexit 2.0 is not addressed. It deals with United-Kingdom and/or Great-Britain leaving the ECHR.

https www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/farage-calls-for-brexit-2-0-to-solve-migrant-crisis-332510/ 2A02:8425:642:D701:BF55:9F65:2A1C:85EB (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If it ever amounts to anything, it will be a new article, not this one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Promises

I miss a separate section on the promises made to win voters over to Brexit. A list of Bullet points may do. e.g. 350 Mill Pounds per week for NHS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:AA7:C600:C56A:305D:32D4:A350 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That can be found here; it is linked from the article. Lectonar (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There's also some coverage at the referendum article. Jr8825 • Talk 12:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That said, this article does skip over the campaign and jumps from the agreement to hold the referendum to the result and outcomes. I think adding a (very brief) overview of the campaign itself (with the hatnote pointing to the referendum article moved above it), might be worthwhile here. Jr8825 • Talk 12:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Impact section cleanup

Hi, I tagged Brexit#Impact with an additional cleanup for WP:CRYSTAL tag. The section now has multiple problems and needs urgent attention. It seems that old info (prior to Brexit) was left in that is both outdated and also were speculations of what might be the impact. We are a wikipedia and cover what has happened in the past. There should be plenty of sources on what has been the impact (not an expert myself) but I am sure there is something. Maybe the section needs to get chopped in half or more if there are not WP:RS of what has actually already impacted, not speculation by thinktanks on what might happen sometime if ever. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In principle yes but it is important to record what the official campaigns declared would happen. We don't have to say (and without RSs definitely should not say) how accurate those predictions turned out to be. Rees Mogg declared of one such that it would take 50 years to see the result. So the weeding will have to be fairly carefully done. As for the rest, wp:RECENTISM also applies: indeed it is arguable that we shouldn't even attempt to write such a section before 2066. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be more knowledgeable about this subject than me. Pontifications by notable people should be ok to include (normally I use the if they have a wikipedia article to test that). But we dont summarize what these people pontificated about in wikivoice implying that wikipedia is pontificating about the future (we dont do that). Most of the section should cover actual measured effects after the Brexit, as full sections about future guesses is not encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

crystal in lede

Hi, has this WP:CRYSTAL been discussed or gone through RFC before? If not, I think I will remove it. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

CRYSTAL refers to editors forecasting the future. Afaics, the text is reporting forecasts, which is legitimate. It seems to be properly cited? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Its not limited to editors, and states "Wikipedia does not predict the future." The article is currently repeating predictions of pundits on what will happen to a nation in the future and in the lede (putting undue weight). Its way too much from my standpoint. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: it seems to me that the predictions made by the proponents and opponents before the referendum certainly should be in the article because they so informed the debate. I don't see how that is Wikipedia predicting the future, especially since those predictions were so divergent. I agree that any new predictions in the light of subsequent reality should not be included.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The last line of the lede does not seem to be anything but negative predictions, not all sides. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The solution in that case is to add the positive predictions, surely? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Either, but I prefer Removal, as it seems to me the OP is kind of right. These were (they are not even are, they were made years ago) predictions, not facts. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong disagree. They should stay. It is a fact and an undeniable one at that, that there is (not past tense) a strong consensus amongst economists on these points. We don't also just "add positive" predictions, because that would be false balance. There is no strong academic consensus on these positive points. Luxofluxo (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not false balance to report the predictions of each campaign, indeed it is unbalanced to fail to do so. We should have the "£350m a day for the NHS", "immediate trade deal with the USA", "easiest trade deal ever", "same benefits as we have now", "Norway-plus" arrangement, "no border down the Irish Sea", "massive reduction in immigration". etc. But I'm afraid I must agree that it would be a CRYSTAL violation to give space to predictions made after June 2016 unless the predicted event has already occurred. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Luxofluxo, if there are indeed available sources that use is then we can swap out the crystal content for those. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, the facts are that predictions were made and thus it is entirely valid to report each of those facts. It doesn't matter how long ago they were made. It doesn't matter whether they were right or wrong. (If events have proved them wrong – and an RS says so, else it is OR – then that is reportable too.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking we dont include predictions, this is the point of CRYSTAL and the policy is more important than whatever is going on here (appears might be WP:RGW or advocacy). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding more nonsense (in this case predictions) is exactly the definition of false balance. Remove it all from the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I suggest that you have misread the policy. We don't include predictions as predictions, that certainly is CRYSTAL. The issue here that predictions were made on both sides of the debate leading up to the referendum and that they influenced how people voted. It is not CRYSTAL to record that those predictions were made – the details of what they were are almost incidental but we have to say what they were.

wp:false balance arises when the strong consensus is that "A" is the reality, that there is no significant evidence for "B" but nevertheless we give "A" and "B" equal treatment (see climate change). If the debate we are having now were about the post-2016 "consequences of Brexit" judgements and predictions, you would be correct because the consensus in recent years is that these are and will be economically adverse with no significant contrary expert opinion. But it is not about that (and even if it were, we couldn't include it, per CRYSTAL). Before the referendum, each campaign made its own 'pitch' and we have a duty to record what those pitches were. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are asserting the predictions now have come true, then cite the come true part and drop the prediction. I havent misread the CRYSTAL policy and quoted it for you above. First you said it applied to editors and not to articles (wrong) and now are you talking about some sort of POVs on both sides and that makes the crystal ok, it doesnt. Policy is more important than a particular article. Please just drop it. If you dont consent, I am just going to run an RFC on the matter and waste everyone's time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, please read what I wrote. What is relevant and should be included is that predictions were made by both campaign groups. That is an historical fact. The subsequent accuracy of those predictions is entirely irrelevant. This is not Wikipedia predicting the future, this is reporting the fact that predictions were made by the recognised campaigns. You are misleading yourself by looking at the content of the predictions rather than their existence. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• I removed it here per WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia does not predict the future." If you can find some text that says it has already happened, then it might be WP:DUE for WP:LEDE. Right now this crystal in the lede is a gross policy violation and undue weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

And I will now revert that deletion. This is a WP:Bold, revert, discuss debate. You do not get make a unilateral decision on the conclusion of that debate while it is still in progress. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Although my point about pre-emptive action while a BRD debate is in progress stands, the specific statement you removed was an "after the event" prediction and thus a CRYSTAL violation. I agree with deleting it. So that leaves us with a gap to be filled for the campaign promises. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is quite clear and always leans towards removal of content, especially when it is a clear policy issue. You need to find clear consensus to add predictions to the lede of this article and I dont see it. I also see that similar text in the article has WP:OVERCITE, making it look like the content might have been the source of an earlier WP:EW. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding new polling data

I recently added information regarding polling in the Section "Public opinion since the Brexit referendum", (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brexit&oldid=1166454093) which was removed. I believe up to date polling numbers are an important addition to this article, especially considering that the poll in question had a differently worded question than the older poll.

I would be happy for some feedback so I can come up with a revised edit.

Thanks in advance ~~~ WinkingWikiWiking (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@WinkingWikiWiking, I removed it per WP:UNDUE as I think it needs mainstream reliable sources reporting it to give it due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank your for your quick response. I added the aggregate poll on purpose because it is more representative than individual polls and the last survey cited was also an aggregate of six polls from the same source six months prior.

I could also add this poll instead (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-referendum-rejoin-eu-b2250813.html). It is included in the initial aggregate polling I cited, but was specifically cited by the Independent(^), the Express (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1716280/poll-second-brexit-referendum-spt), Politico (https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-brexit-fail-new-poll-nigel-farage/ ) and the Economist (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/07/19/brexit-was-wrong-say-57-of-british-voters).

~~~ WinkingWikiWiking (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

WinkingWikiWiking, the Express is deprecated, not a reliable source. The Economist is solid and could satisfy DeFacto's request for "mainstream reliable sources reporting it". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is undue of itself, it is factual and there is no reason to question the reliability of the source. It is not obvious what "mainstream reporting" could do other than attach an OpEd.

What is more of a concern is that the whole section Brexit#Public opinion since the Brexit referendum is a muddle of two different ideas (a) was the UK right or wrong to leave? and (b) should the UK rejoin?: they need to be separated. (The three graphs in the first section dealt logically with the separate concepts but have not been updated since 2020. Two of those graphs should really have closed in June 2016. with just the right/wrong going forward.)

So perhaps the way forward is to contact the author of the original graphs to ask the right/wrong graph be updated and an additional graph created for rejoin.

Does that help? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, fair comment. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you that was very helpful. Especially your point regarding the confusion between the different sets of questions.

I would suggest, that we add the polling sourced by mainstream media (citing the Economist, not the Express), if that's alright by @DeFacto and we can also bring in this graph here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opinion_polling_on_the_whether_the_United_Kingdom_should_rejoin_the_European_Union.svg), which gives a really great overview of up to date polls on the question how people would vote in a potential second referendum, so we get rid of some of the mess, you pointed out @John Maynard Friedman. I think that would be a decent start to overhauling this section of the article.

How does that sound to everyone? WinkingWikiWiking (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is very important to distinguish between opinions on whether the decision was right or wrong (on the one hand) versus whether the UK should rejoin (on the other). So we really need to have both graphs. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added the graph on the rejoin question for now. Unfortunately I don't have the technical know how to create a similar graph for the other question. But I could gather the polling data for that and create a table similar to the one used here. I am not sure where we exactly this table should go though. The Brexit article seems long enough already, and this one is specifically about the rejoin question, so it would not be ideal either...

~~~~ WinkingWikiWiking (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

retained EU law vs assimilated EU law

What is the difference between retained EU law and assimilated EU law? 77.193.104.36 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would assume Assimilated implies that the rules were changed, rather than left unchanged. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, explanation is given by the British "Explanatory memorandum to Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023":

Assimilated law

will be domestic law, which was previously REUL, but without the application of the EU law interpretive features applied to REUL by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“EUWA”), namely supremacy, general principles of EU law and rights retained under section 4 of EUWA

— Explanatory memorandum to Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023

Does this mean that the British Retained EU Law keep kind of "supremacy" with application of the EU law interpretive features?

We do not interpret the law, we are to a court. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

How would you explain to a non-native what that means? 77.193.104.36 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Article length exceeds guidelines

This is certainly an interesting article, but is > 12,000 words. The Wikipedia:Article size states:

A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style.

That said, it does go on to say...

Readable prose size		What to do
> 15,000 words	> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
> 9,000 words	> 60 kB	Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.
> 8,000 words	> 50 kB	May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.

I am completely unfamiliar with this topic, so I am not the person to edit this and create new articles, but I'm sure one of you knowledgeable editors is perfect for the challenge.

MagnoliaSouth talk) 08:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic caused very high attention in the United Kingdom between the referendum and Brexit. More text than in this article has been written in linked side articles. However people seemed to got tired of Brexit, and not much has been added after 2021.--BIL (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in this debate, arguably one could say that although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. would be the applicable part of this guideline. Brexit was widely covered internationally and was a major event, so one could just as easily argue that this is one of the cases where the scope of the topic does justify the added material. The guideline says that 15,000 words should "almost certainly be divided or trimmed"; this article is not quite there yet. I am going to remove the tag for now, as this page is at 11,000 words, but I do agree some text would benefit from being condensed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)