Talk:Brexit/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

My edit to the UK financial sector subsection of the Impact section

I am having my edit reverted by Snooganssnoogans. (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brexit&type=revision&diff=914920611&oldid=914889830) It introduces some info about a survey by the Central Bank of Ireland (a rather notable establishment, I suggest), which in essence says that the impact of Brexit on London's financial sector could be pretty small. No problem with that, eh? Apparently there is. There was a contentious edit to this same subsection (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brexit/Archive_8#Peer-reviewed_research_about_Brexit_impact_on_financial_institutions) about the mention of a survey which looked at something different, though still related to financial matters: it looked at the impact on share values. Not an economic impact, directly. The arguments against its inclusion were 1. that it cost $39.95 to see it and therefore shouldn't be cited, 2. that there was already a survey mentioned that talked of the impact on the financial sector (though the one being argued about was not really that), 3. that there was already far too much detail in the article (true!) and 4. something about it being peer-reviewed, which frankly is a silly argument, but which caused ripples. Eventually the edit in of that article was allowed, or so it says on the Talk page ref. I've quoted. (I can't see the RS noticeboard discussion as there's no link to it.)

The point I wish to make is this. Yes, there are a lot of surveys and forecasts mentioned in the article. But the one I want to have included actually puts Brexit in a "not so bad after all" light, whereas the others mentioned in this particular subsection are all negative to Brexit. Looking at other discussions in this Talk page it's fairly obvious that there is significant resistance by an editor or two to including anything which isn't negative about Brexit. (There have been several instances lately of edits introducing material which isn't negative about Brexit being instantly reverted pretty damned quickly, without any Talk discussion before doing so. This is another one.) But wait! Isn't the ideal that Wikipedia should be fair, should be balanced? I would like that, too, but I'm having difficulty in doing what I can to make it so. So please, other editors, what about it?

Octoberwoodland, PaleCloudedWhite, Asarlaí, Knox490, Kind Tennis Fan...you may be interested in this - I cordially invite your participation. Please Support, or otherwise, my edit. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 04:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is very simple: If a peer-reviewed study by recognized experts, which is in the line with broad assessment by economists, is deemed undue weight, then a working paper, which flies in the face of the broad assessment by economists, should not be included either. That would be a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely both of the forecasts can be included. But we shouldn't let the section get much bigger. The detail about "passporting rights" could be shortened. ~Asarlaí 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, they can't both be included, because the most embarrassing RfC I've ever seen concluded that the aforementioned peer-reviewed research can't be added to the page.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why a summary of the Central Bank of Ireland report shouldn't be included - it seems pertinent and appropriate for balance. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I see no issue with including the proposed content and Snooganssnoogans does not WP:OWN this article. Let's start a poll on the issue.

• Include suggested content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Own this article, my ass. This is very simple: There was a RfC (the most embarrassing one I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia) where editors decided not to include a peer-reviewed study on this very subject. Keeping peer-reviewed research that reaches conclusion A out, while including a working paper by two economists that reaches conclusion B, is a brazen violation of NPOV and DUE. Please tell me that you get that? As someone who has added pretty much every academic study to this Wikipedia article, I'd of course want to include both the peer-reviewed study and the working paper, but it would be a disgrace to only include the one that conveniently suits your own opinion on the subject. And you should strike your ridiculous aspersion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Then follow through on WP:BRD and after you revert something take the time to post a message to the talk page so people know what you are thinking, none of us are mind readers. Just blindly reverting another editors edits with no explanation looks like edit warring to a casual observer.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And whether or not there is a vague RFC laying around somewhere does not trump editor consensus in all cases. If the consensus of other editors is to include content to balance the viewpoints in the article then you need to respect that. As it stands, the only editor who is constantly violating WP:UNDUE and WP:POINT is you each and every time you attempt your POV pushing of "academia only" brexit viewpoints in this article. Try to compromise with the rest of us on inclusion of balanced content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans first up, thank you for providing the link to the RfC discussion on the other contentious edit in this section.

You have stated repeatedly that in that case "editors decided". It seems that this was not the case. Editors were split evenly and in the end it was the adjudication of the overseeing admin, who stated "I find that there is neither a consensus to include, nor is there a consensus not to include, the proposal. In the absence of a consensus..." Clearly you were incorrect in fact.

I have stated that the other contentious edit was a survey which looked at the future value of investments post-Brexit and forecast a fall. The subsection is entitled "UK financial sector" and to my mind this describes the financial industry itself. An industry and a portfolio of investments are quite different things. The edit I've tried to have included looks at the expected effect on London's financial sector. So I have tried to get it across that we're not looking at things which are directly comparable. My edit is directly related to the subsection's title.

Look, whether a forecast coming from a reputable organisation disagrees with others should not concern anyone! From what you've written, it appears to concern you. But it should not and must not determine the validity of its inclusion in the article. There is a whole raft of Wiki guidelines which support this.

Octoberwoodland raised the guideline WP:OWN and whilst I'm not going to re-state his or her aspersion, what you have written has raised my eyebrows and cannot have escaped the attention of others, viz: "As someone who has added pretty much every academic study to this Wikipedia article..." Coupling that with persistent reversion of edits which suggest some positive aspects of Brexit...

There is a clear consensus (4 to 1) to include. The edit will be back in shortly and I trust that it will remain that way. Thank you everyone for your contributions. Boscaswell talk 07:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that there are questions regarding the conduct of Snooganssnoogans around this article. My impression is that they wish the article to convey a negative view of Brexit, and as such are antagonistic to additions contrary to that perspective. The issue of "ownership" has been commented on by at least one other editor in an unsolicited post on my talkpage (see here). The edit summary in Snooganssnoogans' initial reversion (here) is disingenuous, as the RfC was only concerned with one particular addition, and was not a decision about peer-reviewed literature in general. The fact that Snooganssnoogans' edit summary contorted this fact to say something slightly different is quite typical from my impressions of their editing. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean, PaleCloudedWhite. I had a look at the unsolicited entry you mentioned on your Talk page and agree with T8612. The talk page mentioned thereon is very telling: Admin interventions and 3RR warnings abound. I feel that should there be the same kind of activity again here on the Brexit article, it really should be reported. Boscaswell talk 10:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The best course of action should this issue be raised on WP:AN/I concerning Snooganssnoogans editing conduct is to request he be topic banned from this article for a period of time if he edit wars or fails to respect the consensus of other editors. Snooganssnoogans is a bold and passionate editor and can be a strong contributor, but he needs to follow the rules just like the rest of us who edit on Wikipedia. The difference between being a bold editor and a contentious editor has everything to do with respecting the views of other editors when there is a disagreement. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Got to laugh about the warnings on the talk page. I did a similar thing in User:Knox490's talk page when he started editing saying "Just to give you a heads up, there is a long history of people raising similar points to you about this page.....and a long history of people giving up due to the aggressive a relentless push back from a small group of editors. Not to discourage you, but be prepared to put in a lot of time and effort if you want to change anything." Perhaps we should put a blanket warning to any new editors to the page at the top! Jopal22 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The disputed edit regarding the bank survey has actually been hideously misrepresented, and attempting to use it to "balance" concerns about a post-brexit UK economy stops making sense the moment you read the actual study and not just the press release. While the inclusion of this study in Wikipedia was used to argue, approximately, "Early estimates predicted [bad stuff]; however, a new study predicts the financial industry will be okay," what the authors are really concluding is that London's GFCI ranking will barely change, reflecting that it will remain one of the world's most competitive global financial centers, even if 20% of its clients flee the country and/or the economy contracts by 3.8%. They do not present any new estimates for how the UK will fare with or without brexit, aside from using ad hoc models to interrogate their method. Otherwise they rely on a 2016 estimate published in Economic Modelling. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Starting point for the Timeline.

I think this should be in the Timeline: "The European Union Referendum Act was passed in the House of Commons on 7 September 2015." Inclusion is needed, because, in part, the economy of the UK started to change about a month or so after that, with a distinct decline in the value of the pound on world markets, declining slowly up to a precipitous drop in value on the day after the Referendum, and never recovered since. Thus, the date that it was announced is important, since it appears to have fairly quickly influenced confidence in the UK economy and the value of the pound. The date of announcemnet is inextricably linked to the changes that are still unfolding today. Pound value --> https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-effective-exchange-rates/GBP-history#charts

Rounding up of referendum results

If you look at the official results: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum

It clearly states:

51.9% Leave, 48.1% Remain

Rounding up 51.9% to 52% is incorrect. Rounding down 48.1% to 48% is incorrect.

Wikipedia should ensure the official results are reported.

Please amend the article to reflect this.

Thanks --JayDv (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a big deal to round-up to whole figures in the intro, the reported percentages are clearly detailed in this article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

When a user reads the intro, they are presented with a ROUNDED UP value which does not reflect the truth. In a sensitive subject like Brexit we must be impartial and use the official value rather than rounding up. JayDv (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We are using the official value but just rounding it up in the introduction to make it easier to read and understand, sorry its not a big problem this is not an article about the referendum. The fact that the result triggered Brexit is important in the introduction not the decimal figures. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I see "51.9%" in the referendum. How is "52%" easier to read and understand than "51.9%" ? As Brexit was the result of that, why cannot the canonical value of "51.9%" be used? You're presuming it's easier to read and understand. I thought Wikipedia was about removing personal and cognitive biases. Please act accordingly. JayDv (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If the result for was 51.6% or 51.7% or even 51.7% or maybe even 51.8% then you would have a point, JayDv. It wasn’t, it was 51.9%. Get over it. The ledes of Wikipedia articles are highly abbreviated and diluted summaries of them. So 52% is fine. Boscaswell talk 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Boscaswell, This request was about stating the official result value. When you say there may be a point if the value was 51.6% or 51.7% or even 51.8% and to not round up - then why round up at all? A genuine request for facts to be represented is dismissed by editors in a privileged position denying the representation of facts with a comment of "Get over it". What's the point of even bothering to join wikipedia and ask you to correct a value that isn't true? For what it's worth, the same would apply for example, if the value was 52.3, I'd expect 52.3% and not 52%. Having a rounded up or down value is misleading, especially important in a summary. JayDv (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

JayDv I think you know the point I was making, but choose not to accept that I had one. The difference between 51.6 and 52 is much more substantial than the diff between 51.9 and 52. By the way, 51.9 is not precise, it is itself the result of some rounding. Therefore 51.9% is “misleading.” Or at least it is by your reckoning. A summary is just what it says, it’s a summary. Oh, and why not state in the lede that the percentage for leave in England alone was well over 53%? Not to say that is misleading, right? Likewise, it was a considerably higher percentage for remain in Scotland. Etc etc. I say again, a summary is a summary. 52% is easier to grasp than 51.9% and the difference is very slight. Summaries are intended to be easy to grasp. Readable in seconds, the meaning easily absorbable. 52% helps with that. Boscaswell talk 05:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It's absolutely bonkers to round up (or down) like this in a close election, and I don't think I've ever seen that in any of the countless Wikipedia articles I've seen that cover election results. It's perfectly standard to use one decimal point when giving election results (and two if the election is incredibly close). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The notion that readers are incapable of understanding 51.9% (the standard way that election results are given), as opposed to 52% is bizarre, but certainly not beyond what one expects on this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

POV Tag to address editor concerns of bias and negative content in lede

I have tagged the article as needing POV checking on the lede. At present, the lede only covers and addresses the negative aspects of brexit. It needs to also address the positive aspects, which are lacking in the article. Numerous editors have stated they feel this article is biased and that the lede needs more balanced content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please identify, specifically, what content you believe is lacking. It is a misapprehension of our policies to suggest that "balance" means we give equal or near equal-weight to positive and negative aspects (see, e.g., WP:FALSEBALANCE). Neutrality^talk 01:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and assistance in tackling this topic. One thing that is lacking are the current proposed post-brexit trade deals that the United States (President Trump) put on the table. Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in late August announced they had discussions regarding the US immediately executing a trade arrangement with the UK post Brexit to shore up those sections of the UK economy which may be negatively impacted post Brexit. The United States is one of the most powerful economies on earth, and for the leader of the US to announce such an arrangement is a big deal. The US could with the stroke of a pen solve the issues raised by the brexit naysayers and float the UK until the post Brexit dust settles. While the details of these trade deals are not yet public, the US would only need to make some minor adjustments with the Federal Reserve and it would solve any of the UK's proposed deficit issues. Other positive aspects of Brexit are that post-Brexit the UK could freely enter into trade agreements with other countries and it gets the EU's hands out of the UK's pockets. Another issue involves the problems with Northern Ireland. It's pretty clear that a conflict is brewing in Northern Ireland over the backstop issue, and it's long overdue for the UK to address the issues and consider a military solution. I am currently reviewing quite a bit on content from the August meeting between Trump and Johnson. I think the trade deals proposed by the US would be a good first start at adding some of this content to the lede. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We are not going to put in the lead some speculative and vague proposals for some future U.S. trade agreement. Nor rambling about "the EU's hands out of the UK's pockets." (The "stroke of the pen" stuff is also incorrect; bilateral trade agreements would have to be approved by Congress, not by presidential fiat.) Neutrality^talk 02:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well then, it sounds like my suggestions are not acceptable. I will remove the tag and refrain from editing this article further. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure a military conflict in Ireland would be considered a "positive aspect". ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainties about Brexit belong in the lead

I added some of the most basic and obvious effects of leaving the EU, which should have been in the lead long ago, but Snooganssnoogans has removed them. They removed the following:

• "After withdrawal, EU law and the European Court of Justice will no longer have supremacy over UK law or the UK Supreme Court, and the UK could amend or repeal EU laws it has retained".

That isn't speculation, it's the law. It's in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, a law passed by the UK parliament that will come into effect once the UK leaves the EU. There are plenty of reliable sources for it, but here is the one I used. Are there any sources which contradict it?

• The statement that the UK will regain "control over fishing rights in its own waters".

That's reliably sourced to this UK parliament briefing paper (altho many other sources could be used), which says this will happen whether there's a withdrawal agreement or not. It's also already noted in the article. Are there any sources which contradict it?

• The statement that the UK will "no longer have to pay into the EU budget, although it would likely have to pay a financial settlement ("divorce bill")".

That's reliably sourced to here (altho again many other sources could be used), which notes the UK will no longer have to make yearly contributions to the EU budget, but may pay for participation in specific programs, should it so choose. It's also already noted in the article. Are there any sources which contradict it?

Snooganssnoogans removed these things because of the mistaken belief that they "depend on what kind of Brexit there is". Yet they didn't remove the negative economic forecasts from the lead, even tho these really do depend on the kind of Brexit, and the lead itself says this. We can't remove things which are certain while keeping things which are forecasts. ~Asarlaí 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

1. This kind of content should be added to the body, and then if pertinent, added to the lede. The lede is not where new contested info should be added. If its added to the body, then one can make substantive edits to the text that accounts for the nuance (but it's hard to do the same in the lede). 2. The economic assessments take account of the different types of Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hang on a second, Snooganssnoogans! You appear to be implying that stating that the ECJ would not have premacy over UK law is not pertinent? You do seem to be implying that such a statement is to be contested. I hope I'm wrong here...but I have to say that you appear to be reverting edits which might make Brexit appear to be not such a bad thing after all. My edit in UK financial sector and the one above. WP:PPOV

If someone has been working on this article for a long time, then perhaps consideration could be given to making sure that something as important to the subject as this is included? WP:OWN refers. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we should all be working to produce articles which are balanced.Boscaswell talk 04:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added the content to the article (under "Law and courts"), as I'd intended to do, and re-added it to the lead as follows:

"Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, EU law and the EU Court of Justice will no longer have supremacy over UK law or its Supreme Court after withdrawal, and the UK could amend or repeal EU laws it has retained."

But now Snoogans is reverting it again because we "cannot include this without also including that softer versions of Brexit (e.g. EEA membership) would force the UK to adopt EU law". However, currently the UK is due to leave the EEA, and the Withdrawal Act is due to come into force. So Snoogans is preventing this being added to the lead because things *might* change, even tho it's the law and there are no hints of things changing. By Snoogans logic, we should also remove the forecasts and speculation about migration/education/security from the lead because they could change. Are there any recent reliable sources saying the UK is seeking EEA membership? ~Asarlaí 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

1. For the millionth time, all the academic assessments on the impacts on economy, security etc. that are in the article take account of varying versions of Brexit and include these uncertainties in their assessments, despite the repeated unfounded assertions that people who study this for a living don't know that there's more than one possible Brexit version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

2. The text that you're trying to add to the lede omits that the UK would have to blindly accept all kinds of EU law (without any input on those laws) to ensure that it maintains various benefits of whatever future relationship it has with the EU. It's grotesquely misleading to readers. It's like trying to only add all the fiscal savings that the UK would make by leaving the EU (e.g. "the UK would not have to pay for program X"), while omitting that the net impact would adversely affect public coffers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying the Withdrawal Act that was passed by the UK parliament and is currently UK law, is a lie? After Brexit (and any transitional period), EU law will continue to have supremacy in UK law? The UK will never be able to amend any of the EU laws/regulations it has retained (for now) as its own? The EU Court of Justice will continue to have supremacy over the UK Supreme Court?

Have you any sources for this? And have you any sources saying the UK is now seeking EEA membership? If its not in the article it doesn't belong in the lead (as you yourself said), nor should it affect what's in the lead. I've provided reliable sources here which fully support what is written. ~Asarlaí 20:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Snooganssnoogans, Boscaswell, Octoberwoodland, PaleCloudedWhite and Jack Upland for more input. ~Asarlaí 20:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Support the disputed edit, with one textual change: replace “could amend or repeal” with “would be able to amend or repeal”. There could be a discussion in the article that such amendments or repeals could lead to conflicts with existing international agreements. But to do this without taking from an RS would be synth.

Sadly, Snoogans’ complaint is fairly obviously IMO yet another instance of his this must be and is all that can be allowed! attitude, when in actualité what he is stating is merely a hysterical scream from the stylus on a broken record that it’s not acceptable to make an edit which does not put Brexit in a bad light. S/he stands over virtually any and all edits on this article with the same attitude - WP:OWN and WP:NPOV and a whole host of other Wikipedia guidelines refer. Good luck, Asarlaí. Your gentle dedication is exemplary. Boscaswell talk 23:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Support - the article lead is quite large, and needs to be pared down. So adding more content to the lede needs to be short and concise. The content appears to have WP:RS so I fail to see why Snooganssnoogans objects to it. I do see Snooganssnoogans point about the lede and we need to remove some content from it to get it down to a few paragraphs with short concise statements since it is very large at present. Any thoughts on this? Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Appearances are everything, Octoberwoodland, and in this case there’s no image or infobox separating the first lede para from the rest of it. If there was, it would be OK. Not perfect, but certainly acceptable for now. I’ve seen longer. This is a complex subject. Boscaswell talk 05:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"The lede is very large, so let's add some misleading nonsense to it." Can't make this shit up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the only secondary RS cited by Asarlai points to a more nuanced picture of UK and EU law post-Brexit.[2] Not only does Catherine Barnard say that EU law will continue to shape UK law for years and decades to come, but that any trade agreement with the EU will necessarily force the UK to adopt EU law. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Support The lead is tipped in favor of process, with only a single paragraph mentioning the impact. This needs to be fixed, and the contended sentence is a step in the right direction. We can discuss the exact form of the sentence, but something like that needs to be there. It was a huge argument in the referendum and the following debate. On the sentence, is should be noted that is specifically refers to the supremacy of EU law. UK might voluntarily follow EU law for trade reasons, or they might at a later point sign a trade deal that reintroduces supremacy, but it is WP:CRYSTAL to speculate in that. Snooganssnoogans has a point that it depends on the form of Brexit, but as of now, we should only take no-deal and the withdrawal agreement into account. AFAIK, the WA only has supremacy in the case that the Iris backstop is triggered, and only if the arbitration panel does not reach a conclusion on their own, but I am not really into the details. Perhaps there is a good way to specify something like this? ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

New wording of EU law supremacy

I have a problem with the last sentence, which is an extraordinary claim, and such requires extraordinary sources, or better attribution to Barnard. I have added that to the body now. But overall the part in the lead about law is clearly the result of an content dispute, and are too long because everybody wanted their part to be included for balance. I suggest it is replaces by the following sentence:

"Following Brexit, EU law and the EU Court of Justice will no longer have any supremacy over UK laws, unless agreed upon in a withdrawal agreement or a future trade agreement. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retains all EU law as part of UK law, and these can be changed by the UK parliament."

I don't really know if the withdrawal agreement should be included, because I don't really know to what scope EU law and ECJ will still have jurisdiction if and if not the backstop comes into force. But we can always fix that later. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

On the withdrawal agreement, it seems that it is fair to include it in the sentence, as discussed in this Institute for Government paper. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Hebsen. As you no doubt noticed, I amended the wording a little. The last sentence is, as you say, an extraordinary claim. Attributing it in the lede would be hghly unusual. Nevertheless, there appears to be no stopping someone we know reinstating it. Your turn to delete it next time? ;) Boscaswell talk 03:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you edit cannot stand. It is analysis presented as facts, and should in no way be present in the lead. Barnard might be right in her analysis, but that is still only the opinion of a single academic. The UK in a Changing Europe specifically says "The views expressed in these analysis posts are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The UK in a Changing Europe." I understand you disagreed with the inclusion of the sentence about EU supremacy, but there were a clear consensus for adding it. Instead of continuing this edit war, you should work with us to make sure the sentence is balanced, NPOV and factually correct. I have presented my suggestion above, I invite you to be constructive as well. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I happened to see this in passing. I'm uninvolved but vaguely interested, and I do have a suggestion that "retains all EU law" in the suggested wording above be changed to read "retains directly-applicable EU law". I got that suggested replacement wording from the third paragraph in the lead of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 article. I'm not very well informed on this, but it seems to me that the two articles ought to track one another on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the text is specifically published in a report by The UK in a Changing Europe[3]. It's not some random-ass self-published opinion. And not a single source has been presented to rebut the fairly rudimentary assessment that of course the UK would have to adopt EU law in any trade agreement made with the EU. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I had not seen that. But even thought published by The UK in a Changing Europe, my main point still stands. And that point is that it is analysis, not facts. And that means it can be argued against. I am no expert on free trade agreements, but for an example CETA does not require Canada to follow EU law or vice-versa (Souce: Institute for Government p.11 "Canada is not required to align its laws and regulations with the EU"). So basically all that argues for a Canada-style relationship are implicitly arguing for a trade deal without any EU law supremacy. It is my impression that a free trade agreement itself covers rules that all paries must follow, but that is something very different than one party being a subordinate to the other. In the CETA-example, there is a investor-state dispute settlement process, which is not the ECJ. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The statement “of course ... would have to adopt EU law in any trade agreement “ may well forecast what might happen. But it is a foretelling of the future dressed up as certainty. Agreements are only finalised when they are finalised. A likelihood is not a certainty. A few weeks ago the EU stated that the backstop was not and would never be negotiable. It appeared to be highly unlikely that it could be. But it was not a certainty and that has been born out by more recent developments - the EU will negotiate around it after all. So to say that something that’s forecast about some as yet unmapped agreement with the EU is how it will be, as the contentious edit does, cannot stand. It is in any case poorly worded, the first word is bordering on synth. Boscaswell talk 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have now implemented this. The wording is slightly modified from what is written above. Most notably, I choose to leave out the comment on trade agreements, as this is WP:CRYSTAL. I have added the IfG-report to the body, as this is used in the lead. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki rules say do NOT delete a biased RS

Instead you should add a counterbalancing quote: please read and follow WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

Also look at WP:BIASED "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Rjensen (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In this case the author is a leading British journalist Jonathan Freedland who writes a weekly column for The Guardian. He presents BBC Radio 4's contemporary history series, The Long View. His essay is published in the current issue of a leading American political venue The New York Review of Books, (26 September 2019). In my opinion his quote is sophisticated, accurate and important. His quote = "[T]he Britain of 2019 [is] in the grip of a populism that is trampling on the norms and constraints of liberal democracy, that is contemplating a collective act of self-harm without precedent, that is bracing itself for disruption, shortages, even civil unrest unknown in peacetime. This is not the consequence of unavoidable war or an unforeseen natural disaster, but is entirely of the country's own making." (p. 35.) Rjensen (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

An entry in the further reading section is not "sourced information" in the article. If you think something from the book warrants inclusion into this article, add it to the relevant section in the body. One should not include analysis from journalists just because they finds the analysis correct. There have been written extensively about Brexit. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

SUPPORT Hebsen The quote is highly opinionated, that is, it does not "seem biased", it is. At the top of the article is a request to make it shorter. To add something that's highly opinionated to the Brexit article and then say, "oh someone well known has said it, therefore it's OK, just add more to balance it out" is not helpful at all. I've come across instances of very experienced Wikipedia editors who use the wealth of their experience to cherry pick Wiki guidelines that justify their one-sided edits, edits which really do very little beyond presenting their own POV. I hope that this isn't the case here. Lastly, the edit was by made initially by an editor who has made about 10 edits or less. Whoever it is certainly knows how to edit, so they're not new to Wikipedia. I wonder who they are? Boscaswell talk 21:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I included Jonathan Freedland's self-summary of his article, when I added it to this Wikipedia article's "Further reading" section, in the interest of informing readers who might not have time to read Freedland's article themselves. His article, written on 28 August 2019, is not a book review but a review of the history of Brexit and appears to be reasonably objective. Oh, and I have been active on Wikipedia for some years. Nihil novi (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The further reading section is for, you guessed it, further reading. It makes no sense to include a quote there to help readers that don't have the time to read it. I think the title of the essay "Fools rush out" sufficiently sums up the content. If the quote is there, it can reasonably be considered to be POV, and that is reason enough to not include it. Finally, I acknowledge that I was wrong about it being a book and the quote cherry-picked. Also, I remind Boscaswell to WP:AGF, though their comments was obviously a mix-up. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sincere apologies Nihil novi for my mistaken thinking that you were new here. Still disagree v strongly with your edit, tho. ;) Boscaswell talk 01:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection Status

I believe that this article should be given more protection, as it is very contrevertial. Lbc07 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lbc07: Thanks for your concerns but Wikipedia's policy is that generally articles are only protected if there is active disruption to prevent, not preemptively. There are sufficient eyes on this article to spot any problems quickly anyway. You can read more about it in our protection policy. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I know this is not the place for it but I don't have the "status" to correct this little irritating grammar error..."not agreed a trade agreement before the end of the transition period" Can someone please correct it and delete my comment? Tx Much obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Hugot (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Altered to "a trade agreement has not been reached". Errantius (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Inserting fringe nonsense about border solutions in Wiki voice

Text has been added to article about "trusted traders schemes and using GPS to track lorries" to deal with the problems caused by the border between N-Ireland and Ireland. These "solutions" are explicitly attributed to "Brexit supporters" in the cited source, with the EU explicitly saying that these solutions are not operational. In other words, this is just more fringe pro-Brexit propaganda that is being repeatedly inserted into the article without attribution, without balance and without discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: to eliminate content because the EU disagree with it is not Wikipedia policy. And the EU certainly do not have a veto on ideas. These ideas have been widely reported in RSes and certainly do not fall into the "fringe" or "pro-Brexit propaganda" categories. NPOV requires us to cover the "pro" side as well as the "anti" side, and that we don't editorialise or apply our own personal opinion to content, so I think these ideas need to be restored. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not an article for speculations and partisan rhetoric, in particular when you fail to describe it as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I SUPPORT [[DeFacto. There is no need to rigidly observe whatever the EU says. It is, after all, Brexit that we are talking about. For close to a year the EU were saying that the backstop was non-negotiable, but guess what, other solutions are being examined and negotiated. None other than Angela Merkel said that this could happen. Snoogans, you need to consider whether you are working collaboratively or not? You have been in a minority of one several times already. This discussion is heading the same way. Boscaswell talk 21:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Other proposed options include trusted traders schemes and using GPS to track lorries." I think this line is factually incorrect, or atleast too vague. The implication is that this is a proposed solution by the British Government to the EU, but the source doesn't say this. It just says the PM has praised a report written on the topic. Is there a source saying this has actually been proposed by the government to the EU as a Backstop alternative? Cameron Ehteshami (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Brexit is filled with speculation and partisan rhetoric, so of course this article should cover it with, with sufficient editorial oversight. I agree the paragraph was not good enough as it was, but then better improve it instead of deleting it. I believe it is good as it stands now, including with your addition. We cannot disregard proposed solutions that are discussed on head-of-government-level, just because they might we unworkable. They are not fringe, but government policy. Fringe does not mean workable. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternate Proposals I think would have their place in the article, but what is in the text currently doesn't seem to be an alternate proposal, it's just a solution being considered the 2 MP's in a report. I think the line should be removed until it's actually proposed by someone. Otherwise we might include all sorts of ideas that aren't being seriously discussed in Brexit negotiations, which this doesn't seem to be unless editors have additional sources. Cameron Ehteshami (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron Ehteshami that the line be removed. The amount of speculation in this article should be kept to a minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tale.Spin (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The lead of the Brexit article needs to be vastly improved

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

According to Investopedia: "Long term refers to the extended period of time that an asset is held. Depending on the type of security, a long-term asset can be held for as little as one year or for as long as 30 years or more. Generally speaking, long-term investing for individuals is often thought to be in the range of at least seven to ten years of holding time, although there is no absolute rule."[4]

First of all, economists have a poor record of predicting recessions, etc. According to the leading business website Bloomberg.com: "In 1966, four years before securing the Nobel Prize for economics, Paul Samuelson quipped that declines in U.S. stock prices had correctly predicted nine of the last five American recessions. His profession would kill for such accuracy. With recession talk returning to haunt financial markets and the corridors of central banks, a review of the past suggests that those who are paid to call turning points in economic growth have a dismal record. Unlike the stock market, they’re more likely to miss recessions than to predict ones that never occur. The lowlight, of course, was the widespread failure to forecast America’s Great Recession, which began in December 2007—nine months before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy."[5] So the consensus of economists is rather dubious in value. Economics is still a social science and it is rightly often called the "dysmal science".

Second, economists are not political scientists and they have no idea if the European Union will even last 5 years. In much of Europe and the world at large, the populist right is growing at a substantial clip.[6][7] And even if economists were political scientists, most political scientists failed to predict Brexit would happen. The Economist states about the original Brexit related vote: "The same is true of the Brexit vote, albeit over a shorter time period. For the vast majority of the campaign, both polls and markets had "remain" with a solid lead."[8] Knox490 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is to have the lead reflect the present/past more and be less dogmatic about the future. Economists have poor forecasting records - especially when it comes to long term forecasting.Knox490 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you start a blog where you can ramble about the problems you perceive in economics. Your remarks on the Navarro page and now this page certainly have nothing at all to do with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact remains that economists are very poor about forecasting the future and the record clearly shows this. The lead of article should focus more on certainties and not speculation. Wikipedia doesn't often cite futurologists or astrologists in its articles about the future. Why? Because their track record shows they unreliable and they often engage in speculation.Knox490 (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The points you make are valid, but we need sources relating to Brexit.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Brexit cause long term damage? Chief Brexit negotiator in Brussels said Brexit could bring down the EU by 2024

"Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Russia will destroy the European Union, according to a chief Brexit negotiator in Brussels. Guy Verhofstadt has told The Times the rise of populism and the far-right could bring down the Union by 2024 if they cannot be replaced by a 'new vision of the EU'."[9]

If the EU dissolves by 2024, the whole argument that Brexit will cause long term economic damage is certainly compromised.Knox490 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Post Brexit Britain in risk of becoming a vassal state

@Knox490: Pray that Mr. Imgauw (In-my-great-and-unmatched-wisdom) won't get a 2nd term. Look what the dealing was with Ukraine and how the Istanbul towers played out. Post Brexit Britain would degrade to a vassal state and eventually sold out for three towers. --Moreevo (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Brexit article is biased. It breaks Wikipedia's NPOV policy

This Brexit article is biased. It breaks Wikipedia's NPOV (see: WP:NPOV) policy.

Where are the potential long term benefits of Brexit in the article? And why aren't they in the lead of the article?

Switzerland is not part of the European Union and here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's Economy of Switzerland article: "The economy of Switzerland is one of the world's most advanced free market economies. The service sector has come to play a significant economic role, particularly the Swiss banking industry and tourism. The economy of Switzerland ranks first in the world in the 2015 Global Innovation Index and the 2017 Global Competitiveness Report. According to United Nations data for 2016, Switzerland is the third richest landlocked country in the world after Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, and together with the latter and Norway the only three countries in the world with a GDP per capita above US$70,000 that are neither island nations nor ministates."Knox490 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg is a leading business publication and recently published this article: Brexiteers Say If Switzerland Stood Up to EU, So Can U.K..

Why isn't information such as the above incorporated into the article to make the article meet Wikipedia's NPOV policy?Knox490 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The European Union with its culture of many rules/regulations and its practice of gunning for big tech companies with fines is definitely not a leader in cutting edge technology like artificial intelligence (AI).

Venturebeat indicates: "While the United States currently has an edge in the race to develop artificial intelligence, China is rapidly gaining ground as Europe falls behind, according to a report released today by the Center for Data Innovation."[10]

On the other hand, this is true about Switzerland: Switzerland "is slowly transforming into one of the most important centers for advancements in AI technology... Ranked for seven consecutive years as the most innovative country in the world by Cornell University, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and INSEAD, it does not come as much of a surprise that Switzerland would be one of the first movers when it comes to AI adoption and research. An interesting side note is the fact that Switzerland already boasts the highest number of AI companies per citizen (source: ASGARD)."[11]

Innovation/produtivity is a big key to future job growth and a countries prosperity. There are certainly areas outside of the European Union that are doing far better when it comes to developing cutting edge technology.

Wikipedia's Brexit article has a serious NPOV problem.Knox490 (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Knox490 I agree with you. Having worked on some Brexit articles, this one and No-deal Brexit, it has crossed my mind that many editors involved may well have remain leanings.Boscaswell talk 03:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

see my comment above in the Certainties about Brexit... section here.Boscaswell talk 04:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't directly stand in the iraq war spalt that (The war itself is largely considered to be bad) Or Britains decision to join the Eu was really good in financial terms. Or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland are the only nations in western Europe. Not paying a ton of taxes to poor economies in East Europe and Southern Europe in development aid and agricultural aid. And having higher GDP per capita than most other western European countries that is a member of Eu. Netherland, France, Belgium etcetera all have lower GDP per capita than Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and Norway. Only Ireland and Luxembourg has a higher Gdp per capita in the Eu than Norway and Switzerland. source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Maybe something to mention. Maybe the free market and free movement could outweigh the cost but still something to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.125.89 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's biased. This issue has been raised several times.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland I feel that the main reason that it is biased is that one editor in particular stands over it, adding in every gloom and doom survey and reverting out anything which could be remotely described as positive towards Brexit. You being an Admin, would it be possible for you please to cast your eyes over and weigh in on this thread, which is on WP:AN and relates directly to the problem? I am far from being the only editor up against it, as you will see. Thank you. PS. I apologise in advance for the tone of some of my responses. I was absolutely astonished by the outright bias of some Administrator comments. Boscaswell talk 03:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Crikey, Jack Upland! My misapprehension - apologies. Nevertheless, it’s not only Admins who have commented on the thread I drew your attention to. :) Boscaswell talk 20:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Article 50 process - Extensions - Third (potential)

This paragraph is now clearly out of date, at a minimum this sentence needs corrected; "In order for such an extension to be granted if it is requested by the Prime Minister, it would be necessary for there to be unanimous agreement by all other heads of EU governments.", since the "UK" and the Prime Minister have both sent letters (one a request for the extension, which Donald Tusk has also advised be acceeded to, and a personal one in which Boris Johnson says he doesn't want an extension (which may be found in contempt of court, depending on the government's response to the EU's response, in the Inner Court of Session in Edinburgh)). I suppose this is all in the air though but the current sentence as written above is now inaccurate and will stay so for the rest of history.

I, apparently, am not allowed to fix any of this. Apologies for your opaque editting permission system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.125.41.18 (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

A new Brexit deal has been agreed in principle and awaits to be signed off by both the UK and the EU. 80.192.117.201 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Additions to the article: attitude of EU to Brexit

I would like to see a section on the attitude of the EU itself on Brexit, particularly:

1 the attitude of various member states before the 2016 referendum; 2 the appointment of Barnier, a well-known anglophobe, as 'negotiator' (e.g. why was it not a Dane, or a Bulgarian?); 3 the fact that JC Juncker and G Verhofstadt have never expressed any regret that the UK is to leave the EU; 4 the conspiracy theory that the EU may well have deliberately planned to provoke Brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Brexit countdown consensus seeking

I am seeking consensus to add a countdown to the current Brexit date at the top of the article since agreement could not be reached through editing alone. I think that since this is an article about a scheduled event, everyone entering this article should see on the top how much time left till brexit will happen, without having to scroll down and search for the information in the article.

Thank you for your time, The Very Best Editor (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Very Best Editor. The very first paragraph says that the Brexit day is currently 31 January 2020, so there is no need for anyone to scroll to see that information. In addition, Brexit is filled with uncertainty, with the date being changed three times already, and the upcoming election might very well do it again. A countdown gives the reader the impression that the date is set in stone. Also, the template documentation says that the countdown should not be used in article-space. Hope this explains my reason for reverting it. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply!

I now understand the reason for reverting my edit.

Best regards, The Very Best Editor (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Very Best Editor: it's not a scheduled event, that is just the current deadline for ratifying the deal. Brexit could occur earlier if ratification is earlier, or a new deadline may be agreed if nothing is settled by then, or Brexit could be abandoned completely if the new parliament decides that. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Very Best Editor: I agree with Hebsen and DeFacto, especially on the point that it could happen earlier than 31 January. I'd add that a second referendum is probably impossible without a further extension and would probably be accepted as a reason to allow one. Errantius (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nutshell template

Can we add the Nutshell template to this article? We could be writing about this for years to come! Something like this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithr32 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that is literally the first sentence in this article already. The nutshell template is for administrative pages, not articles. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Impact of Brexit article

That article is literally a copy of the impact section, with Asarlaí even porting content there to keep them in sync. We should not have the same content two places, so either we should delete the other article, or we should split the section out in its own article, and only leave a summary here. I propose that we split, because of several reasons. One is length. This article is already >100kb prose size, which means that it per WP:SIZERULE "Almost certainly should be divided". I know that there are other parts of the article that really need trimming, but the impact section alone is 33 Kb. In addition, it seems like it is the the only other high-level Brexit topic that does not have its own sub-article. I think it will be a good idea to give it one, considering that Brexit have not even happened yet. The only negative thing I have to say about a split, is that we have to write a good high-level summary about the impact. What do others think? ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

'Split & leave summary'. Its burdensome here. Its ridiculous to start reading subsections like "rail" "france border" "relations with CANZAU" here

Those sections have been removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe leave a sizeable summary here. But no more. Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I substantially trimmed the content in the impact section, solving the size problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarification, what is the current prose size of the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

By my measure it is 87K. The impact section is 30K. But even ignoring size, there is also an issue of duplicate content. We should not both have an impact-article, and an almost-as long summary here. The impact section is surely the most briefly summarized part of this article, which is good here, but I think perhaps it is too compressed if considering the subject alone. I think it would be better if the topic is not constrained by size-issues on this article. If we only leave a short impact section here, readers and editors will naturally flow into the impact article, but they won't now. Also ping to NUinHebrides who removed the split-template. I have reinserted it. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the impact of Brexit section should be condensed as it already has its own page. As long as we provide a link to the impact of Brexit, page, this would make this article easier to read. HouseBlaster (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have gone ahead and done this. As it stands now, it is a wall of text, as there is no subsections, but I feel there should not be any, as it goes against the concept of it being a summary. I would say that it needs to be about 2/3 of the current length, but trimming is hard. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs), you did some edits on 20 October to that very section, which have now been discarded, as they have not been carried over to the other article. I cannot really judge if it should be implemented there, or if it was just an trimming exercise only relevant here, because the article was very long. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Too long....

We can not expect anybody to make sense of this unfolding and infinite essay on the subject. Keep the issue concise and current - as opposed to an on-going narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.171 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Current 31 January 2020 deadline details

In the "Timeline" section, I have edited the content under the 2020 entry at 31 January 2020] as that is only the current deadline for the UK to leave the EU with a Brexit agreement, and unrelated to any negotiations of any "trade deals" that may follow. And that Brexit agreement has to be ratified by the UK parliament by then. If the agreement is not ratified by then, the default position would be a no-deal Brexit on that date. Of course the UK could ask the EC to agree another extension, but they would have to ask for that first, and that need hasn't yet arisen. If the UK does leave on, or before, the 31 January 2020, then "trade deals" would need to be negotiated, but that is a separate issue. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• It should also mention under 2020 that the UK will exit the EU’s customs union and single market on 31 December 2020. MilborneOne (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove protection and make this Brexit article great again

Now that the election is over, I suggest the editors should allow the rest of us to "take back control" and fix the Brexit article. Over the past 2 years the editors have simply been fighting with each other along tribal lines, and do not seem to have the skills or resources or inclination to remove mistakes and include important information such as from David Cameron's published memoir. Tribal Editors, please realise that this job is too big for you to handle. And you have nothing to gain now that the political decisions have been taken. It needs the whole Wikipedia community to make this article great again. If you block us for too long, then people's memories and interest will fade, and an opportunity to document an important milestone in history will have been lost to Wikipedia. May a Christmas miracle happen and you will have a change of heart. 86.172.133.200 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the page protection log, it seems that each time the previous protection expired, a new protection was imposed soon after. In that light, it seems best to let the current protection expire (on 28 January), and then see what happens.

Alas that has proved to be a failed business model, both in terms of the deteriorating article quality as well as in terms of the election result. While other more tolerant Wikipedia articles have flourished. Just close your eyes, inhale some oxytocin, trust in your fellow humans, let go, and watch what happens. 86.172.133.200 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If you indeed think there is concrete issues with the article, please suggest concrete changes here on the talk page. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with 86.172.133.200, I never understood why legitimate good-faith ip users were unfairly discriminated against, and stopped from editing the page. The page is out-of-date and a mess, and could do with some attention from someone who is interested in improving it. 86.172.133.200, perhaps you could add a request for it to be unprotected to the talkpage of the admin who most recently protected it, and find out their opinion, and see if they're prepared to give you the opportunity to have a go. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's best to keep the article protected, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no cost to register, so why not do it?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I will have to come to the defense of IP users here. Registering is optional, so we should treat is as such. IP users make a lot of constructive edits, and while I and many others prefer to use a registered account, that is anybody's own decision. Semi-protection is not used as a preemptive measure, but to combat specific issues with disruptive editing. Looking at this page's protection log, it is clear that this has on multiple occasions been a problem in the past. As the rough guide states, they only way to test if semi-protection is still necessary, is to remove it to see what happens. The current protection is due to expire on 28 January 2020, so what we are discussing is whether it should actively be removed now, or passively expire on that date. Pinging Kudpung, who implemented the current protection. This is ultimately an administrative decision. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason IP editors should be treated the same as registered users. Registering is a choice, and those who choose not to have to live with the consequences of that decision. For every constructive edit by and IP user there is a poison tide of vandalism, stupidity, and dishonesty.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Brexit is a highly contentious issue, especially for the UK and EU citizens involved/affected by it and editing is likely to be biased and/or subject to vandalism unless well controlled. The UK may or may not leave the EU soon, but the consequences are going to continue to be heavily debated for at least the next half century. The article shouldn't be exploited as a platform for another 'us vs them' debate on IP editing. History has shown that the article needs to be protected - there have not been many edit requests and not all of them were accorded, so I see no reason for an early lifting of current restrictions which only have a few weeks to go. That said, I will not stand in the way of another admin's decision to unprotect, but I would not hesitate to reprotect again if it gets out of hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too late for that, the article is already profoundly biased. There's a fundamental lack of contrary data. It's a Europhile echo chamber. Noah-x3 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Kudpung. Unfortunately your controlling attitude is the reason why the Brexit article has become such an undigestible monster. If you look back at a 2-year old version of the Brexit article, when it was free of editorial constraints, you will find it was much better. A showpiece of Wikipedia. And now... a useless self-gratification by registered editors consumed by hubris. Wikipedia was never meant to work like this, and therefore it is not working. 86.172.133.200 (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The protection should remain. Given that the article is full and extensive, factual and sourced, I see no room here for expansion with such information as about "David Cameron's published memoir" (as mentioned by IP above), but there may be a place for that in David Cameron's article. The current state of UK legislation continues to be fluid, and while the intention of the government has been firmly announced, we cannot yet be sure that "exit day" will occur at the end of January, and whether or not there will be the proposed further negotiating period ending in or before next December. In the few weeks ahead, the additional information in this article should be as trim as possible, and detail about the legislation should be in the relevant specific article/s. Qexigator (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You see what I mean, Kudpung? Qexigator knows exactly what is good and therefore, with your support, the article must be blocked from editing by the rest of us. Not only are you doing Wikipedia a disservice, but your attitude is scary to most of us. So part of me is in favour of preserving the current Brexit article as a museum piece, just like the remnant of the Berlin Wall is a museum piece to remind visitors where intolerance leads to. 86.172.133.200 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you just register? What have you got to hide?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair question. I once did register many moons ago. Back then I made edits on a range of English articles. One day I made a minor edit on a Spanish article but the Spanish-speaking self-appointed "owner" of that article not only undid my Spanish edit but then traced my registered name to the English Wikipedia and undid my English edits as an act of punishment. So now I simply change computers and thus my IP address to safeguard other work. My general view is that each edit should be considered on its own merit, and not on the history of the editor.86.172.133.200 (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed AJPH study on deaths of despair and the Brexit vote

The editor DeFacto has decided to continue with the war on peer-reviewed research by arguing that academic studies are not reliable sources, in clear contradiction to what WP:RS says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." I restored the long-standing version of the article text (because he has no consensus to bully his anti-intellectual changes into the article). That leaves one recently peer-reviewed study out[12]: a 2019 study in the American Journal of Public Health[13], which linked regions that experienced increases in suicides and drug-related deaths to support for Leave in the Brexit vote. This is pertinent info, published in arguably the top public health journal, and should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Largely agree with Snooganssnoogans here. Studies are RS. Sure, if there is some meta-analysis or something, they might be better, but lack of those are not a problem. DeFacto, you say that Snooganssnoogans is cherry picking studies. Can you provide examples on studies that conclude something different? (note that I have not looked into these specific sources, but comments in a more general sense). ― Hebsen (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: please assume good faith, rather than attacking me with that disingenuous interpretation of my reason for removing that unencyclopaedic content from the article. Anyone who read my edit summary will see that: I did not decide to continue any war; I did not argue that academic studies are not reliable sources; I did not make "anti-intellectual changes into the article"; the fully researched and reasoned removal was not bullying.

The research papers relied upon for that content, whether they are peer reviewed, or not; and whether they are academic studies, or not; are the primary sources for that research. WP:OR states the following: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." and "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." So please, rather than assuming bad faith, supply secondary sources that support the interpretations made of those primary sources - or please remove it per Wikipedia policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking into this, I find that the claims cited using citation 118, 122 and 123 are fully substantiated by those citations. These are not OR analysis or interpretation, but says exactly what the articles say, but in different words. For the single sentence who cite 119, 120 and 121, I am not so sure. Perhaps this sentence can get some attention? ― Hebsen (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no "interpretation" of the sources. The language mirrors the sources precisely. And no, you're completely wrong about academic sources. Wikpiedia's RS page essentially says they are the best sources, even though you personally may disagree with that. Of course, if there are state-of-the-art meta-reviews out there, we cite those, but it's not required that every single Wikipedia articles relies solely on state-of-the-art reviews of research (if that was the requirement, 99.99% of all content on Wikipedia would no longer exist). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: so where do we stop? We could trawl the internet and find every piece of 'peer-reviewed research' ever done concerning Brexit, cherry-pick the ones that support a particular POV, cherry-pick some of their 'findings' and 'summarise' them in our own words. Not only is that WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but it fails WP:DUE and WP:POV too. That is why we need to use secondary sources to show due weight for the selection of the research we cover, and to support the way we summarise the 'findings'. And talking of findings, these studies are usually done to try to support a pre-determined hypothesis, and the best they can do is claim some support for that hypothesis. They can rarely be used to assert a fact in Wikipedia'a voice, so unsourced statements such as: "Research has shown that...", "Studies have linked...", "Studies suggest that...", "Voting to leave the European Union was strongly associated with...", etc. all fall foul of WP:YESPOV. All in all, without secondary sources, this content seems to fall foul of most content policies! -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto, I would like to repeat my earlier question: Can you provide examples on studies that conclude something different? Cherry-picking can cause problems with due weight, but I have yet to see any evidence that this is the case here. In any case, the way to fix problems with undue weight is to write something that gives you balance, not by deleting it all. About wikivoice, considering that we cite news articles as facts, we can use studies to support statements on the form "Research have shown...". We are not saying the studies are correct, but only what they say. ― Hebsen (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hebsen: it isn't the balance that is the problem here, it is the unsupported prominence (undue weight) given to these studies. Secondary sources are used as evidence of due weight as well as to support analysis. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"And talking of findings, these studies are usually done to try to support a pre-determined hypothesis, and the best they can do is claim some support for that hypothesis." There we have the anti-science mindset that motivates the removal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: there is no "anti-science mindset", just a reluctance to accept material that contravenes WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, as well as other polices, as I describe in my edit summary and expand upon above. Your continued and inflammatory failure to assume good faith is verging on personal attack territory.

Have you read any of the papers cited? Do you know what a hypothesis is? You could read more about them in the hypothesis article. Let's see too what some of the cited papers say.

• From Becker, et al.: "In this section, we discuss prominent hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the EU referendum result and how we try to capture them in our empirical analysis."
• From Hobolt: "The advantage of this particular dataset is not only the impressive sample size (30,895 respondents), but also the number of variables included in the questionnaire that allows us to investigate all of the hypothesized factors.
• From Carreras: "The Brexit referendum confronted British voters with a choice that could have profound consequences for the British economy in a context of high uncertainty. Drawing on important lessons from prospect theory, I argue that citizens who were in the domain of economic losses were more likely to take a risk and vote in favor of Brexit. On the contrary, I hold that citizens who were in the domain of economic gains tended to be more risk averse and were more likely to support ‘Remain’ in the referendum. Using data from several waves of the British Election Study 2014–2019 Internet Panel, I find strong support for these theoretical expectations."

There we see support for exactly what I said with respect to how hypotheses are used. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Testing of hypothesis =/= "these studies are usually done to try to support a pre-determined hypothesis." The former is how science is done, the latter is what people say when they try to insinuate that scientists are unethical and that science is a crock. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

When posting a discussion it is helpful to provide a link to the disputed text. I assume it is what was restored here.

The reason why we should be cautious in using original studies, which are primary sources, is that other studies may report different findings and even if they don't, the findings may be considered of marginal significance to the topic. Neither applies in this case and there is no rule against using primary sources. Instead of blanking the text, it would be more constructive to find secondary sources that report the findings. Unless of course the editor believes the findings are wrong. If they do, they should provide evidence first.

TFD (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: in the case here the problem is the undue weight being given to random studies. If a reliable secondary sources had discussed these studies, and this was reflected in the article, then that would be fair enough, but that is not the case here, this is just pure WP:OR/WP:SYNTH directly from primary sources - the study papers themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

OR and SYN refer to original thought by Wikipedia editors, not in published reliable sources. The discovery of exoplanets for example is original research, but we can mention it if it is reliably sourced rather than something an editor happened to identify. What is your objection: that the findings are false, or that they are unimportant? TFD (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I fully appreciate what OR and SYNTH is, and it is that of Wiki editors that I am arguing against. I think it is the unsourced selection of the papers (and the wording of some of the summaries of the papers) in the article that is the problem, not the content of the papers themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto, it is not OR to pick out sources, not even if those sources are primary sources. Picking appropriate sources is exactly what we as editors do all the time. If we need to justify our pick of sources by other (secondary) sources, then how do we decide which secondary sources to use? Your premise for this entire discussion is wrong. WP:PRIMARY (which is a section in WP:OR) does not require secondary sources to justify our selection of primary sources, only says that we should be careful when using them. (I will not go into a discussion about whether or not studies are primary or secondary sources, because my argument stands in both cases.) ― Hebsen (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hebsen: yes, I agree that the picking of sources is not OR, although that could lead to a contravention of WP:UNDUE if it cannot be shown that secondary sources are also commenting on the source and it is not just an arbitrary source found by searching for keywords on the web. What is OR though, is summarising the sources in a way that is not supported by the source itself, and is not supported by reliable secondary sources - and that is the crux of my argument. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually I can see a valid OR objection, the text implies its all studies, that is OR. It is OR to even suggest the majority of studies, we would need an RS making that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a full attribution would be beneficial. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I started this discussion on the RS noticeboard.[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Snoogans should cite his suicide paper. The study is symptomatic of many academics and will serve as a useful warning to take the entire Wikipedia article and the responsible editors with a large pinch of salt... Merry Christmas everyone. 86.161.82.125 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Attempts to fix this and close the discussion

I have now addressed the OR-issues raised by Slatersteven, which I do believe is the same as the one the DeFacto originally raised, even though I must say that I am a bit confused at this point. I have placed a sentence in a span, because there needs to be looked into what exactly the sources say here, and it appeared to be a bit complicated. Snooganssnoogans, you are good at studies, can you help here? Also I would say that those suicide and drug studies can be included with attribution, so we avoid saying that all research say that this is the case. DeFacto, if you have more issues, could you please be very specific what text you are having problems with, that makes everything much easier. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hebsen: yes, I think you've mostly addressed the OR issues I raised. What we need to clear-up now is the POV/weight issue, that is: how were the group of primary-sourced studies selected for inclusion in the article, as it wasn't via reliable secondary sources, and how sure we are that there are no other related studies that should be included on a similar basis. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline have become messy and very large, especially the second half of the 2019 section, as it have been the go-to place for updates and contains a lot of recentism. I am wondering whether we should trim it so it is only contains major events, or we should split it out to another page (Timeline of Brexit), and then make a new one with the most important events. What do other think? ― Hebsen (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

2020

Aint here yet, thus I would argue it is best not to have a timeline that has not yet happened. The government may have said X, that does not mean X will occur (after all this is the umpteenth final last, final last time).Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 fixes "exit day" at 31 January 2020. (Though I think we'll be in 2020 quite soon.) Errantius (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Brexit was the withdrawal 78.86.138.0 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

He kept adding new section with nothing to ask so I deleted those because they were spam GameEnd (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Did we seriously leave EU???

H Wojciech G (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe you're about three years too late for this headline. GMG^talk 22:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you did... (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Mgasparin (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

So the EU will be short 1GB of space? ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ) PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You madam, win joke of the day at enwiki. Mgasparin (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If we left the EU then we have to still follow their rules!?Why do we even have to follow them if we left the Eu and I think their 'ONLY EU RULES' but why do we need them if we are not in the EU!?? Wojciech G (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Brexit articles should be consistent with the fact that the UK has ceased to be a member of the EU as a result of a ratified treaty, and by the same treaty continues under some major treaty obligations previously incurred as a member, subject to further negotiations in the period up to the end of this year. It is no part of Wikipedia articles to discuss the political or other merits of the situation, unless it is part of a public debate which can be reported on the basis of reliable sources. Qexigator (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"If we left the EU then we have to still follow their rules!?": (Assuming "we" means England and other parts of the UK) Yes and no.

• No: On february the first french fishers have been banned from the anglo-normand island of Guernesay due to Brexit and EU rules ceasing to apply according to the agreed agreement. Also British people in France do not have anymore neither the right nor the duty neither to be elected nor to vote neither in the European nor in the local elections. This is democratic because before Brexit those British people did not have any right to vote in the British referendum neither for nor against either leave or remain.
• Yes: Some rules continue to apply for a while, in a mutual interest understood and agreed by the both sides: the agreement which has been negotiated between the EU and the UK includes a transition period that both parties agreed, even if this has required any/some talk, delay or election. When the transition period does stop, the rules/relationship between EU and UK will change again. This might depend on the trade agreement negotiated between EU and UK, if any, delay on the transition period, if any, and of course of the wish/will of a sovereign nation such as Scotland to become an EU member, eventually.

"If we left the EU then we have to still follow their rules!?": Also, for 2021 (when the transition period is assumed to be over) not following EU rules might de facto introduce a border somewhere between the EU and the UK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.166 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Current Events

Hi, Just wondering if this article needs to be updated/merged with other related articles to reflect current events? Wagnerp16 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Tenses -- Time to Update, Finally

Time to replace present tenses with past tense forms throughout. 109.245.38.9 (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Evidence?

What actual evidence (data) is there for the following statement other than generalizations? Is this statement simply an opinion? How does the linked article related to the arts sector verify this claim? UK is leaving in a few days, so it's irrelevant - but still, "Wiki-misinformation"?

Ringo Starr in favour of Brexit. Dame Joan Collins too. This "section" could present both sides, since NOT ALL people within arts, aside from the few asked in a questionnaire which was then used to represent every person in arts, are against Brexit.

This section should be a balanced reflection of both sides within the sector rather than simply linking to an opinion poll.

"Brexit has inspired many creative works, such as murals, sculptures, novels, plays, movies and video games. The response of British artists and writers to Brexit has in general been negative, reflecting a reported overwhelming percentage of people involved in Britain's creative industries voting against leaving the European Union." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.131 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

not even a reply. hA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.147 (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Eurosceptic

Is a derogatisation. The article euroscepticism says it can mean opposition to EU institutions, policies, reforms, membership... it literally says there is a spectrum type "range". It's a bag for opposition of all forms in any detail. It gives the impression that complainers do not have the basis of complaint, but simply wish to be sceptical. I'm not sure if anyone is going to accept that fact, but such labels are boomerangs since ancient times. Allow people to collectivise on their own terms, or by something which endears you to them, or caveat emptor. ~ R.T.G 18:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article explains Brexit?

Please help: I am trying to find out whether the Withdrawal Agreement (e.g. divorce payments to EU) comes into force automatically on Dec 31, or whether its requirements are contingent on agreement of a future UK-EU relationship ("nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"). Please point me towards a Wikipedia article where the Brexit agreements are explained in context. Also, I propose you place a link into the article header to allow readers to access that information quickly without having to read all the "ideological padding" in the present article. 31.4.130.77 (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

See Brexit withdrawal agreement and European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, though see also European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the 2020 act amends the 2018 act and repealed the 2019 act). Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Alas, the links you kindly provided do not explain how Brexit in a no-deal scenario operates. For example, does the divorce bill commitment within the Withdrawal Bill expire on 31 Dec 2020 if there is no future relationship/trade deal? Or is the Withdrawal Agreemnt legally a stand-alone agreement which continues, and thus divorce payments continue beyond 2021 until the full amount is paid? Similar questions for citizenship rights etc. Are there any Wikipedia experts out there who can write an informative "Brexit process" article? 31.4.157.80 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are good questions and deserve an accessible answer from authorities and commentators able to provide them. But Wikipedia articles are for compiling and reporting factually accurate information publicly available from what are deemed to be reliable sources. Contributors are required to avoid adding content which is considered, by Wikipedia standards, to be contributors' own "original research" or "synthesis" or "crystal-balling". If there is no other source for the information you are looking for, we are unable to include our own (neutral point of view) version here. To some extent, we can include links in an External links section. In this article, the External links section is more than usually lengthy, but an inquirer might be able to find what s/he is looking for by delving into their contents. If you are successful, please let us know, and maybe that could supply something for adding content to this or another Brexit article. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to enter my research, but the editing function in the article has been blocked by vandals. I guess ignorance is strength (George Orwell, Animal Farm).31.4.129.0 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors claiming to be impartial? "Cultural references" contains some random link to some unbalanced article, without any effort made to represent a balanced view. The more I cast a critical eye over Wikipedia, the more I see that it is no more than an inflated personal account. Luckily, most readers are not so naive to believe everything they read - evidently. It doesn't matter now, since the UK has left the EU, but this is not the first time I have highlighted bias on Wikipedia, inaccuracy, and a disregard as such. When it comes to politics, editors here should either report the facts as they are, in balance, or not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.147 (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Might be it is written in the Withdrawal Agreement itself? Or might be it is what the EU calls uncertainty... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.166 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@31.4.130.77:, it's probably in the Brexit divorce bill? That article is about UK-EU relations, not marriage... ~ R.T.G 22:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Restructuring of articles

Now that Brexit happened, the 47 years of membership is history, which will become a more important topic than the process of leaving. Therefore I propose the following mergers.

Existing page/section	Action	Target page
History of European Union–United Kingdom relations	Merge into	United Kingdom membership of the European Union
Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities
Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom
Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom relating to the European Communities and the European Union
2015–16 United Kingdom renegotiation of European Union membership
Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit
Brexit#Background: the United Kingdom and Europe	Summarise and add link to
Brexit#Referendum of 2016	Summarise
Brexit#Impact
Impact of Brexit	Merge into
United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union	Merge into	Brexit
Continuing United Kingdom relationship with the European Union	Merge into	United Kingdom–European Union relations
Template:Brexit sidebar	Merge into	Template:United Kingdom in the European Union

Ythlev (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There may be some surplus overlap ready for cautious trimming and/or some merging but the topics are distinct and the retainable content of most of the articles is too long to combine in a single article as "UK membership of EU". I could agree in principle with merging the sidebars if this proposal is acceptable to other regular contributors. Qexigator (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should rename the history article into United Kingdom membership of the European Union, and then this could be a parent article to some of the others. Perhaps some articles could be merged into it, but I think we should be really careful here as most are really long and about a more specific topic that would be undue there. I don't really know what should happen to the continuing membership article. It is a big mess, but mostly talk about the specific scenarios. I don't think a merge into European Union–United Kingdom relations is appropriate, as the former is speculation about Brexit, and the latter is foreign relations. I explicitly oppose merging the sidebars. They were split last spring because there were too much about Brexit. I also explicitly oppose merging the invocation article into this Brexit article. The trend here have been to split our other article from this one, as this is the main article that should be broad and brief, and then have other articles for specific things. A merge would either make the invocation very undue, or delete a lot of content. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted that the starting point now proposed is the renaming of History of European Union–United Kingdom relations as "United Kingdom membership of the European Union", while treating "Brexit" as the main article. When downloaded as pdf, the page lengths of those two (both run from 1950's), and for comparison Timeline of Brexit) are:

Brexit: pdf pages 42

History: pdf pages 7

Timeline of Brexit (starts at 23 June 2016) pdf pages 10.

The History article has 9 sections:

1 EU roots and British accession (1957–1973)

2 Referendum of 1975

3 From Referendum to Maastricht Treaty (1975–1992)

4 Maastricht Treaty and Referendum Party

5 Role of UKIP (1993–2016)

6 Controversy on the European Court of Human Rights in 2013

7 Euroscepticism (1993–2016)

8 Opinion polling 1993-2003

9 Brexit (2017–2020).

Could the next point be to decide whether one or more sections of the Brexit article could be eligible for transfer to the (History renamed) "United Kingdom membership of the European Union" article? If so, then which portions of Brexit would be selected for any of the existing (or newly created), sections of UK membership of EU?

Noted also, that merging templates is opposed, and merging Invocation is opposed, and Continuing United Kingdom relationship with the European Union should be left aside at least until sufficiently updated.

Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

+ Here is a proposal relating to the main text, leaving the lead to be adjusted in consequence: For the Brexit article, compose short summarising sentence or two for sections 3 Background and 4 Referendum of 2016, and merge existing content of those two sections to UK membership of EU. (Please note, I am not offering to undertake the merge work.) Qexigator (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 to renaming "History of European Union–United Kingdom relations" to "United Kingdom membership of the European Union" and reworking things around that. --Yair rand (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 to the improvement of the title. ~ R.T.G 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose most of the proposed mergers, except possibly the proposal for Continuing United Kingdom relationship with the European Union. I particularly don't see a convincing reason for any of the proposed mergers into United Kingdom membership of the European Union. All of those articles are notable enough for independent coverage and most are already large without being combined with others. I'm also a bit confused by the rationale since only one of the first six articles listed can be construed as specifically about the process of leaving (Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit). —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Are History of European Union–United Kingdom relations and Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities large? Ythlev (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • And Brexit is ... Brexit. That means that Brexit article should deal with Brexit topic, including its effective consequences and consequences delay to the end of the transition period, and also the wish of Scotland to become a member of the EU, a membership request which would be "emotionally" welcomed by many Europeans [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.166 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. No don't touch any of the historical articles... and even the invocation of article 50, this Brexit article is 10 screens long in content. That's like 15 A4 pages. We certainly do not need to merge. Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit, however, is biased. You can tell right off by the way the title has a side on it but hey... ~ R.T.G 22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Hebsen, Qexigator, and Yair rand: What about Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities? Ythlev (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If the article is repurposed as a membership-article, perhaps. Some might argue that accession is so big a deal that it merits is own article, regardless of size, but I don't really know where I stand on that. In any case I don't think this is the right venue to discuss it. Go to those article's talk pages. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Reasons behind Brexit

There needs to be a paragraph in the lead explaining the reasons behind Brexit.

- Economic issues faced by many of the Leave voters (jobs, poverty, claims that money being spent on the EU could be spent on the NHS)

- Concerns over immigration (and the role that the Migration Crisis played) and any consequent issues with multiculturalism

- Cultural Nationalism (regional areas in England wanting more attention etc...)

As a foreigner wanting to understand Brexit, it feels a bit bare.

Tsukide (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"The result of the United Kingdom European Union Referendum of 2016...provoked considerable debate as to the factors that contributed to the victory, with various theories and explanations being put forth. Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit provides an overview of the different claims being made." Qexigator (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit article lists

• Sovereignty: 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK"
• Immigration: 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.{{"'
• Demographic and cultural factors: more detail in that article
• Economy: There were some advocates of Brexit who saw leaving the EU as an economic opportunity for Britain.
• Anti-establishment populism: The idea of voting in favour of Brexit was seen by many as a way to protest against the Establishment and the elite who were seen to have ignored "the will of the people" for too long.
• Role and influence of politicians: more detail in that article
• Presentational factors during the campaign: more detail in that article
• Policy decisions: more detail in that article
• The role of the media: more detail in that article

In an article titled 3 Reasons Brits Voted For Brexit, Forbes lists: Economics, Sovereignty and Political Elitism.

In an article titled Causes and Consequences', the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs focuses on European Causes of the Brexit Vote, saying "Britain’s history differs from that of its European neighbours. Its position as an unconquered island nation, a long tradition of parliamentary democracy and an ingrained sense that ultimately it can look after itself, marks it out from other European nations. It was never that sympathetic to the European ideal."

In an article titled Brexit 4: People’s Stated Reasons for Voting Leave or Remain, the UK in a Changing Europe organization says, "The two main reasons people voted Leave were ‘immigration’ and ‘sovereignty’, whereas the main reason people voted Remain was ‘the economy’.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest that a link to the page be provided in the lead section (introduction)? The second paragraph appears to be an ideal place to add the link. Tsukide (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit be simply called, Reasoning behind Brexit, such as the title of this section? ~ R.T.G 00:38, 4 February 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:

• British Passport 2020.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclear Exit day section

It is written: Exit day was 31 January 2020 at 11.00 p.m.[156] The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by a UK Statutory Instrument on 11 April 2019), in section 20 (1), defined 'exit day' as 11:00 p.m. on 31 October 2019.[139] Originally, 'exit day' was defined as 11:00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 GMT (UTC+0).[172][174][175][176][177]

This is a British point of view because it fails to provide a non British point of view:

• it fails to say this a local legal British denomination.
• it fails to say that the date is defined as being the night of the transition between January and February
• it fails to say that this different date is due to a time shift between the UK and most of the EU
• it fails to say that the date was agreed in article 185 of the withdrawal agreement.

To solve those issues, I suggest to write:

Withdrawal was agreed both by the EU and the UK to be in the night between January 2020 and February 2020 in article 185 of the withdrawal agreement. Due to a British time zone, Exit day was set to 31 January 2020 at 11.00 p.m.[156] (British time) by a British law That British law, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by a UK Statutory Instrument on 11 April 2019), in section 20 (1), defined 'exit day' as 11:00 p.m. on 31 October 2019.[139] Originally, 'exit day' was defined as 11:00 p.m. on 29 March — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We should not clutter the main text with undue detail. The article is about Brexit which is stated in the first sentence to be a portmanteau of "British" and "exit", and the article goes on to report the sequence of events before and after the UK gave notice of withdrawal for the purpose of treaty Article 50, through to the UK legislation stating the moment of withdrawal as 11 p.m. GMT, which is linked to the article "Green Mean Time". This is mentioned both in the lead and in subsection 6.1.2 headed "Exit day", where it is indicated that GMT is also "(UTC+0)", and where there is the series of notes, 172 to 175, giving more detailed information, and links. Qexigator (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It was the only instance which did not have GMT after the time, so now it does. ~ R.T.G 20:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Undue detail!!! This article is about Brexit, and there is only two lines about Brexit day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No more no deal

This article still contain the word no deal when this word does not exist anymore:

• The withdrawal deal exists, so there is no withdrawal deal
• The trade deal will be a Canadian one or the 2019 one, so there is not such a thing like no trade deal 'No more deal or no deal': Brexit language diktat for Foreign Office staff

That means that the concept of no deal is promoted neither by the UK side nor by the EU one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Post Brexit considerations

I believe there is missing a post Brexit section to redirect to post Brexit concepts, that would cover:

• the UK-US trade deal to import US food
• the Canada like EU-UK trade deal to mitigate some of the trade issues

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/fears-about-us-food-standards-hysterical-says-boris-johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

European Constitution and Lisbon Treaty

Is seems a bit strange to me that the article contains no reference to the attempt to pass the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, or the subsequent Lisbon Treaty, given the crucial role that both played in leading to the Brexit referendum.

As I understand it, there was a clear sequence of events:

1. The Constitution treaty is proposed, and is due to be ratified by referendum in the UK.
2. Referenda in Ireland and the Netherlands fail, rendering the treaty moot.
3. Instead, the Lisbon treaty is proposed, including many (though not all) of the provisions of the original treaty.
4. David Cameron, as leader of the opposition, makes it Conservative policy to demand a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and makes his notorious "cast iron promise" to deliver one before ratification if elected.
5. The Labour government then ratifies the Lisbon treaty without a referendum.
6. After the election, Cameron (now Prime Minister) declines to hold a referendum on Lisbon, seeing as it is already ratified (and presumably also since, being in coalition with the Lib Dems, he lacked the votes in parliament for it).
7. Eurosceptics then demand that, in keeping with the spirit (if not the actual words) of his promise, Cameron must arrange a referendum on Europe. Since there is no new treaty to vote for or against, this becomes a straight in/out referendum.

For me, this sequence is crucial to understanding the context of how the Brexit referendum came about, and should definitely form part of any definitive description of Brexit. Is it worth adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.29.181.148 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In the recent BBC documentary, David Cameron gave a different reason: in the wake of the debt crisis starting 2008/2009 when Eurozone leaders feared the euro might crash, some EU leaders, notably France and Germany, requested treaty change to enable Eurozone countries to stablise the euro. Cameron said: if you want treaty change to sort out your probems, then the UK would like treaty change to sort out some of the UK's problems. The eurozone leaders refused, and went ahead with their change anyway. Cameron then said (in the BBC documenrtary) that Britain was in a consitutionally instable position, if other EU states can disregard treaties and do what they like. At this point (2013) Cameron decided he would have to push for Treaty change and a referendum to give teeth to his demand for reform. Sarkozy in the interview admitted that Cameron should have been offered more, to avert a referendum. Note that these are all Cameron's and Sarkozy's words, not mine. Of course you will not find the BBC documentary mnetioned in the Brexit article yet. The Wikipedia editors are still totally overwhelmed by the vital task of deciding whether someone is centre-right or right of centre, radical right, extremely right, or simply wrong. 31.4.159.102 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding non-impact content to the 'Impact' section

The editor Boscaswell is edit-warring[16] the sentence "In January 2020 the International Monetary Fund reported that the British economy outpaced the Eurozone in 2019 and predicted that it would outpace the Eurozone in the first two years after Brexit." into the section about the "Impact" of Brexit. However, the sentence in question has nothing to do with the impact of Brexit. It's entirely possible for Brexit to adversely impact the British economy while the British economy still does better than other economies, because there are many many many things that affect how well an economy does. The goal of the sentence is to dispute academic assessments that Brexit has adversely affected and will adversely affect the British economy. In terms of the warped causality behind the sentence, it's akin to adding "The smoker X lived longer than several non-smokers" to the article on the health harms of tobacco smoking. It's a meaningless statement that is solely intended to dispute the economic consensus that Brexit adversely affects the economy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons you stated, and have removed this newly added content. Since this material is new and has been challenged by multiple editors, it should not be restored without consensus. Neutrality^talk 22:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. And I think the reasoning given is tendentious. The IMF predictions are made by reputably some of the world's very best economists. That the IMF has changed its mind is significant, and the academic consensus is overstated and evaporating, and I think that the tone of this paragraph is too negative and exhibits bias. Argument by Snoogans seems to be that if the economy does badly that's because of Brexit and if it does well it's despite Brexit. When the supposed consensus of economists said that Britain's economy was going to do badly they meant in comparison with the EU it was leaving. What else could they mean? And if you read the cited refs that is several times clear. Now Britain does better than the EU and those who have never believed Brexit could be a good thing refuse to attribute it to Brexit. Now, I get it, we can't be sure, there is no control experiment, but the supposed consensus of opinion from economists 2016 and later was that Brexit would cause Britain to do badly. We must report that in the article. Nevertheless it would exhibit bias not to also record lowerst unemployment since 1975, improved GDP, best balance of payments for 17(?) years, tax revenue up, and the IMF's change of mind. The IMF (a primary constituent of the economic consensus) has changed its mind. I will restore the sentence as it is not as characterised by Snoogans, and it is well referenced, and it is highly significant, and moderates an incorrect impression. The article must be fair and reflect all significant views. The IMF's is not a fringe view, and Snoogans is wrong to say this is nothing to do with Brexit. Please revert here for further chat before removing relevant balancing authoritatively reference content citing the revised opinion of a major commentator. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Well, as a procedural point — since this content is new, and since two editors have challenged it, you certainly should not restore it without consensus for inclusion (which the burden of showing falls upon you as the proponent of the new content (WP:ONUS).

As to the substantive point — the consensus of economists was, and remains, that Brexit will diminish the UK's economic growth. Comparison to other EU countries, particularly in the short- to medium-term, is not really material. Put differently, this content says nothing about causality. As Snoogs wrote above, it's similar to adding the statement "The smoker X lived longer than several non-smokers" to an article about the health effects of tobacco. And Neutrality^talk 14:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Procedurally there are a number of WP guidelines being broken here. The primary need is to retain the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Doubtless we both can do the alphabet soup of WP: refs. It seems you have neglected my argument entirely. You do this by falsely claiming my misunderstanding of causality. I suggest the smoking example is not relevant as made here and repeated by you. I have conceded - and you fail to acknowledge - that we don't have a control experiment, but the economic results do DIRECTLY CONTRADICT SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS made in many of the cited refs in support of the Brexit is bad ecnomic "consensus". When most of the cited refs are years old and make specific forecasts which are already shown to be incorrect then it shows a particular anti-Brexit bias to continue to cite these predictions as an authoritative consensus when we know so many of the predictions have been shown to be false in the prediction timescale used. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We know Brexit is a divisive issue and people of good faith and bad faith are on BOTH sides. So let's leave Brexit out of it and consider something else. As a thought experiment consider the general case where predictions made 4 and 3 years ago on any other issue were being directly contradicted by actual outcomes. And that one of the most cited most respected major predictor (and indeed used as a source by several of the other predictors) changed their mind. And then a WP editor attempts to moderate the WP article on the issue to show that the once consensus is now broken. He does so without removing the earlier claims, he merely adds two properly referenced respected sources for the information. He doesn't overstate the case. Yet this is reverted. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Smoking: That's an example which begs the question, we know that smoking was bad! What about an example where the once consensual assertions turned out to be false? Here we have one. The SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS in the admittedly long list of citations are shown to be false in the predicted timescales? The smoking example would be relevant if the WHO had reversed its opinion and said smoking wasn't anywhere near as bad as thought and was actually good for you. I know smoking is bad for you, the medical consensus was never contradicted by data. But the IMF - a body as prestigious as WHO - has changed its mind, and the economic stats (third time now) DIRECTLY CONTRADICT many of the predictions made by and in the same timescales as which they were made. How can WP not reflect this? Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How I wish I had chosen a user name such as "Balance". I deny the nominative determinism of one's user name. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What prediction has been contradicted? Who predicted that the British economy would do worse than economies XYZ? Where is that prediction made in the Wikipedia article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality, I can't see how the UK performing better than Eurozone countries contradicts a prediction that the UK would do worse than it would have without Brexit. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The cited predictions are not as characterised in the article, many of them. The cited predictions make specific forecasts which have not come true. I am not suggesting that the predictions be removed, and the edit-war amendment did not contradict the assertions, it merely added that the interesting fact that the IMF has changed its mind, and is now forecasting a very different outcome of Brexit than it did. The IMF made specific predictions which they now contradict. Why is there determined opposition to recognising this is in the article? The then-consensus of opinion is no longer, several important players say differently. The BoE's Mark Carney is another. This paragraph in question may once have seemed balanced but now it gives a false impression. It's an encyclopedia. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Appeal: Which Wikipedia aricle offers information on Brexit?

Please write an informative article on Brexit. Such an article should explain the Brexit process. For example, the Prime Minister said yesterday that if there is no agreement on a trade deal at the end of 2020 (highly likely, as a single member of the 27 nations can block the agreement?), then trade will continue under WTO or under Withdrawal Agreement conditions. WTO is clear, but I thought that the Withdrawal Agreement refers to the current 11-month transition period only. Pardon my frustration, but the current Brexit article is worse than useless at explaining Brexit. To be honest, I could do better. I urge the responsible editors to get their act together. 31.4.156.18 (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Brexit is not a process. What the Prime Minister says is a clear political view: it is no more question of no deal, Brexit is done, including a deal. Thus Boris cannot fail anymore: the deal is done!

In term of agreement, if during the post-Brexit period a new agreement is agreed it will apply, else, only previously agreed (and not withdrawaled) agreements are certain to apply. The WA includes various considerations including a time limited single market access. The single market might be time limited to eleven months, while other parts (such as citizens rights or the backstop) might not have the same kind of time limit. I assume this should be explained in the WA article rather than the Brexit one, because the WA is the agreement and the Brexit is only the Brexit, a point in time in the night when January stops and February starts.

Nonetheless, there is no certainty. Who knows? Might a withdrawal of the WTO or a withdrawal of the withdrawal agreement be possible? Isn't it a right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.175 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I actually quite like your unorthodox argument (that Brexit is a point in time and not a process), but after brief reflection, I disagree. Brexit is defined by Article 50, which is a process: handing in notice, 2-year extendable negotation period deadline concerning withdrawal and future relationship. So it is a lengthy process, not a point in time. (Footnote: I need to declare my position, which is left-right-left-right-left-right (I enjoy watching military parades) - which is of overriding importance to the learned editors writing this shambolic Wikipedia article this, see above.) 31.4.130.44 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Brexit is Brexit. Article 50 is the international law to reach it.
• A process is a process. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/process

I guess brexit can refer to two different things. Either the whole process that lead to the British withdrawal from the European Union or the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. In the latter case, it is an event that took place at a single time - 00:00 CET 1 February 2020 - while in the former case it is a process that took several years to complete, and which might still not be fully over given the trade negotiations. --Glentamara (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Eurosceptism on the political spectrum in lead

(moved from Hebsen's talk page)

Hello, Here, I know what you're saying. But there appear to be no liberals or centrists who are Brexit unless I have been ignorant for many years. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I it is also my impression that the centre is EU-positive, like in other EU countries. UK have a mostly two-party system, and Eurosceptisism goes deep into both Labour and Conservative, also in the historic perspective as that paragraph is about. But I am no expert in UK politics. I don't know how to rephrase to be more clear about that without it being undue, or if it needs rephrasing anyway. Suggestions anyone? ― Hebsen (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a sensationalist word. Of course people are sceptical of Europe in total irrelevance to their other political preferences. You don't have to have one with another, here, and in fact, we must have one without the other. Eurosceptic is a sensationalist word... We define here today, on this site, in this circumstance, how effective its dissemination will be to those who do not worship the newspapers.. If you want to describe euroscepticism as a particular point on the binary political spectrum, you'll have to produce several definitive sources which give more than an opinion, or describe it as an opinion, quoting the opinion-ater. I suggest just using normal language to describe what is going on with this topic and try to leave the sensationalism to the sensationalists.[17] ~ R.T.G 20:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That means rewrite the part. I am okay with this. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the sentence is trying at the moment to say that support and opposition of Brexit come from a range of political and social dispositions with no particular correlation? That sort of thing, maybe a little less wordy. ~ R.T.G 23:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, though it might appear unclear at the same time (to other people I mean). To summarise, Remainers span the spectrum totally. Leavers are found at both extremes though not down the middle. Very elaborate. But one solution might be to say that support for both positions can be found from one end to the other, leaving the bit about no centrist Brexiteering, and avoiding the "both sides SPAN the spectrum" mentioning. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the important points of the article. You should all focus on fixing the article with regards to the (arbitrary) left-right-centre-extremist-radical/whatever classifications, not try to interpret a useless sentence in the lead. I propose deleting the offending lead sentence - it is ideological in nature and does not provide any information to the reader unfamiliar with the ideological concepts of the author. [For example, an organisation which privileges Europeans over non-Europeans might be considered nationalistic or even racist by some, but not so by others. Depends on whether your initial mindset is national, continental, or global. The Brexit article is not a suitable platform to fight out such personal ideological concepts.] 31.4.128.93 (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

But that is simply not true. The EU treats all human beings alike and holds all rights and viewpoints in the highest esteem regardless whether the citizen in question is a non-European. Australians not only frequently travel to Europe, but they even stand up and support the EU despite being Aussie citizens. How can it be that Europe treats non-Europeans differently? --Tomb Blaster (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You are obviously Australian, because you have turned the argument on its head. 31.4.130.44 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The main body of article has a demographics section. It doesn't seem to reflect the binary right/left perspective, but is otherwise quite detailed. There is a quite large, blatantly biased, article on Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit. If it was reworded/defuelled objectively... ~ R.T.G 22:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)