![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've gone through this today (part of the EU referendum editing workshop) and tried to ensure it's oriented more towards discussing the general issue of withdrawal rather than details of the 2016 referendum, which is better dealt with in that article. We really don't need to include trivia like the campaign songs here! Andrew Gray ( talk) 14:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a minor edit scuffle over the content of the lead.
IMO, the lead should specify what the status of UK withdrawal is today, prior to 23 June: it is an aim of some groups. It is not a fact. It is not a referendum. We should be careful not to have this article become a reprise of the other articles in the set. So the text I believe we should have is this:
In the view of user:SlimVirgin, the text should say this:
Contributions and advice from other editors is invited.
If we vote to BREMAIN, then it will remain an aim. If we vote to BREXIT, then this article will need a major rewrite, to track the consequences. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
References
The article details in great lengths the (largely historic) divisions within the labour party on the issue but fails to mention the more recent and arguably deeper divisions within the conservative party on the same issue. 31.50.100.90 ( talk) 11:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Article readers ought to be enlightened about French President Charles de Gaulle's veto on British membership. Britain had to argue and pleed for more than a decade in order to recieve membership in what in 1973 was EEC. First after the "abdication" of the French President did it became possible for Britain to become a member. I think this should be mentioned here ! And who can trust a British nation that want's to join, jumps off and presumably want to keep all good agreements and contracts with EU. And why has this question been rised at all ? Compare the UK 1972 with today - London has become the centre of the world, the tube and all railway systems is at a much higher standard today. Coal miners and typographers has become victims of the modernisation, but if the UK unemployment compensations are too low - that has nothing to do with any EU-decrets. Does England wan't to participate in the Euro 2016 och Champions League ? If not so, then go ahead and vote for becomming the 51st colony of your previous colonies across the Atlantic! And give Charles de Gaulle right some 48 years too late. But please vote for changing the EU instead. What is the main issues for UKIP and similar anyways ? Boeing720 ( talk) 17:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Amakuru: Yesterday, I moved this article to "Possible exit of United Kingdom from European Union" but someone moved it back today. If the article is about a goal or a possibility then I don't see why that shouldn't be reflected in the article title. We wouldn't have an article titled "Presidency of Donald Trump" or "Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II" unless or until those events occur. See WP:Crystal. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article also cover the consequences of a LEAVE vote? Such as the breakup of the Union with Scotland choosing to REMAIN and all that? (or Gibraltar's status) -- 70.51.200.20 ( talk) 06:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Then you'd have to be getting into the consequences of a remain vote. The speculation on the breakup of the UK should it decide to leave,as well as the speculation on the consequences of choosing to remain is not suitable for an encyclopedia. 92.14.235.19 ( talk) 22:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Due to the nature of the issue, this article may need to be locked, such that further vandalism by non-logged-in users can be prevented, and such that policing may be done for vandalism by those who ARE logged in. - 107.7.147.21 ( talk) 04:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Today, Cameron announced that only his follower as prime minister (October 2016) will invoke article 50. Please correct/update the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.190.250 ( talk) 09:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The opening section mentions that it must be ratified by parliament. As someone unfamiliar with the UK's legislative procedure, does that mean that parliament can override it, or is it more symbolic than anything? This should be expanded upon -- Gimmethegepgun ( talk) 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The licensing info for c:File:Ballot img.png used in the article is blatantly wrong. However I have locked myself out of Commons... Can someone please do the necessary? BethNaught ( talk) 19:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Many triumphant supporters are drawing parallels between Brexit and the ascendance of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. I have often heard these interesting individuals calling Brexit "the fourth reich" and claiming "We have taken our country back from the Arabs, Browns, Negros, and Jews" and other statements such as these. I propose we add a section called: "Brexit and National Socialism" 63.143.202.85 ( talk) 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title should be changed to, "British withdrawal from the European Union," as, "British," is one of the the demonyms used for a resident of the United Kingdom.
97.93.28.226 ( talk) 01:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Some very predominant underlining factors and other actors are missing from this page. It is absurd to only mention UKIP and ignore all the racist and xenophobic elements and ideologies. And no mention of BNP, EDL etc etc etc... these must also be mentioned in this presently sanitised page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.171.52 ( talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed the height of absurdity to not mention the Fascist, racist, xenophobic, and bigoted character of the Leave campaign and its elderly, rapidly decaying voters who will soon shuffle off this mortal coil. It is as if in 1932 an article on the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany omitted the fact that they ran on anti-semitic campaign platform of making Germany "Judenfrei." 63.143.195.39 ( talk) 20:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting your political views. If you have *factual* information, by all means contribute it, but leave your righteous indignation out of it. Robertwharvey ( talk) 05:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.rt.com/uk/348507-brexit-petition-fraudulent-signatures/ SaintAviator lets talk 05:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Per [2] [3] this article should cover the one-country two-systems option, exemplified by Greenland-Denmark, where part of the state LEAVEs while another part REMAINs. -- 70.51.200.20 ( talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
In reference No.4, leave voters as the source calls them are renamed to "idiots". Wikipedia should have no political stance, let alone insult people. 77.238.216.46 ( talk) 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
On the map, currently the territory of Northern Cyprus is shown as gray. Shouldn't this also be blue? As I understand it, the European Union regards all of Cyprus as a part of the Union and their position is that the territory of Northern Cyprus is being illegally occupied by Turkish-backed forces. On a practical level, people in Northern Cyprus don't have the same access to Europe as other people from the rest of Cyprus, but nonetheless if the EU considers all of Cyprus to be part of the union, then shouldn't the whole island be colored blue. Dragons flight ( talk) 07:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If on the other hand, United Kingdom waits with the invoking of article 50, will a rather orchid situation emerge.
Even replacing orchid with awkward this doesn't really make sense. Should this read something like:
If on the other hand, The United Kingdom waits to invoke article 50 a rather awkward situation will emerge.
But I'm not sure awkward is the right word here either. Strange, perverse perhaps, weird, but not really awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.236.1 ( talk) 06:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts on including an image of a 1973 Great Britain 50 Pence (KM# 918), which commemorates the U.K. entrance into the ECC, as part of the Background section? Here's an image I took of one the other day: http://i66.tinypic.com/1j46rt.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.145.104 ( talk) 11:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Why does the opening sentence say "... is a political goal that was pursued ...", as though the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union is something which has already happened? It should say "a political goal that has been pursued ... - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 03:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: this amendment has now been made - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 05:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested insert with regards to Options for leaving the EU; infographic detailing "Alternative models to EU membership - comparison of rights and restrictions." Useful as a comparison of what rights certain non-EU countries have or don't have compared to EU member states.
Memarch ( talk) 07:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following text to the article: "The British pound has suffered its biggest one-day selloff in recent history, as the shock news the the UK is heading out of the European Union sparked panic in the markets." [4]. 89.164.181.240 ( talk) 11:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a modest comment on the irony of history - It seems, the British government were instrumental in their own recent troubles getting a good deal or getting out of the EU in general - it is explained in this political commentary of 3. July 2016 on the website of Denmarks Radio (unfortunately in Danish only): http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/13-aar-gammel-britisk-eu-sejr-viser-sig-vaere-et-skud-i-foden (13 Year old British victory turns out to be a shot in the foot) (with reference to this article on BBC with EU Trade Commisioner Cecilia Malmström: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222).
The British actually were the ones, who pushed for the exact conditions and wording of the now infamous Article 50, back in 2003. The then British representatives pushed for the very procedure, now making it extremely difficult for the same British government to get at good deal before getting out, inscribed into the EU constitution, despite the fact that both Germany and France was strongly against it. Then, the British celebrated it as a political victory over the 'sinister' EU - now it would seem a shot in the foot, as the commentator puts it.
Cecilia Malmström is the keyperson, who will negotiate directly with the British government, on behalf of the whole of EU, in matters of trading and the internal market.
If this should have been put somewhwere else in this discussion page, just move it. If you think these facts abovementioned should be included in the Brexit-article, I would be delighted. Please come back UK :) Thosland1 —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As a qualified member of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (www.iti.org.uk), I am not fully satisfied with the grammar and/or word choices of part of this article. I would like to correct some grammar mistakes in the article.
Yang Shi, MITI
Yangshi uwa ( talk) 16:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be beneficial to this article to add a line after the sentence in the third paragraph from the beginning that states, "The result was 52% in favour of leaving and 48% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72% of the electorate." The sentence should be added after is, "The 'Leave' campaign won by 1269.5 votes." This should be added because it is important to note early in the article the small number of votes by which the "Leave" campaign won. Providing only percentages shows the reader only the relationship to the whole, not an exact number.
Here is here is a citation from CNN concerning the margin of victory for the "Leave" campaign: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/david-cameron-resignation-brexit/
Mr Dunn Mills ( talk) 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the number. But I believe providing one statistic without the other is an incomplete analysis. Providing the margin of victory only in terms of a percentage shows readers only its relationship to the whole. This is valuable but incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Dunn Mills ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
|answered=no
. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
22:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following(in main leading section or other). Brexit may not be end to free trade or stop to work immigration. Actual example may be Norwegian model, where being out of union means mainly having more independence in own politics, and not having that influence on union politics. [1]
References
Is this important enough to note? It wasn't only referred to by the UK but by other EEC countries (I'm guessing most of them) (e.g. from the article on French Wikipeida Marché commun européen): "Le marché commun européen, ou plus simplement marché commun, est l’ancien nom du marché intérieur de l’Union européenne." Ditto Italian Wikipedia: "Con l'espressione Mercato europeo comune (MEC) ci si riferisce al mercato unico dell'Unione europea ..." In other words, that's what everyone called it for short. I suggest we don't need to specify that it was called that 'by the UK' at the time, if we need to mention it at all. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 05:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I should have realized there would even be an equivalent article in English. I've trimmed and linked to Common Market. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 05:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There's an amount of hysterical reaction in the media following the Brexit vote, with minor stuff being inflated beyond all reason. The secession of London is an example which I've deleted, and I would also class the Mayor of Calais's opinions with that and probably the on-line petition for another referendum. Can we try to avoid this fluff getting into the article? This is too big and too important on many fronts to let it get hijacked by publicity-seeking wallies. Gravuritas ( talk) 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought I had made it clear- but to repeat, my suggestion is in general that we try to filter out the 'somebody said something' type reporting and the minor and irrelevant stuff, in the light of the major stuff that the vote portends. Specifically, I think that the London independence stuff should not be there, and nor should the now-over-ruled opinion of the Mayor of Saint-Quentin (not Calais- my mistake) Personally, I would class the on-line petition for a re-run in the same way and delete it, but I would now accept that this view will not be held widely enough so I withdraw that part of the suggestion. Do you or anyone else feel that Xavier Bertrand and his smack-down merits inclusion? Gravuritas ( talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Epithetic effects
On completion of Article 50 procedures, all British subjects will be addressed as extracomunitarians in all informal contexts. [1] Albertosplit ( talk) 10:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
References
This has probably been discussed before, but anyway... I googled Brexit (just like everyone else googles brexit) in order to find this article I'm in right now. For the sake of simplicity, why not just rename this long name to simply Brexit, if that's what people search most of the times? EeeveeeFrost ( talk) 17:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I found this piece strange.
Scotland, N. Ireland, Gibraltar are substantially different territories. Thus, the talk about secession, even if not naturally "legal" is meaningful.
London is a city. Without anyone seriously looking into giving it independence.
London idea is more political protest than anything like a realistic secession threat / plan
I cannot see why this is framed as secession idea.... Jazi Zilber ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Multiple news sources and political analysts have stated that in the aftermath of Brexit, Scotland and Northern Ireland will secede. This of course is due to their preference to be with the EU as independent republics.
The U.K., as we know it, will be no more. Not even Great Britain will be spared! This analysis should be incorporated into the article. Cheers. -- 66.87.118.217 ( talk) 04:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Suggest to call it "United Kingdom of South Britain"
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've gone through this today (part of the EU referendum editing workshop) and tried to ensure it's oriented more towards discussing the general issue of withdrawal rather than details of the 2016 referendum, which is better dealt with in that article. We really don't need to include trivia like the campaign songs here! Andrew Gray ( talk) 14:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a minor edit scuffle over the content of the lead.
IMO, the lead should specify what the status of UK withdrawal is today, prior to 23 June: it is an aim of some groups. It is not a fact. It is not a referendum. We should be careful not to have this article become a reprise of the other articles in the set. So the text I believe we should have is this:
In the view of user:SlimVirgin, the text should say this:
Contributions and advice from other editors is invited.
If we vote to BREMAIN, then it will remain an aim. If we vote to BREXIT, then this article will need a major rewrite, to track the consequences. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
References
The article details in great lengths the (largely historic) divisions within the labour party on the issue but fails to mention the more recent and arguably deeper divisions within the conservative party on the same issue. 31.50.100.90 ( talk) 11:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Article readers ought to be enlightened about French President Charles de Gaulle's veto on British membership. Britain had to argue and pleed for more than a decade in order to recieve membership in what in 1973 was EEC. First after the "abdication" of the French President did it became possible for Britain to become a member. I think this should be mentioned here ! And who can trust a British nation that want's to join, jumps off and presumably want to keep all good agreements and contracts with EU. And why has this question been rised at all ? Compare the UK 1972 with today - London has become the centre of the world, the tube and all railway systems is at a much higher standard today. Coal miners and typographers has become victims of the modernisation, but if the UK unemployment compensations are too low - that has nothing to do with any EU-decrets. Does England wan't to participate in the Euro 2016 och Champions League ? If not so, then go ahead and vote for becomming the 51st colony of your previous colonies across the Atlantic! And give Charles de Gaulle right some 48 years too late. But please vote for changing the EU instead. What is the main issues for UKIP and similar anyways ? Boeing720 ( talk) 17:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Amakuru: Yesterday, I moved this article to "Possible exit of United Kingdom from European Union" but someone moved it back today. If the article is about a goal or a possibility then I don't see why that shouldn't be reflected in the article title. We wouldn't have an article titled "Presidency of Donald Trump" or "Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II" unless or until those events occur. See WP:Crystal. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article also cover the consequences of a LEAVE vote? Such as the breakup of the Union with Scotland choosing to REMAIN and all that? (or Gibraltar's status) -- 70.51.200.20 ( talk) 06:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Then you'd have to be getting into the consequences of a remain vote. The speculation on the breakup of the UK should it decide to leave,as well as the speculation on the consequences of choosing to remain is not suitable for an encyclopedia. 92.14.235.19 ( talk) 22:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Due to the nature of the issue, this article may need to be locked, such that further vandalism by non-logged-in users can be prevented, and such that policing may be done for vandalism by those who ARE logged in. - 107.7.147.21 ( talk) 04:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Today, Cameron announced that only his follower as prime minister (October 2016) will invoke article 50. Please correct/update the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.190.250 ( talk) 09:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The opening section mentions that it must be ratified by parliament. As someone unfamiliar with the UK's legislative procedure, does that mean that parliament can override it, or is it more symbolic than anything? This should be expanded upon -- Gimmethegepgun ( talk) 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The licensing info for c:File:Ballot img.png used in the article is blatantly wrong. However I have locked myself out of Commons... Can someone please do the necessary? BethNaught ( talk) 19:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Many triumphant supporters are drawing parallels between Brexit and the ascendance of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. I have often heard these interesting individuals calling Brexit "the fourth reich" and claiming "We have taken our country back from the Arabs, Browns, Negros, and Jews" and other statements such as these. I propose we add a section called: "Brexit and National Socialism" 63.143.202.85 ( talk) 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title should be changed to, "British withdrawal from the European Union," as, "British," is one of the the demonyms used for a resident of the United Kingdom.
97.93.28.226 ( talk) 01:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Some very predominant underlining factors and other actors are missing from this page. It is absurd to only mention UKIP and ignore all the racist and xenophobic elements and ideologies. And no mention of BNP, EDL etc etc etc... these must also be mentioned in this presently sanitised page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.171.52 ( talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed the height of absurdity to not mention the Fascist, racist, xenophobic, and bigoted character of the Leave campaign and its elderly, rapidly decaying voters who will soon shuffle off this mortal coil. It is as if in 1932 an article on the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany omitted the fact that they ran on anti-semitic campaign platform of making Germany "Judenfrei." 63.143.195.39 ( talk) 20:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting your political views. If you have *factual* information, by all means contribute it, but leave your righteous indignation out of it. Robertwharvey ( talk) 05:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.rt.com/uk/348507-brexit-petition-fraudulent-signatures/ SaintAviator lets talk 05:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Per [2] [3] this article should cover the one-country two-systems option, exemplified by Greenland-Denmark, where part of the state LEAVEs while another part REMAINs. -- 70.51.200.20 ( talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
In reference No.4, leave voters as the source calls them are renamed to "idiots". Wikipedia should have no political stance, let alone insult people. 77.238.216.46 ( talk) 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
On the map, currently the territory of Northern Cyprus is shown as gray. Shouldn't this also be blue? As I understand it, the European Union regards all of Cyprus as a part of the Union and their position is that the territory of Northern Cyprus is being illegally occupied by Turkish-backed forces. On a practical level, people in Northern Cyprus don't have the same access to Europe as other people from the rest of Cyprus, but nonetheless if the EU considers all of Cyprus to be part of the union, then shouldn't the whole island be colored blue. Dragons flight ( talk) 07:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If on the other hand, United Kingdom waits with the invoking of article 50, will a rather orchid situation emerge.
Even replacing orchid with awkward this doesn't really make sense. Should this read something like:
If on the other hand, The United Kingdom waits to invoke article 50 a rather awkward situation will emerge.
But I'm not sure awkward is the right word here either. Strange, perverse perhaps, weird, but not really awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.236.1 ( talk) 06:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts on including an image of a 1973 Great Britain 50 Pence (KM# 918), which commemorates the U.K. entrance into the ECC, as part of the Background section? Here's an image I took of one the other day: http://i66.tinypic.com/1j46rt.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.145.104 ( talk) 11:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Why does the opening sentence say "... is a political goal that was pursued ...", as though the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union is something which has already happened? It should say "a political goal that has been pursued ... - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 03:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: this amendment has now been made - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 05:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested insert with regards to Options for leaving the EU; infographic detailing "Alternative models to EU membership - comparison of rights and restrictions." Useful as a comparison of what rights certain non-EU countries have or don't have compared to EU member states.
Memarch ( talk) 07:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following text to the article: "The British pound has suffered its biggest one-day selloff in recent history, as the shock news the the UK is heading out of the European Union sparked panic in the markets." [4]. 89.164.181.240 ( talk) 11:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a modest comment on the irony of history - It seems, the British government were instrumental in their own recent troubles getting a good deal or getting out of the EU in general - it is explained in this political commentary of 3. July 2016 on the website of Denmarks Radio (unfortunately in Danish only): http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/13-aar-gammel-britisk-eu-sejr-viser-sig-vaere-et-skud-i-foden (13 Year old British victory turns out to be a shot in the foot) (with reference to this article on BBC with EU Trade Commisioner Cecilia Malmström: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222).
The British actually were the ones, who pushed for the exact conditions and wording of the now infamous Article 50, back in 2003. The then British representatives pushed for the very procedure, now making it extremely difficult for the same British government to get at good deal before getting out, inscribed into the EU constitution, despite the fact that both Germany and France was strongly against it. Then, the British celebrated it as a political victory over the 'sinister' EU - now it would seem a shot in the foot, as the commentator puts it.
Cecilia Malmström is the keyperson, who will negotiate directly with the British government, on behalf of the whole of EU, in matters of trading and the internal market.
If this should have been put somewhwere else in this discussion page, just move it. If you think these facts abovementioned should be included in the Brexit-article, I would be delighted. Please come back UK :) Thosland1 —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As a qualified member of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (www.iti.org.uk), I am not fully satisfied with the grammar and/or word choices of part of this article. I would like to correct some grammar mistakes in the article.
Yang Shi, MITI
Yangshi uwa ( talk) 16:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be beneficial to this article to add a line after the sentence in the third paragraph from the beginning that states, "The result was 52% in favour of leaving and 48% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72% of the electorate." The sentence should be added after is, "The 'Leave' campaign won by 1269.5 votes." This should be added because it is important to note early in the article the small number of votes by which the "Leave" campaign won. Providing only percentages shows the reader only the relationship to the whole, not an exact number.
Here is here is a citation from CNN concerning the margin of victory for the "Leave" campaign: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/david-cameron-resignation-brexit/
Mr Dunn Mills ( talk) 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the number. But I believe providing one statistic without the other is an incomplete analysis. Providing the margin of victory only in terms of a percentage shows readers only its relationship to the whole. This is valuable but incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Dunn Mills ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
|answered=no
. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
22:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following(in main leading section or other). Brexit may not be end to free trade or stop to work immigration. Actual example may be Norwegian model, where being out of union means mainly having more independence in own politics, and not having that influence on union politics. [1]
References
Is this important enough to note? It wasn't only referred to by the UK but by other EEC countries (I'm guessing most of them) (e.g. from the article on French Wikipeida Marché commun européen): "Le marché commun européen, ou plus simplement marché commun, est l’ancien nom du marché intérieur de l’Union européenne." Ditto Italian Wikipedia: "Con l'espressione Mercato europeo comune (MEC) ci si riferisce al mercato unico dell'Unione europea ..." In other words, that's what everyone called it for short. I suggest we don't need to specify that it was called that 'by the UK' at the time, if we need to mention it at all. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 05:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I should have realized there would even be an equivalent article in English. I've trimmed and linked to Common Market. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 05:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There's an amount of hysterical reaction in the media following the Brexit vote, with minor stuff being inflated beyond all reason. The secession of London is an example which I've deleted, and I would also class the Mayor of Calais's opinions with that and probably the on-line petition for another referendum. Can we try to avoid this fluff getting into the article? This is too big and too important on many fronts to let it get hijacked by publicity-seeking wallies. Gravuritas ( talk) 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought I had made it clear- but to repeat, my suggestion is in general that we try to filter out the 'somebody said something' type reporting and the minor and irrelevant stuff, in the light of the major stuff that the vote portends. Specifically, I think that the London independence stuff should not be there, and nor should the now-over-ruled opinion of the Mayor of Saint-Quentin (not Calais- my mistake) Personally, I would class the on-line petition for a re-run in the same way and delete it, but I would now accept that this view will not be held widely enough so I withdraw that part of the suggestion. Do you or anyone else feel that Xavier Bertrand and his smack-down merits inclusion? Gravuritas ( talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Epithetic effects
On completion of Article 50 procedures, all British subjects will be addressed as extracomunitarians in all informal contexts. [1] Albertosplit ( talk) 10:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
References
This has probably been discussed before, but anyway... I googled Brexit (just like everyone else googles brexit) in order to find this article I'm in right now. For the sake of simplicity, why not just rename this long name to simply Brexit, if that's what people search most of the times? EeeveeeFrost ( talk) 17:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I found this piece strange.
Scotland, N. Ireland, Gibraltar are substantially different territories. Thus, the talk about secession, even if not naturally "legal" is meaningful.
London is a city. Without anyone seriously looking into giving it independence.
London idea is more political protest than anything like a realistic secession threat / plan
I cannot see why this is framed as secession idea.... Jazi Zilber ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Multiple news sources and political analysts have stated that in the aftermath of Brexit, Scotland and Northern Ireland will secede. This of course is due to their preference to be with the EU as independent republics.
The U.K., as we know it, will be no more. Not even Great Britain will be spared! This analysis should be incorporated into the article. Cheers. -- 66.87.118.217 ( talk) 04:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Suggest to call it "United Kingdom of South Britain"
|