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 4 | Archive 5 |
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 10 July 2016. The result of the move review was no consensus, relist. |
Discussion on merging this requested move with multiple others, reverted to avoid confusion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think most of this paragraph should be removed. The idea of an independent City-State London is a non-starter and of no merit in the wider discussion of the future of the UK post-Brexit. The London petition was just one of many frivolous petitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.132.194 ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 July 2016
I would like to propose a new edit considering the new information that Theresa May will become the new prime minister. Perhaps this would best fit as a new section under the "2016 Referendum" section. Please discuss this and let me know your thoughts.
The following is the proposed new section:
Theresa May will succeed David Cameron as prime minister, after Andrea Leadsom, May’s only rival, dropped out of the race on Monday, July 11, 2016. May will become Britain’s second female prime minister, the first being Margaret Thatcher. [1]
Cameron reported earlier that he would resign once a new party leader was selected; although, this change of leadership was not expected until as late as September 2016. Cameron stated he will offer his resignation on Wednesday, July 13, 2016. [2] Opposition leadership challenged the transfer of leadership to Theresa May, instead raising the possibility of a general election.
Theresa May, who campaigned to remain in the E.U., has assured the public that there will be no second referendum and that she will fully pursue the best deal for the U.K. through the E.U. exit. [3]
The diagram of the political system is very neat. However, it contains a number of anomalies.
1. The Lozenge in the centre is by convention used to define an exit point - a decision point - on a chart of this type. 2. Here a Lozenge is used to identify that Legislation is the featured output from this process. 3. The links from the Coucil of Ministers, and from the European Parliament are described as "elects / appoints / decides on" links - in this case, I would assume that the only logical meaning of this link is that these parties can "decide on" the Legislation. This implies that legislation can come from two different areas of the elected bureaucracy of the EU? If this is the case, what is the need for two different decision points? 4. The European Commission is linked to Legislation by means of a link which means that it "proposes" legislation. If this is all that the European Commission does in the context of this diagram, then the link from the European Commission should be to one (or both) of the bodies that can actually "decide on" legislation for the European Union.
I understand that this is a "helicopter view" of the process, but in its current state, it isn't just a helicopter view, it is misleading and confusing in the use of the termibnology included.
I recommend that someone who is familiar with the use of this type of diagram should be sought to clean up this mess, as quickly as possible.
Note: probably the EASIEST way to do that wold be to remove "Legislation" completely, as it appears to run counter to all of the other uses of this diagram. I am quite certain that "Legislation" isn't the only output from this organisation, and as such, it should either be removed, or the scope of the diagram changed to include all major outputs from the "Political System"
Thank you 124.170.36.185 ( talk) 08:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The title of this article suggest United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union!
Or according to some news, some European parts asked the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union by article 50, but the government from England and Wales did not show any serious intention to engage in the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union by article 50. Else, article 50 would have been used yet.
Here, we do not know if such United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union is possible. The prime minister herself has no interest or no capacity to engage in article 50, that is United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union. Else, article 50 would have been used yet. Anyway, we do not only know if she has any clear goal...
All that is only speculation.
As so, can such a title for an improbable or impossible future event be used in Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 ( talk) 21:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The article starts getting a bit disorgnized and a sprawl.
This is natural and fast moving events etc. were added.
I feel some ordering and maybe trimming is needed. Jazi Zilber ( talk) 08:46, 14 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. |
Dear editor,
I would like to suggest adding a footnote at the end of the 2nd para. of the following Chapter: /info/en/?search=United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#.22Article_50.22_and_the_procedure_for_leaving_the_EU , with the following content: "For a visualization of the mechanics of Art. 50 TEU see http://www.eur-charts.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02-Development_Additional-Charts-on-Exit_www-eurcharts-eu.pdf"
The visualization has been developed under the supervision of Prof. Christa Tobler, University of Leiden, ( https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/christa-tobler) and may also be accessed via http://www.eur-charts.eu/downloads
46.14.161.225 ( talk) 10:14, 13 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. |
About 80% of the way through, in the section headed "Political effects" Correct capitalisation from "Theresa may" to "Theresa May". 87.114.45.163 ( talk) 20:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Done, along with other tweaks to the text Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. It's a day early to close this, but the consensus is crystal clear that the common name has really shifted to Brexit now, and we might as well get our article there ASAP. — Amakuru ( talk) 08:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union → Brexit – I am opening this requested move discussion because I wholeheartedly believe that the present title stands in direct defiance of the guidance given by our policy on article titles. The term 'Brexit' began as a mere portmanteau, and indeed, I have strong tendency toward distaste for neologisms. However, the term has become more than a mere political catchphrase. Indeed, it has become the defining term of the events described within this article, in all political, legal, public, and journalistic discourse. It is not mere jargon. It is overwhelmingly the common name for these events, with no other description or term for competition. It is used alike by supporters and opponents of British exit from the EU, with no concerns about its neutrality, ruling out justification for the present title as a 'descriptive title' per WP:NDESC.
In section Delaying tactics to obtain concessions from Brussels it is stated "That is provoking alarm in many European capitals," This is not true, not neutral and only based on one newspaper source. The section Long-term economic prospects is pure speculation of the future, only based on one source in a magazine and it is contradicted by several articles in other magazies. Yger ( talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The WHOLE article suffers from POV issues. Some edits seem to have quite an agenda. I would have edited stuff. But would need serious research. and it is just too hard to neutralize the whole article. seriously Jazi Zilber ( talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over the wording of the opening paragraphs.
EddieHugh suggests:
Brexit [note 1] refers to the United Kingdom's (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU). It is a political goal that has been pursued by various individuals, advocacy groups, and political parties since the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC), the predecessor of the EU, in 1973. The process of withdrawal is being implemented following a national referendum on continuing EU membership held on 23 June 2016.
In 1975, a referendum was held on the country's continued membership of the EEC, which was approved by 67.2% of voters on a turnout of 64.6%. In the 2016 referendum, the result was 51.9% in favour of leaving and 48.1% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72.2%. Following the referendum, political changes have occurred in the UK.
I suggest:
British withdrawal from the European Union, commonly known as Brexit, [note 2] has been a political goal that has been pursued by various individuals, advocacy groups, and political parties from across the political spectrum since the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. The process of withdrawal from its successor, the European Union (EU), is currently being implemented following a national referendum held on 23 June 2016.
In 1975, a referendum was held on the country's continued membership of the EEC, which was approved by 67.2% of voters on a turnout of 64.6%. The EEC later transformed into the EU. In 2016, a referendum arranged by the UK Parliament was held on the country's membership of the EU. The result was 51.9% in favour of leaving and 48.1% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72.2%. Following the referendum, significant political and economic changes have occurred in the UK.
Firstly, I believe it is important to give equal weight to common alternatives to the term "Brexit", and "British withdrawal from the European Union" is the most common of those. (There is a case for Exiting the European Union, as used by the Government, but it cannot be prefixed by the word "British".). The idea that the word "British" does not refer to the UK as a whole is false - it is indeed the adjective used officially and internationally for the UK as a whole. Opening sentences saying "X refers to something" are deprecated on WP - regular editors, I'm sure, can put their fingers on the guidance. The opening sentence should say what the subject of the article is, not what it "refers to". The issue of "Brexit" not being a term used in the 1970s can be seen as a minor but inconsequential flaw in both wordings, not only mine. Finally, some significant economic changes (notably decline in the value of the pound) have already occurred since the referendum, and it is false to suggest that they have not. Comments from other editors on the alternative wordings, and others, are obviously welcome. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
References
there is no such thing as brithdrawal. the title is brexit because of "british exit", so use "british exit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.134.79 ( talk) 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone (Eddie Hugh) deleted that content ... So I reverted it.
I was the one who had added the paragraph in June about Cameron failing to use the emergency brake that the Guardian claimed he had available from the EU. But new articles - including a quote from Merkel - indicate that he had sought such relief but had not obtained it before the referendum. So it is not fair to claim that he failed to use it. He did not have it to use.
However, Cameron claimed "he could have avoided Brexit had European leaders let him control migration", according to the Financial Times. Parker, George. "Cameron pins Brexit on EU failure to grant UK brake on migration". The Financial Times. London, UK. Retrieved 24 July 2016. That is credible, considering a statement made by Angela Merkel to the German Parliament: “If you wish to have free access to the single market then you have to accept the fundamental European rights as well as obligations that come from it. This is as true for Great Britain as for anybody else.” Woodcock, Andrew (28 June 2016). "Cameron warns EU immigration rules could threaten UK trade deal". The Independent. London, UK. Retrieved 24 July 2016. Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I may be wrong. How soon could the emergency brake be triggered? The proposed mechanism requires EU law to be altered. That’s not something the EU leaders can manage on their own. First of all, the deal will not kick in until after the UK has voted on the forthcoming referendum on EU membership. And, of course, it assumes that the UK votes to remain in. OK, this does shed a new light on the issue. Cameron did not get a full blown carte blanche on restricting immigration but he did have the offer of the emergency brake which he really did not use effectively to try to sway the vote to the Remain side. Eddie reverted me. OK. Peter K Burian ( talk) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
References
As Brussels held its ground, Cameron dropped his manifesto commitment for new EU workers to wait four years before accessing benefits, as long as something was done to cut immigration. In February Britain and the EU struck a deal. Britain would get an "emergency brake," allowing the U.K. to withhold access to benefits for new migrants for a one-off period of seven years.
Using the term Brexit without quotation marks seems a bit odd to me - is it official enough to warrant usage implying it is the actual name of this process, rather than referring to it as "Brexit" and naming the article as such?
See also the way the subsection down the page is named '"Article 50" and the procedure for leaving the EU' - despite Article 50 being a real part of the Lisbon Treaty. Having the term Article 50 enclosed in quotation marks seems to suggest it is merely a moniker, which it arguably has now become, but that does not erase the fact that Article 50 does exist. 147.147.164.32 ( talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The
Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe recently published
Europe after Brexit by
Pat Cox in its "Debates and Documents Collection". That might be an interesting resource for this article.
Briony Compleag (
talk)
12:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC).
In fact, the case of a referendum having a huge long term effect with a narrow majority has raised discussions in many places.
Of course, this is hardly a fluke decision, as the parliament called the referendum. But it can safely be said that had the parliament majority deemed "no" a probable answer, no referendum would have been called.
Here is the section that was (justly) removed from the text"
<quote>According to the political scientist, Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou, Brexit constitutes as an example of the tyranny of the majority. A situation in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged minority through the democratic process. Pashakhanlou argues that this is what numerous minority groups in the UK are experiencing after Leave won the referendum. Ironically, Pashakhanlou maintains that Brexit has not only harmed the interests of the minority, but also the majority that supported Brexit.<quote>
However, many others have started discussing the merits of referendums and its meaning vs. representative democracy, being a yes/no question, without attention to tradeoffs.
as one said, "you can at any time get a majority for: tax reduction, increased spending, and deficit elimination" which is naturally absurd"
This subject merits a section. I will find the links later.
Jazi Zilber ( talk) 09:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
It is commonly assumed that Cameron expected to need coalition partners after the election, and he planned to let them block any referendum.
I have read this claim in multiple sources. It is actually implied in the text of the article here (saying "after Tories won unexpectedly a majority" or so). but could not find a reference now.....
It's interesting to see this article actually got moved to "Brexit". I thought it would stay put at the original title when the first RM was closed.
As recently as this week, mainstream media are still using the phrase "since Brexit" to mean, effectively, "since 23 June 2016". [6] That would suggest that "Brexit" is ambiguously both the referendum earlier this year and the ongoing act of the UK trying to quit the EU. Since this article is clearly stating it's deferring coverage of the referendum to a separate article, I'm surprised it got moved to this all-encompassing title. Deryck C. 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I have heard it is the other way around by some margin! Does anybody know the actual stats? A quote from a kipper is not all that reliable... 137.205.183.31 ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Ghmyrtle: I appreciate your help in fine-tuning the lead section of our Brexit article. The reason for my latest edit was that I feel there is a void in the sentence with the wording "52% voted to leave", which may throw the reader's mind off-balance; we need to specify 52% of whom. Granted, you had valid objections to saying "52% of voters chose to leave" or "52% of participating citizens voted to leave". Can we work to find another wording here? Perhaps "52% of voters opted to leave" or "52% of ballots were cast in favour of leaving"? — JFG talk 09:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that the opening paragraphs, both in this version and in this version, place too little weight on the current process (I know the referendum was non-binding, but it is clearly the intention of the UK government to implement it), and too much weight on the historical aspirations of some groups - so, I have put up an amended and restructured wording. Happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: Further changes have now taken place, including the wording "Brexit is a term used for..." which is directly contrary to policy - WP:ISAWORDFOR. Phrases such as "Brexit is a word for... " should not be used here. The article should start with a definition of what Brexit is. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@ RGloucester: @ DeFacto: - My interpretation of the wording "Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU)" - the current article opening - appears to differ from the interpretation put on those words by their proponents (such as in this edit). To me, the words "Brexit is the withdrawal..." imply to readers that Brexit now exists, without qualification - that withdrawal is now an ongoing process. It is not. Processes have been established that it is intended will eventually lead to Brexit in the future, but Brexit is not something that exists now, to which the present tense applies (except in wordings such as "Brexit means the withdrawal...", which is unacceptable article wording per WP:ISAWORDFOR). Brexit is forthcoming. It is clearly intended as a matter of current government policy. No-one yet knows, precisely, what it means or when it will eventually happen - it is a matter of ongoing political debate. The opening sentence should give some weight to the uncertainty around the word and process, so as not to mislead readers into believing that it is a real thing that is happening now (or has already happened). I'd like editors to discuss the current wording. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I have rectified what I believe was a key omission: we needed to state clearly that exit hasn't actually happened yet. It is obvious to those close the the subject of course but it needs to be said up front for the worldwide audience. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Chemical287. I see that you've been changing the percentages in the votes by quoting them more precisely. I think 2dp is at least 1 too many, (and looks silly for the earlier referendum) but I don't feel strongly enough to argue about it. What I do feel is wrong is your addition of the number of votes for one side, which is meaningless. I can't think of any likely question which can be answered by that information alone. However, a very reasonable question in people's minds might be 'what was the voting margin, in numbers of people?' and I think the best way to display that accessibly is to show the numbers of votes for each side. People can then do a comparison in their head. I realise that with the information you are giving you can still get to the minority number by dividing the majority number by the majority percentage, and taking the difference, but I've only had one caffeine shot so far today...... Further I think that for the earlier referendum, the size of the % majority was such that probably the actual numbers become irrelevant. So I would request either that we quote the number of votes for each side, or neither. Gravuritas ( talk) 09:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Theresa May has just announced that her government will trigger Article 50 on the 20th January 2017 during the 2016 Conservative Party Conference, also confirmed by Iain Duncan Smith Twobells ( talk) 15:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody understand why Ghmyrtle ( talk) reverted the intro to a version only mentioning 'notice was not given immediately' (who said it needs to be given immediately?) instead of writing that UK government has announced to trigger exit earliest in 2017?
Does anybody understand why Ghmyrtle ( talk) reverted the intro to a version only mentioning 'Unless extensions are agreed to unanimously ...timing for leaving under the article is two years' (who said that both sides want to agree on an extension of the two years?; one could also speculate that the government does a second referendum, or whatever is conceivable.)
Both Ghmyrtle revisions happened 30 September 2016, as of 20:44. But Ghmyrtle wouldn't answer why he just wrote 'no improvement'.
We could write a lot of speculative scenarios in the intro what might happen. But is that needed? -- Thereisnofreename ( talk) 16:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the section dealing with the legal challenge, we have this paragraph:
The Lisbon Treaty, including Article 50, was ratified for UK on 16 July 2008,[96] and had come into force on 1 December 2009.[97] The treaty ratification provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 were in force from 11 November 2010.[98] The Explanatory Note published with the Act describes "treaty" as an agreement between states, or between states and international organisations, which is binding under international law, including amendments to a treaty, and states that "ratification" includes acts (such as notification that domestic procedures have been completed) which establish as a matter of international law the United Kingdom's consent to be bound by the treaty; but mentions that compliance with the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 may apply to ratification of an amendment to a European Union treaty.[99] There are further provisions under the European Union Act 2011.
which seems a non sequitur in this context. I wonder if it was previously in another section and has become orphaned? Or has an editor written a legal argument for one side or other to use? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey Dan. You reverted my transfers from the Brexit article to the Referendum 2016 article. You claim in your message that I did not justify my edits, but in fact I did, every one of them. Please explain your concern. 86.154.101.92 ( talk) 17:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Clearly it is difficult to predict the future, but current indications on both sides of the Channel are for hard Brexit: the British Prime Minister does not wish to compromise on immigration, and the EU is not considered quick-footed enough to negotiate agreements with Canada in 7 years, let alone with Britain in two years. This means the focus of the Wikipedia article should be on hard Brexit and its implementation (WTO tariffs). The existing long descriptions on the Norwegian and Swiss EU agreements can then be considerably shortened because the Prime Minister has explicitly excluded those for Britain. Opinions? 86.154.101.93 ( talk) 07:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Me again. I think both of you are being sidetracked by my humorous "predict the future" remark, sorry. The problem is that hard and soft Brexits are extensively discussed in the media, and by PM May and President Hollande, but are not at all explained here. I suggest we group the existing Norwegian and Swiss paragraphs under a new section "soft Brexit", and then explain the mechanism of a hard Brexit: breakdown of Art 50 talks, WTO admission rules, applicable tariffs. Some of this info is available from the German parliamentary report. And some interesting WTO info was published in The Times today, 27 Oct 2016). Enough to put a paragraph together. Do either of you feel like tackling it? I am exhausted. 86.154.102.105 ( talk) 20:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.Hard Brexit vs Soft Brexit falls squarely into this category. It is not Wikipedian speculation, but reliably soured speculation. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has said "but this isn't true either, it isn't "in progress" yet. the withdrawal process hasn't formally begun. it's still in the planning/preparation stages. Once A50 is triggered, it could be argued to be "in progress". This is a rod we made for our own backs by bowing to the use of the term "Brexit" because "the sources used it". If we use it it should be sourced, but that doesn't mean that because it's sourced we have to use it. Britmax ( talk) 23:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Did "Brexit" refer to UK's "intended withdrawal from the European Union following an advisory referendum held in June" per [9]? Qexigator ( talk) 09:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Surely "advisory" is the problem word here - "following a referendum" would be neutral. Remain say referendum is only advisory, Leave say not. -- Lessogg ( talk) 11:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This Bill required a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union before the end of 2017. It did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution. In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and agreed by both Houses. [1]
-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
In the section on Article 50, an editor has added a selective quote from a [non-legislative] briefing note on Article 50 to the EU Parliament written by a member of staff from the Member's Briefing Service. Ignoring for the moment the issue of copyright, it is not at all clear [to me at least] how this improves the (WP) article. Our convention is for an editor to write some text and then to cite the source that justifies it. We can't just copy stuff and then bung it in somewhere at random without any context. To do so in this case just looks to me like cherry picking to push a POV. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Towards the end of the lead section, we say:
In the 1970s and 1980s, withdrawal from the EEC was advocated mainly by some Labour Party and trade union figures. From the 1990s, withdrawal from the EU was advocated mainly by some Conservatives and by the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).
I took it upon myself to improve the unsightly duplicated sentence but I was reverted several times by friendly IP editors who corrected my English or my history but didn't bother to suggest a better alternative. Here are the rejected versions:
From the 1990s, the impetus to exit the EU switched to some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).
From the 1990s, the impetus to exit the EU was driven by some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).
From the 1990s, the movement to exit the EU was driven by some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).
At that point I assumed that I was in a hole, so I stopped digging and came here for salvation. Can somebody offer a historically correct, grammatically acceptable and æsthetically pleasing formulation? — JFG talk 11:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In the top of the article I changed "Brexit is the informal term for..." to "Brexit is the most widely used term for...", which was subsequently reverted without comment and I changed it back again requesting a reason for the revert. There are countless examples of high ranking politicians using the term in formal circumstances, such as speeches to the EU parliament. Therefore I think it is a mistake to label it "informal" and would prefer this wording as it is more neutral and simply describes how the term is used. 185.107.13.58 ( talk) 03:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
A recent series of edits suggests that describing "Brexit" for the opening of this article in a way that is acceptable is a continuing problem. Given that by its title this has become the lead article for the continuing process intended to result in withdrawal, it is of some importance that the article's wording is neutral and acceptable, and as simply expressed as precision allows. The current version reads:
Is this meant to be the same as
which was in an early version of United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (24 November 2012)? Is "concept" unacceptable? If we take "Brexit" is a portmanteau of the words Britain and exit." as acceptable, we still have to consider whether the use of "Brexit" remains the same today as when it started in 2012, in imitation of Grexit (Feb 2012), and from then on.
Recent versions:
The first section after the lead sufficiently explains "The term 'Brexit'". Do we need to say at the top: "Brexit is the informal term for..."? I do not see that in this context inserting "refers to", or "is the informal term for" adds anything meaningful, and looks no better than clutter in the opening sentence. What more needs to be said is in or may be added to the first section after the lead. Qexigator ( talk) 18:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Objection to both Qexigator's concern and Ghmyrtle's suggestion. First Ghmyrtle: I find your proposed sentence syntactically complex, so no thank you. Qexigator: I am not too fussed about deleting "informal" in the interests of brevity, but I suspect the reason why there are so many changes to the first sentence is because people realise that Brexit is not a proper word (it is a neologism, a humorous term, an uneducated word invented by foreign bankers, etc), and therefore there is constant re-editing. But especially, consider non-native English speakers who would not realise that Brexit is an informal term which cannot (at present) be used used in legal documents or the like. They need to be warned of the appropriate usage. Compare the non-English Wikipedia sites, none of which use "Brexit" as far as I have seen. 86.154.102.61 ( talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomröstningen_om_Storbritanniens_medlemskap_i_EU
Not sure about your evidence. Gravuritas: Your Swedish wiki page is not called Brexit (and moreover confuddles the etymology of Brexit), and de Facto, your Oxford Online page lists example sentences which de facto confirm that Brexit is at best a journalistic term and certainly not one that is (yet) appropriate for legal documents etc. In fact the dictionary entry offers Brexit, Brixit, and "Brexit" side-by-side. 86.154.102.61 ( talk) 21:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Another thought: my subjective impression is that "Brexit" is used in two specific contexts: economic commentary by journalists and financial experts. And secondly, within the term "Brexiteer" as a humorous reference to Leavers. As JMF jokes above, it is beginning to be used by politicians, who presumably have taken it from the journalistic chatter. I have the impression that the various campaigns did not use the term Brexit much, as their vocabulary revolved mainly around "Leave" and "Remain" as per the referendum question. Before the referendum question was devised, people used to speak of "in" and "out" from the 1970s onwards. 86.170.123.5 ( talk) 07:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm torn. On the one hand, talking about the word instead of the thing it describes is discouraged by policy. On the other hand there's no denying that "Brexit" is a new term that must be described as such: the event begot the word, and this is how language evolves. The current wording Brexit is the informal term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal…
elegantly combines both requirements. —
JFG
talk
08:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In view of all the above comments, here is a proposed rewording, that says nothing new, but covers the essential points using existing links:
To my mind, the above comments show that retaining "informal" is not well supported, but if some such qualifier is needed, "commonly used" would make better sense in ordinary English. The Transcripts in the High Court proceedings show that Brexit is not yet common parlance in the the High Court (where the LCJ habitually says "OK"), but as mentioned above, it is now widely used practically wherever else the topic is written or spoken about. As a party to the EU treaties, the UK has the right to withdraw in the way prescribed in Article 50. That article applies where a member state is politically and constitutionally committed to withdrawal. If "exit" is here synonymous with "withdrawal", Article 50 tells us that the EU treaties will no longer apply to the UK once a negotiated exit treaty has been concluded, ratified and entered into force. In other words, exit happens when the exit treaty enters into force at the end of the process. That moment is like an actor's exit from (leaving) the stage, or a member's exit from (leaving) a partnership or club. 08:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC) +words added Qexigator ( talk) 10:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Qexigator, buried in the above fussiness of whether Brexit is informal, common-or-garden, coitus interruptus, or whatever, you make an important statement: "Article 50 tells us that the EU treaties will no longer apply to the UK once a negotiated exit treaty has been concluded, ratified and entered into force. In other words, exit happens when the exit treaty enters into force at the end of the process." My understanding is that this is only one way to exit. The other way is if negotiations fail and Britain leaves by default at the end of the two-year period, without an agreement. Am I right? 86.154.101.100 ( talk) 17:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
My surmise is that few if any participating in this discussion were or will be in doubt about exit resulting, as prescribed by Article 50 of the EU treaty, in the event of no treaty being agreed or no ratification of a treaty if agreed, as mentioned in my comment above replying to TDL (07:17, 1 November 2016 UTC). Qexigator ( talk) 19:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice: I temporarily removed "is the informal term" from the first sentence following a reader's comment below who noted that the term has acquired mainstream use, a conclusion we reached in July at the page move discussion. This should be taken into account in any rewording of the lead. More precisely, I think we should use "Brexit" throughout the article, while referring to the official names for the related treaties or government positions as being formal. — JFG talk 05:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
See today's High Court ruling that Brexit needs a Parliamentary vote and explain why that's important. 100.15.138.239 ( talk) 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Should this case have its own page? It is being reported in its own right in numerous sources as of today and this will only increase as it works its way up to the Supreme Court. MrStoofer ( talk) 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this article needs to include Brexit Social impact, it does a good job including the Economic impact but I think including the social impact its extremely important as well. Jovanna13 ( talk) 02:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The above two terms are increasingly being used in the UK media and by politicians in the debate about what form Brexit will take. Should we include definitions of these in the article? MFlet1 ( talk) 12:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
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 4 | Archive 5 |
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 10 July 2016. The result of the move review was no consensus, relist. |
Discussion on merging this requested move with multiple others, reverted to avoid confusion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think most of this paragraph should be removed. The idea of an independent City-State London is a non-starter and of no merit in the wider discussion of the future of the UK post-Brexit. The London petition was just one of many frivolous petitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.132.194 ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 July 2016
I would like to propose a new edit considering the new information that Theresa May will become the new prime minister. Perhaps this would best fit as a new section under the "2016 Referendum" section. Please discuss this and let me know your thoughts.
The following is the proposed new section:
Theresa May will succeed David Cameron as prime minister, after Andrea Leadsom, May’s only rival, dropped out of the race on Monday, July 11, 2016. May will become Britain’s second female prime minister, the first being Margaret Thatcher. [1]
Cameron reported earlier that he would resign once a new party leader was selected; although, this change of leadership was not expected until as late as September 2016. Cameron stated he will offer his resignation on Wednesday, July 13, 2016. [2] Opposition leadership challenged the transfer of leadership to Theresa May, instead raising the possibility of a general election.
Theresa May, who campaigned to remain in the E.U., has assured the public that there will be no second referendum and that she will fully pursue the best deal for the U.K. through the E.U. exit. [3]
The diagram of the political system is very neat. However, it contains a number of anomalies.
1. The Lozenge in the centre is by convention used to define an exit point - a decision point - on a chart of this type. 2. Here a Lozenge is used to identify that Legislation is the featured output from this process. 3. The links from the Coucil of Ministers, and from the European Parliament are described as "elects / appoints / decides on" links - in this case, I would assume that the only logical meaning of this link is that these parties can "decide on" the Legislation. This implies that legislation can come from two different areas of the elected bureaucracy of the EU? If this is the case, what is the need for two different decision points? 4. The European Commission is linked to Legislation by means of a link which means that it "proposes" legislation. If this is all that the European Commission does in the context of this diagram, then the link from the European Commission should be to one (or both) of the bodies that can actually "decide on" legislation for the European Union.
I understand that this is a "helicopter view" of the process, but in its current state, it isn't just a helicopter view, it is misleading and confusing in the use of the termibnology included.
I recommend that someone who is familiar with the use of this type of diagram should be sought to clean up this mess, as quickly as possible.
Note: probably the EASIEST way to do that wold be to remove "Legislation" completely, as it appears to run counter to all of the other uses of this diagram. I am quite certain that "Legislation" isn't the only output from this organisation, and as such, it should either be removed, or the scope of the diagram changed to include all major outputs from the "Political System"
Thank you 124.170.36.185 ( talk) 08:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The title of this article suggest United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union!
Or according to some news, some European parts asked the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union by article 50, but the government from England and Wales did not show any serious intention to engage in the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union by article 50. Else, article 50 would have been used yet.
Here, we do not know if such United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union is possible. The prime minister herself has no interest or no capacity to engage in article 50, that is United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union. Else, article 50 would have been used yet. Anyway, we do not only know if she has any clear goal...
All that is only speculation.
As so, can such a title for an improbable or impossible future event be used in Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 ( talk) 21:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The article starts getting a bit disorgnized and a sprawl.
This is natural and fast moving events etc. were added.
I feel some ordering and maybe trimming is needed. Jazi Zilber ( talk) 08:46, 14 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. |
Dear editor,
I would like to suggest adding a footnote at the end of the 2nd para. of the following Chapter: /info/en/?search=United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#.22Article_50.22_and_the_procedure_for_leaving_the_EU , with the following content: "For a visualization of the mechanics of Art. 50 TEU see http://www.eur-charts.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02-Development_Additional-Charts-on-Exit_www-eurcharts-eu.pdf"
The visualization has been developed under the supervision of Prof. Christa Tobler, University of Leiden, ( https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/christa-tobler) and may also be accessed via http://www.eur-charts.eu/downloads
46.14.161.225 ( talk) 10:14, 13 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. |
About 80% of the way through, in the section headed "Political effects" Correct capitalisation from "Theresa may" to "Theresa May". 87.114.45.163 ( talk) 20:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Done, along with other tweaks to the text Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. It's a day early to close this, but the consensus is crystal clear that the common name has really shifted to Brexit now, and we might as well get our article there ASAP. — Amakuru ( talk) 08:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union → Brexit – I am opening this requested move discussion because I wholeheartedly believe that the present title stands in direct defiance of the guidance given by our policy on article titles. The term 'Brexit' began as a mere portmanteau, and indeed, I have strong tendency toward distaste for neologisms. However, the term has become more than a mere political catchphrase. Indeed, it has become the defining term of the events described within this article, in all political, legal, public, and journalistic discourse. It is not mere jargon. It is overwhelmingly the common name for these events, with no other description or term for competition. It is used alike by supporters and opponents of British exit from the EU, with no concerns about its neutrality, ruling out justification for the present title as a 'descriptive title' per WP:NDESC.
In section Delaying tactics to obtain concessions from Brussels it is stated "That is provoking alarm in many European capitals," This is not true, not neutral and only based on one newspaper source. The section Long-term economic prospects is pure speculation of the future, only based on one source in a magazine and it is contradicted by several articles in other magazies. Yger ( talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The WHOLE article suffers from POV issues. Some edits seem to have quite an agenda. I would have edited stuff. But would need serious research. and it is just too hard to neutralize the whole article. seriously Jazi Zilber ( talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over the wording of the opening paragraphs.
EddieHugh suggests:
Brexit [note 1] refers to the United Kingdom's (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU). It is a political goal that has been pursued by various individuals, advocacy groups, and political parties since the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC), the predecessor of the EU, in 1973. The process of withdrawal is being implemented following a national referendum on continuing EU membership held on 23 June 2016.
In 1975, a referendum was held on the country's continued membership of the EEC, which was approved by 67.2% of voters on a turnout of 64.6%. In the 2016 referendum, the result was 51.9% in favour of leaving and 48.1% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72.2%. Following the referendum, political changes have occurred in the UK.
I suggest:
British withdrawal from the European Union, commonly known as Brexit, [note 2] has been a political goal that has been pursued by various individuals, advocacy groups, and political parties from across the political spectrum since the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. The process of withdrawal from its successor, the European Union (EU), is currently being implemented following a national referendum held on 23 June 2016.
In 1975, a referendum was held on the country's continued membership of the EEC, which was approved by 67.2% of voters on a turnout of 64.6%. The EEC later transformed into the EU. In 2016, a referendum arranged by the UK Parliament was held on the country's membership of the EU. The result was 51.9% in favour of leaving and 48.1% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72.2%. Following the referendum, significant political and economic changes have occurred in the UK.
Firstly, I believe it is important to give equal weight to common alternatives to the term "Brexit", and "British withdrawal from the European Union" is the most common of those. (There is a case for Exiting the European Union, as used by the Government, but it cannot be prefixed by the word "British".). The idea that the word "British" does not refer to the UK as a whole is false - it is indeed the adjective used officially and internationally for the UK as a whole. Opening sentences saying "X refers to something" are deprecated on WP - regular editors, I'm sure, can put their fingers on the guidance. The opening sentence should say what the subject of the article is, not what it "refers to". The issue of "Brexit" not being a term used in the 1970s can be seen as a minor but inconsequential flaw in both wordings, not only mine. Finally, some significant economic changes (notably decline in the value of the pound) have already occurred since the referendum, and it is false to suggest that they have not. Comments from other editors on the alternative wordings, and others, are obviously welcome. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
References
there is no such thing as brithdrawal. the title is brexit because of "british exit", so use "british exit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.134.79 ( talk) 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone (Eddie Hugh) deleted that content ... So I reverted it.
I was the one who had added the paragraph in June about Cameron failing to use the emergency brake that the Guardian claimed he had available from the EU. But new articles - including a quote from Merkel - indicate that he had sought such relief but had not obtained it before the referendum. So it is not fair to claim that he failed to use it. He did not have it to use.
However, Cameron claimed "he could have avoided Brexit had European leaders let him control migration", according to the Financial Times. Parker, George. "Cameron pins Brexit on EU failure to grant UK brake on migration". The Financial Times. London, UK. Retrieved 24 July 2016. That is credible, considering a statement made by Angela Merkel to the German Parliament: “If you wish to have free access to the single market then you have to accept the fundamental European rights as well as obligations that come from it. This is as true for Great Britain as for anybody else.” Woodcock, Andrew (28 June 2016). "Cameron warns EU immigration rules could threaten UK trade deal". The Independent. London, UK. Retrieved 24 July 2016. Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I may be wrong. How soon could the emergency brake be triggered? The proposed mechanism requires EU law to be altered. That’s not something the EU leaders can manage on their own. First of all, the deal will not kick in until after the UK has voted on the forthcoming referendum on EU membership. And, of course, it assumes that the UK votes to remain in. OK, this does shed a new light on the issue. Cameron did not get a full blown carte blanche on restricting immigration but he did have the offer of the emergency brake which he really did not use effectively to try to sway the vote to the Remain side. Eddie reverted me. OK. Peter K Burian ( talk) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
References
As Brussels held its ground, Cameron dropped his manifesto commitment for new EU workers to wait four years before accessing benefits, as long as something was done to cut immigration. In February Britain and the EU struck a deal. Britain would get an "emergency brake," allowing the U.K. to withhold access to benefits for new migrants for a one-off period of seven years.
Using the term Brexit without quotation marks seems a bit odd to me - is it official enough to warrant usage implying it is the actual name of this process, rather than referring to it as "Brexit" and naming the article as such?
See also the way the subsection down the page is named '"Article 50" and the procedure for leaving the EU' - despite Article 50 being a real part of the Lisbon Treaty. Having the term Article 50 enclosed in quotation marks seems to suggest it is merely a moniker, which it arguably has now become, but that does not erase the fact that Article 50 does exist. 147.147.164.32 ( talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The
Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe recently published
Europe after Brexit by
Pat Cox in its "Debates and Documents Collection". That might be an interesting resource for this article.
Briony Compleag (
talk)
12:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC).
In fact, the case of a referendum having a huge long term effect with a narrow majority has raised discussions in many places.
Of course, this is hardly a fluke decision, as the parliament called the referendum. But it can safely be said that had the parliament majority deemed "no" a probable answer, no referendum would have been called.
Here is the section that was (justly) removed from the text"
<quote>According to the political scientist, Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou, Brexit constitutes as an example of the tyranny of the majority. A situation in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged minority through the democratic process. Pashakhanlou argues that this is what numerous minority groups in the UK are experiencing after Leave won the referendum. Ironically, Pashakhanlou maintains that Brexit has not only harmed the interests of the minority, but also the majority that supported Brexit.<quote>
However, many others have started discussing the merits of referendums and its meaning vs. representative democracy, being a yes/no question, without attention to tradeoffs.
as one said, "you can at any time get a majority for: tax reduction, increased spending, and deficit elimination" which is naturally absurd"
This subject merits a section. I will find the links later.
Jazi Zilber ( talk) 09:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
It is commonly assumed that Cameron expected to need coalition partners after the election, and he planned to let them block any referendum.
I have read this claim in multiple sources. It is actually implied in the text of the article here (saying "after Tories won unexpectedly a majority" or so). but could not find a reference now.....
It's interesting to see this article actually got moved to "Brexit". I thought it would stay put at the original title when the first RM was closed.
As recently as this week, mainstream media are still using the phrase "since Brexit" to mean, effectively, "since 23 June 2016". [6] That would suggest that "Brexit" is ambiguously both the referendum earlier this year and the ongoing act of the UK trying to quit the EU. Since this article is clearly stating it's deferring coverage of the referendum to a separate article, I'm surprised it got moved to this all-encompassing title. Deryck C. 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I have heard it is the other way around by some margin! Does anybody know the actual stats? A quote from a kipper is not all that reliable... 137.205.183.31 ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Ghmyrtle: I appreciate your help in fine-tuning the lead section of our Brexit article. The reason for my latest edit was that I feel there is a void in the sentence with the wording "52% voted to leave", which may throw the reader's mind off-balance; we need to specify 52% of whom. Granted, you had valid objections to saying "52% of voters chose to leave" or "52% of participating citizens voted to leave". Can we work to find another wording here? Perhaps "52% of voters opted to leave" or "52% of ballots were cast in favour of leaving"? — JFG talk 09:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that the opening paragraphs, both in this version and in this version, place too little weight on the current process (I know the referendum was non-binding, but it is clearly the intention of the UK government to implement it), and too much weight on the historical aspirations of some groups - so, I have put up an amended and restructured wording. Happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: Further changes have now taken place, including the wording "Brexit is a term used for..." which is directly contrary to policy - WP:ISAWORDFOR. Phrases such as "Brexit is a word for... " should not be used here. The article should start with a definition of what Brexit is. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@ RGloucester: @ DeFacto: - My interpretation of the wording "Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU)" - the current article opening - appears to differ from the interpretation put on those words by their proponents (such as in this edit). To me, the words "Brexit is the withdrawal..." imply to readers that Brexit now exists, without qualification - that withdrawal is now an ongoing process. It is not. Processes have been established that it is intended will eventually lead to Brexit in the future, but Brexit is not something that exists now, to which the present tense applies (except in wordings such as "Brexit means the withdrawal...", which is unacceptable article wording per WP:ISAWORDFOR). Brexit is forthcoming. It is clearly intended as a matter of current government policy. No-one yet knows, precisely, what it means or when it will eventually happen - it is a matter of ongoing political debate. The opening sentence should give some weight to the uncertainty around the word and process, so as not to mislead readers into believing that it is a real thing that is happening now (or has already happened). I'd like editors to discuss the current wording. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I have rectified what I believe was a key omission: we needed to state clearly that exit hasn't actually happened yet. It is obvious to those close the the subject of course but it needs to be said up front for the worldwide audience. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Chemical287. I see that you've been changing the percentages in the votes by quoting them more precisely. I think 2dp is at least 1 too many, (and looks silly for the earlier referendum) but I don't feel strongly enough to argue about it. What I do feel is wrong is your addition of the number of votes for one side, which is meaningless. I can't think of any likely question which can be answered by that information alone. However, a very reasonable question in people's minds might be 'what was the voting margin, in numbers of people?' and I think the best way to display that accessibly is to show the numbers of votes for each side. People can then do a comparison in their head. I realise that with the information you are giving you can still get to the minority number by dividing the majority number by the majority percentage, and taking the difference, but I've only had one caffeine shot so far today...... Further I think that for the earlier referendum, the size of the % majority was such that probably the actual numbers become irrelevant. So I would request either that we quote the number of votes for each side, or neither. Gravuritas ( talk) 09:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Theresa May has just announced that her government will trigger Article 50 on the 20th January 2017 during the 2016 Conservative Party Conference, also confirmed by Iain Duncan Smith Twobells ( talk) 15:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody understand why Ghmyrtle ( talk) reverted the intro to a version only mentioning 'notice was not given immediately' (who said it needs to be given immediately?) instead of writing that UK government has announced to trigger exit earliest in 2017?
Does anybody understand why Ghmyrtle ( talk) reverted the intro to a version only mentioning 'Unless extensions are agreed to unanimously ...timing for leaving under the article is two years' (who said that both sides want to agree on an extension of the two years?; one could also speculate that the government does a second referendum, or whatever is conceivable.)
Both Ghmyrtle revisions happened 30 September 2016, as of 20:44. But Ghmyrtle wouldn't answer why he just wrote 'no improvement'.
We could write a lot of speculative scenarios in the intro what might happen. But is that needed? -- Thereisnofreename ( talk) 16:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the section dealing with the legal challenge, we have this paragraph:
The Lisbon Treaty, including Article 50, was ratified for UK on 16 July 2008,[96] and had come into force on 1 December 2009.[97] The treaty ratification provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 were in force from 11 November 2010.[98] The Explanatory Note published with the Act describes "treaty" as an agreement between states, or between states and international organisations, which is binding under international law, including amendments to a treaty, and states that "ratification" includes acts (such as notification that domestic procedures have been completed) which establish as a matter of international law the United Kingdom's consent to be bound by the treaty; but mentions that compliance with the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 may apply to ratification of an amendment to a European Union treaty.[99] There are further provisions under the European Union Act 2011.
which seems a non sequitur in this context. I wonder if it was previously in another section and has become orphaned? Or has an editor written a legal argument for one side or other to use? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey Dan. You reverted my transfers from the Brexit article to the Referendum 2016 article. You claim in your message that I did not justify my edits, but in fact I did, every one of them. Please explain your concern. 86.154.101.92 ( talk) 17:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Clearly it is difficult to predict the future, but current indications on both sides of the Channel are for hard Brexit: the British Prime Minister does not wish to compromise on immigration, and the EU is not considered quick-footed enough to negotiate agreements with Canada in 7 years, let alone with Britain in two years. This means the focus of the Wikipedia article should be on hard Brexit and its implementation (WTO tariffs). The existing long descriptions on the Norwegian and Swiss EU agreements can then be considerably shortened because the Prime Minister has explicitly excluded those for Britain. Opinions? 86.154.101.93 ( talk) 07:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Me again. I think both of you are being sidetracked by my humorous "predict the future" remark, sorry. The problem is that hard and soft Brexits are extensively discussed in the media, and by PM May and President Hollande, but are not at all explained here. I suggest we group the existing Norwegian and Swiss paragraphs under a new section "soft Brexit", and then explain the mechanism of a hard Brexit: breakdown of Art 50 talks, WTO admission rules, applicable tariffs. Some of this info is available from the German parliamentary report. And some interesting WTO info was published in The Times today, 27 Oct 2016). Enough to put a paragraph together. Do either of you feel like tackling it? I am exhausted. 86.154.102.105 ( talk) 20:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.Hard Brexit vs Soft Brexit falls squarely into this category. It is not Wikipedian speculation, but reliably soured speculation. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has said "but this isn't true either, it isn't "in progress" yet. the withdrawal process hasn't formally begun. it's still in the planning/preparation stages. Once A50 is triggered, it could be argued to be "in progress". This is a rod we made for our own backs by bowing to the use of the term "Brexit" because "the sources used it". If we use it it should be sourced, but that doesn't mean that because it's sourced we have to use it. Britmax ( talk) 23:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Did "Brexit" refer to UK's "intended withdrawal from the European Union following an advisory referendum held in June" per [9]? Qexigator ( talk) 09:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Surely "advisory" is the problem word here - "following a referendum" would be neutral. Remain say referendum is only advisory, Leave say not. -- Lessogg ( talk) 11:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This Bill required a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union before the end of 2017. It did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution. In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and agreed by both Houses. [1]
-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
In the section on Article 50, an editor has added a selective quote from a [non-legislative] briefing note on Article 50 to the EU Parliament written by a member of staff from the Member's Briefing Service. Ignoring for the moment the issue of copyright, it is not at all clear [to me at least] how this improves the (WP) article. Our convention is for an editor to write some text and then to cite the source that justifies it. We can't just copy stuff and then bung it in somewhere at random without any context. To do so in this case just looks to me like cherry picking to push a POV. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Towards the end of the lead section, we say:
In the 1970s and 1980s, withdrawal from the EEC was advocated mainly by some Labour Party and trade union figures. From the 1990s, withdrawal from the EU was advocated mainly by some Conservatives and by the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).
I took it upon myself to improve the unsightly duplicated sentence but I was reverted several times by friendly IP editors who corrected my English or my history but didn't bother to suggest a better alternative. Here are the rejected versions:
From the 1990s, the impetus to exit the EU switched to some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).
From the 1990s, the impetus to exit the EU was driven by some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).
From the 1990s, the movement to exit the EU was driven by some Conservatives and the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP).
At that point I assumed that I was in a hole, so I stopped digging and came here for salvation. Can somebody offer a historically correct, grammatically acceptable and æsthetically pleasing formulation? — JFG talk 11:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In the top of the article I changed "Brexit is the informal term for..." to "Brexit is the most widely used term for...", which was subsequently reverted without comment and I changed it back again requesting a reason for the revert. There are countless examples of high ranking politicians using the term in formal circumstances, such as speeches to the EU parliament. Therefore I think it is a mistake to label it "informal" and would prefer this wording as it is more neutral and simply describes how the term is used. 185.107.13.58 ( talk) 03:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
A recent series of edits suggests that describing "Brexit" for the opening of this article in a way that is acceptable is a continuing problem. Given that by its title this has become the lead article for the continuing process intended to result in withdrawal, it is of some importance that the article's wording is neutral and acceptable, and as simply expressed as precision allows. The current version reads:
Is this meant to be the same as
which was in an early version of United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (24 November 2012)? Is "concept" unacceptable? If we take "Brexit" is a portmanteau of the words Britain and exit." as acceptable, we still have to consider whether the use of "Brexit" remains the same today as when it started in 2012, in imitation of Grexit (Feb 2012), and from then on.
Recent versions:
The first section after the lead sufficiently explains "The term 'Brexit'". Do we need to say at the top: "Brexit is the informal term for..."? I do not see that in this context inserting "refers to", or "is the informal term for" adds anything meaningful, and looks no better than clutter in the opening sentence. What more needs to be said is in or may be added to the first section after the lead. Qexigator ( talk) 18:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Objection to both Qexigator's concern and Ghmyrtle's suggestion. First Ghmyrtle: I find your proposed sentence syntactically complex, so no thank you. Qexigator: I am not too fussed about deleting "informal" in the interests of brevity, but I suspect the reason why there are so many changes to the first sentence is because people realise that Brexit is not a proper word (it is a neologism, a humorous term, an uneducated word invented by foreign bankers, etc), and therefore there is constant re-editing. But especially, consider non-native English speakers who would not realise that Brexit is an informal term which cannot (at present) be used used in legal documents or the like. They need to be warned of the appropriate usage. Compare the non-English Wikipedia sites, none of which use "Brexit" as far as I have seen. 86.154.102.61 ( talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomröstningen_om_Storbritanniens_medlemskap_i_EU
Not sure about your evidence. Gravuritas: Your Swedish wiki page is not called Brexit (and moreover confuddles the etymology of Brexit), and de Facto, your Oxford Online page lists example sentences which de facto confirm that Brexit is at best a journalistic term and certainly not one that is (yet) appropriate for legal documents etc. In fact the dictionary entry offers Brexit, Brixit, and "Brexit" side-by-side. 86.154.102.61 ( talk) 21:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Another thought: my subjective impression is that "Brexit" is used in two specific contexts: economic commentary by journalists and financial experts. And secondly, within the term "Brexiteer" as a humorous reference to Leavers. As JMF jokes above, it is beginning to be used by politicians, who presumably have taken it from the journalistic chatter. I have the impression that the various campaigns did not use the term Brexit much, as their vocabulary revolved mainly around "Leave" and "Remain" as per the referendum question. Before the referendum question was devised, people used to speak of "in" and "out" from the 1970s onwards. 86.170.123.5 ( talk) 07:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm torn. On the one hand, talking about the word instead of the thing it describes is discouraged by policy. On the other hand there's no denying that "Brexit" is a new term that must be described as such: the event begot the word, and this is how language evolves. The current wording Brexit is the informal term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal…
elegantly combines both requirements. —
JFG
talk
08:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In view of all the above comments, here is a proposed rewording, that says nothing new, but covers the essential points using existing links:
To my mind, the above comments show that retaining "informal" is not well supported, but if some such qualifier is needed, "commonly used" would make better sense in ordinary English. The Transcripts in the High Court proceedings show that Brexit is not yet common parlance in the the High Court (where the LCJ habitually says "OK"), but as mentioned above, it is now widely used practically wherever else the topic is written or spoken about. As a party to the EU treaties, the UK has the right to withdraw in the way prescribed in Article 50. That article applies where a member state is politically and constitutionally committed to withdrawal. If "exit" is here synonymous with "withdrawal", Article 50 tells us that the EU treaties will no longer apply to the UK once a negotiated exit treaty has been concluded, ratified and entered into force. In other words, exit happens when the exit treaty enters into force at the end of the process. That moment is like an actor's exit from (leaving) the stage, or a member's exit from (leaving) a partnership or club. 08:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC) +words added Qexigator ( talk) 10:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Qexigator, buried in the above fussiness of whether Brexit is informal, common-or-garden, coitus interruptus, or whatever, you make an important statement: "Article 50 tells us that the EU treaties will no longer apply to the UK once a negotiated exit treaty has been concluded, ratified and entered into force. In other words, exit happens when the exit treaty enters into force at the end of the process." My understanding is that this is only one way to exit. The other way is if negotiations fail and Britain leaves by default at the end of the two-year period, without an agreement. Am I right? 86.154.101.100 ( talk) 17:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
My surmise is that few if any participating in this discussion were or will be in doubt about exit resulting, as prescribed by Article 50 of the EU treaty, in the event of no treaty being agreed or no ratification of a treaty if agreed, as mentioned in my comment above replying to TDL (07:17, 1 November 2016 UTC). Qexigator ( talk) 19:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice: I temporarily removed "is the informal term" from the first sentence following a reader's comment below who noted that the term has acquired mainstream use, a conclusion we reached in July at the page move discussion. This should be taken into account in any rewording of the lead. More precisely, I think we should use "Brexit" throughout the article, while referring to the official names for the related treaties or government positions as being formal. — JFG talk 05:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
See today's High Court ruling that Brexit needs a Parliamentary vote and explain why that's important. 100.15.138.239 ( talk) 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Should this case have its own page? It is being reported in its own right in numerous sources as of today and this will only increase as it works its way up to the Supreme Court. MrStoofer ( talk) 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this article needs to include Brexit Social impact, it does a good job including the Economic impact but I think including the social impact its extremely important as well. Jovanna13 ( talk) 02:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The above two terms are increasingly being used in the UK media and by politicians in the debate about what form Brexit will take. Should we include definitions of these in the article? MFlet1 ( talk) 12:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).