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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I added this text to the lede which summarizes the contents of the body. The editor EddieHugh removed it and falsely claimed [2] that three other editors want it removed (when in fact it's just EddieHugh and Gravuritas, whose sole edits to this Wikipedia article have been to try to remove academic assessments of Brexit because of spurious non-Wiki policy reasons, namely a disdain for academia):
Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we first get in agreement about the text in the economics section (which has various issues, from wording to excessive citations and possibly WP:SYNTH, as pointed in the section below). Then, I'd be more than happy to start and RfC for the addition to the lead if there is still opposition. Heck, I might even support it if the text is good enough. So far there is not even agreement about the text in the economics section, I don't see how trying to forcibly include it in the lead does any good. Shall we focus on the discussion below first? Saturnalia0 ( talk) 22:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
So what is the consensus here? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I made my very first contribution to this article. I reverted an edit which had deleted a clearly evidenced and relevant passage. The one this discussion is about. My edit was immediately reverted, and I was (1) Accused of Edit Warring. I mean come off it! How can my only edit on this article constitute edit warring? And (2) threatened with ANI. This comes across to me as bullying and not argument. But I would welcome any observations anyone else might have, as although in the years I have been editing I have not been accused of edit warring after only one contribution, maybe I have just been lucky and its all part of the rough and tumble. But it did feel intimidatory. Also felt as if it might be an attempt to "bite the newby"(which obviously fails as I am not a newbie) Daithidebarra ( talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the paragraph on economic impact should be included in the lead section? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
In this edit [4], Saturnalia implies that the consensus among economists is something of the past, which it is not. It's poor writing. We would not write "There was a consensus among climate scientists that human activities contribute to climate change," we would write "there is a consensus..." even though there isn't a daily poll of climate scientists. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Economists have revised their pessimistic forecasts for the rest of the year and 2017 following a run of figures showing only a modest dip and steady rise in activity since the June 23 vote.[5]. From another pro-EU newspaper, the BBC:
Before last year's Brexit vote, there were warnings from many economists that the UK would suffer a catastrophic economic shock and be catapulted into recession by a Leave vote. As it turned out, those predictions were a touch pessimistic.and
Last year, not all economists thought the shock to the economy would be so profound ... Last year, some economists were positively gung-ho for Brexit ... Prof Minford says that "the consensus was for a recession", but "we thought it [the UK economy] would be pretty much unaffected".So... Yeah, there was consensus in 2016, precisely what I wrote. What's the problem?
bunktippinNot sure what that verb is but it sounds funny. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 17:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: Although initial forecasts have been considered overly gloomy, consensus among economists is that the long term effect of Brexit on the British economy will be negative. Although there is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the effect, estimates range from 1 to a 10 percent reduction of UK’s income per capita, depending whether the country leaves or stays in certain
free trade agreements with the UE.
Then a paragraph about the effects felt so far (both the positive and negative ones, stressing the more relevant ones). What do you guys think? Suggestions to the text are appreciated.
Saturnalia0 (
talk)
22:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Does the 'Economic effects' section adhere to Neutral point of view (NPOV) policies? If not, are the changes required small or major? EddieHugh ( talk) 00:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
(For reference, I'm referring to the version that's current at the time of writing.)
Several editors have applied or reapplied a NPOV tag to the section, and it has again been removed, although discussions are ongoing. These discussions (above) have reached the point where there is little movement in sight. My position is that No, the section does not adhere to NPOV, mainly because of WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL (eg, 1 sentence mentions short-term forecasts being inaccurately negative about Brexit, compared with 8 sentences of economists commenting on how difficult it is to make short-term forecasts and/or that long-term forecasts are easier; and only details that are supportive of research methods are given), Words to watch (eg, 'show', 'find', 'note' in reporting research, and a lack of hedging), WP:STRUCTURE (eg, reversing short-term and long-term chronology), and WP:SUBSTANTIATE (eg, "overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement" for 71%+).
While small changes to some wording would help, my view is that this would be superficial and not deal with the bigger NPOV problems, so Major changes to the section are needed. Please see the 'Justify the WP:NPOV tag…' section above, for more examples and fuller details (or ask if reading this page looks too much!). EddieHugh ( talk) 00:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A D Monroe III: I naively hoped that people would put their political views to one side. But wouldn't the same thing happen with a blow-by-blow attempt? Maybe my naivety was wrong and you are right. If there are further objections to the wording, or if the discussions continue to veer away from the actual question, I'll withdraw it. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Editing a section while its under discussion isn't a good way to reach consensus, and can be seen as being disruptive. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 16:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been waiting for a more clearly worded RfC, but my view is that the Economic Effects section is fine as it is. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Close RFC / keep current version (especially keep the current lead) per the comments above. An RFC cannot rewrite an entire section of this scale. It feels like this RFC is asking for a blank check for drastic rewrites, sight-unseen; what you need to do is produce specific proposed changes first, ideally tailored narrowly (drastic changes are hard to get consensus on) but focused on what you consider the key points going forwards, then, assuming you can't get consensus for it via simple discussion, go through an RFC to see which version is preferred. An RFC of "is this entire massive section biased?" is not reasonably actionable. To the extent that the complaints seem to actually be about the lead, though (which is something narrow enough to discuss), it appears to be well-cited to the point of absurdity, while most of the arguments against it seem to depend heavily on WP:SYNTH or a selective reading of the sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Please provide Wiki policy reasons for including such a tag [8]. In the discussions above, there are chiefly WP:OR rants about editors' hostility towards economics, as well as desires to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE by adding op-eds by politicians and other non-experts as a counterpoint to the near-unanimous assessment of economists. In other words, editors are trying to violate WP:FRINGE, and when other editors don't allow them to do it, they add a WP:NPOV tag. The WP:NPOV tag is without merit.
(also, can someone speed up the archiving on this talk page - the talk page is getting unwieldy in size). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That about sums it up. The NPOV tags were added because... someone doesn't like what reliable sources say. That's like the OPPOSITE of NPOV. You need policy based reasons to tag the article. That means specifying the exact policy that is being violated and HOW. Volunteer Marek 14:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
So (noting that the examples are just that and are not an exhaustive list):
I hope (and ask again) that this delineation leads to Volunteer Marek's (or another editor's) first edit being to restore the tags removed from the article. These are serious NPOV problems with the Economics section and should be highlighted as such in the article, until resolved. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Tags have been removed yet again, with "I don't like it" being the accusation against their inclusion. There are lots of editors who have pointed out specific (policy-based) problems, yet one editor ( Volunteer Marek) continues to remove the tags. To me, this is Disruptive editing. Please, VM, engage with the discussions. You asked for specific policy-based problems and they were listed. The default accusation of IDLI doesn't work. Engage, discuss. I'll give more specifics for each of the tags if you want them. EddieHugh ( talk) 21:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I've had a quick look through this talk page, and what has alarmed me the most is contributions from non-registered users, particularly when they denigrate users who are bringing something new to the table. They often claim to act in a NPOV spirit when it is clear that they are bringing their own biases to bear both on the article and the talk page. Here's an example of what I'm referring to from an IP address user;
"Explanation for other readers: what Soenke is referring to here is the German media strategy of telling Germans that the British voted for Brexit because they want their Empire back. Quite a lot of Germans believe this story." - 86.170.123.36 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Now, it seems to me, that the above IP user's dismissal of this contributor's concerns, whether or not we agree with contributor are highly problematic. And it's by no means an isolated incident. I have noticed both in the edits to the article and the talk page, one or two IP users making substantial edits over an extended period of time. I would like to motion for this article and the talk page to be editable only by registered users. I know that those wishing to cause mischief could circumnavigate this, but it would add a layer of protection to the article, to ensure it meets wikipedia's enclylopedic standards. I am beginning to become highly uncomfortable with the way 1 or 2 totally anonymous non-registered IP users are setting the tone, content and substance of this entire article - often undoing edits at a whim, or bullying other users into keeping their content by vandalising the page. This needs to stop now. EU explained ( talk) 20:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course you don't need "to register". Please refer to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Why_not_create_an_account%3F
Note that, ironically, EU explained has been blocked indefinitely, as a sock puppet. EddieHugh ( talk) 16:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following is copied from a user talk page, and is suggested new material: any objections, anyone?
startquote Thanks for the offer Gravuritas. To update the Brexit article, two insertions are needed, one in the lead and one in the body, as follows. Please add the following content to the Negotiations section, last paragraph of Brexit#History:
Since the German federal elections in September, a German caretaker government under Angela Merkel had unsuccessfully tried to form a stable coalition with various parties. On 7 Dec 2017 new elections were averted when the German socialist party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party, on condition that a "United States of Europe" be created by 2025.[1]
The following day (8 December), the UK and EU negotiators announced a "breakthrough agreement" to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a 2-year transition period after 2019. The net payment offered by the UK is estimated at 40 billion pounds but is conditional on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".[2][3][4]
And please add the following sentence to the lead, just after "Negotiations with the EU officially started in June 2017.": In December 2017, all EU leaders agreed to commence negotiations on future UK-EU trade and on a 2-year transition period after 2019.
Thanks. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC) ^ Oltermann, Philip (7 December 2017). "Martin Schulz wants 'United States of Europe' within eight years". Retrieved 8 December 2017 – via The Guardian. "Brexit breakthrough: May pledges 'no hard border' as commission says 'sufficient progress' made". The Irish Times. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 8 December 2017. "Brexit: 'Breakthrough' deal paves way for future trade talks". BBC News. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2017. "Brexit: EU leaders agree to move talks to next stage". BBC News. 15 December 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2017.
endquote
Gravuritas ( talk) 11:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
What has German politics got to do with anything here?
Seems to be just feed for the english fascists who love screaming about the united states of europe. Doesn't really add anything to the issue itself unless it proves critical in remaking the german government and drastically altering future negotiations. Which it won't as its one quite loony opening demand from one German faction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:202C:A600:20AE:6A2D:1A1D:414B ( talk) 19:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Some quibbles:
I would prefer to make "8 December" less prominent (or remove it). From an encyclopedic perspective, the provisional agreement at Commission level was superseded by the decision at European Council level, a week later; if we need an exact day at all, it should be the European Council decision.
I don't think we should have "breakthrough agreement" (both words) in quotes, unless we can attribute those exact words. As I understand it, Juncker called the progress toward an agreement (in the form of a "report" or joint statement) a "breakthrough" (though headlines may have journalistically called it a "breakthrough deal").
I don't like "to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships ...". (in that order and with "immediately). March 2018 is definitely not "immediately" According to the source "The first issue to be discussed, early next year, will be the details of an expected two-year transition period after the UK's exit in March 2019. Talks on trade and security co-operation are set to follow in March." The timing (not anything close to immediately) is important in the light of other statements that don't need to be mentioned in this article.
Also, I really don't think we should refer to discussions about trade as "negotiations" in encyclopedic style. This is not just nit-picking. It has been made abundantly clear that the UK cannot engage in formal trade negotiations until they are no longer a member. And talks on the "framework" for the future relationship with the Union (not just trade) cannot start until the guidelines are drawn up. We should be at least as picky as the BBC journalist who writes "EU negotiators won't have the authority to start discussions with the UK on future relations (including trade and also things like security and foreign policy) until another set of guidelines is adopted in March 2018. ... but it emphasises that formal trade negotiations can only begin after the UK has left the EU." [my emphasis]
I don't think we need "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" (and I didn't see it in the cited sources).
I'm not sure we really need details of the net payment in this article, especially since no specific figure (in pounds or euros) has been agreed, and I don't see a reliable source for "estimated at 40 billion pounds". If we include an estimate, it should be attributed and we should mention whether it includes the quasi-membership contributions during the transition. One of the BBC sources states "Downing Street sources say it will be between £35bn and £39bn, including budget contributions during a two-year 'transition' period after March 2019".
I don't think this needs to be in the lede at all, especially without context. It looks like just the most recent bit of news regarding the progress of talks.
So how about something like
possibly adding
-- Boson ( talk) 12:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
References
Merry Christmas, Everyone. Taking into account the various comments, here is a new consensus version. Boson complained he could not find the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" principle of the negotiations - but it is cited in the Irish Times source. Enjoy. 86.170.121.254 ( talk) 08:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
I am seeing more and more in the media that supporters of Brexit are being called Quitlings? Does anyone know the origin of this term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have the energy to made additions to this article, but one thing I think this article is really lacking is a bit about that bus - I rather feel that the claim printed on the side of it is one of the central claims of the Leave campaign and has attracted enough media commentary to be worthy of inclusion. If anyone has a free image of it on tour, even better. Cnbrb ( talk) 16:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the benefits of Brexit in the lead section? Why does it only contain negative (or neutral) information? Overall, the article seems light on reporting the positive aspects of Brexit. It seems to have been written mostly by people opposed to Brexit, and quoting only opinions that support that view. Many people believe that Brexit is and will be a Very Good Thing. Their opinions seem significantly underrepresented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.213.228 ( talk) 01:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
One editor is pushing a lede which is heavily unbalanced and uncited; claiming an established long term consensus on the economic implications of Brexit where one does not exist (as well as highlighting challenges whilst ignoring positive arguments in favour of EU withdrawal). A simple Google search finds dissenting opinions such as a report from PwC which claims that Brexit will not affect the long term future of the UK economy. [1] Regardless, long-term economic forecasting is highly dependent on complex global factors and to present such material as an article of inevitable fact in the lede borders on irresponsible speculation. -- RaviC ( talk) 02:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
References
The user Gravuritas has removed text on the Government's own assessment of the impact of Brexit. The text is sourced to the Financial Times and Buzzfeed, which the user describes as "bent reporting". After having first tried to introduce language that introduces bias to readers and which could not be found in the RS [10], the user instead just opted to remove the text in its entirety [11]. The rationale for the mass removal is "Bent summary of bent reporting- cf “3 of the most plausible scenarios” with “every scenario”". Response: (1) The user did not tweak the language, which raises questions as to good faith. (2) "every scenario" reflects of the sources, but if the user feels passionately about using "the three most plausible scenarios", I would be fine with that. The only problem is that when we say "the three most plausible scenarios", we would need to write an additional sentence clarifying what those scenarios are. That's why "every scenario" is better. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Current edit-war like behaviour is based on mis-parsing of a sentence by my two esteemed opponents. The relevant study is described as studying “three of the most plausible scenarios”. That’s all. It only looked at three. The edit Snoo & VM are trying to insert includes the phrase “three of the most plausible scenarios examined..”. You can only use that phrase if there were more than three scenarios examined, and someone has selected the most plausible three. For a certainty, you need more than three for this to makevsense, and by implication, you need a lot more than three. So please cut down on the hysterical opposition to anything I do on this page, and get both versions of the sentence parsed and explained to you both by someone expert in the field. Gravuritas ( talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Gravuritas ( talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands’ fishing industry exports almost exclusively to the EU, with 94 per cent of fishing exports by bulk heading to the single market in 2017. Fishing accounts for 41 per cent of the islands’ exports and two-thirds of the corporation tax received by its treasury.
The islands mostly export loligo squid to Spain, a seafood that accounts for 89 per cent of their exports to the EU.
Falkland Islanders didn’t even have a vote in the referendum.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-falklands-islands-single-market-trade-eu-fishing-loligo-squid-government-a8347696.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 ( talk) 09:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I cut the lede paragraphs down: these are an introduction, not a place for detailed and contentious material. As I have been reminded that paragraphs in the lede do not generally get detailed citations attached, they cannot then be used for contentious material which required citation. All the material is found elsewhere, in the proper sections of the article. Hogweard ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The only sentence in this section is incoherent: "The Brexit also raise one point with the WTO as some countries, including Australia and the United States disagree on the WTO schedules split agreed between UK and EU". Is there a way to rewrite this so that it makes sense? BBQL ( talk) 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Might be: The Brexit also raise concerns within WTO members countries. For instance, while UK and the EU mutually agreed on split of WTO schedules with third countries, some third countries such as Australia and the United States disagreed on the modalities of such a split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Some treatment of the philosophical background would be appropriate, since its a high level article, and talking about various referenda and treata misses the point, of the philosophical ideas at work, that Britain is a monarchy not a democracy, that it has Royals on its money not William Wallaces, and that this kind of money is incompatible with other money. Etc. - Inowen ( talk) 08:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
On the Internet we can read: «The European farm funding budget faces a 10pc cut as a result of Brexit, while defence spending may be ramped up.» Source: https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/farm-budget-faces-cut-as-eu-may-raise-defence-spending-36676868.html
I did not see such a claim in this article.
Might be it could be added, because a 10% cut is quite notable. 77.199.96.191 ( talk) 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It looks like UK opt out are a first step to Brexit, or at least that
As such, I assume that list and dates of UK opt out should be registered in this wikipedia article.
Schengen Area | O (opt-in) | UK optout in 1997, with Amsterdam Treaty | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union | O | UK optout in 1992, with Maastricht Treaty [4]. | |||||
Area of freedom, security and justice | O (opt-in) | UK optout in 1997, with Amsterdam Treaty | |||||
Charter of Fundamental Rights | O | UK optout in 2007, with Lisbon Treaty | |||||
Social Chapter | F | UK optout in 1992, with Maastricht Treaty [5] | |||||
Legend | |||||||
| |||||||
"opt-in" – possibility to opt in on a case-by-case basis. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.12.218.135 ( talk) 17:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the basis of Brexit have been planned since july 2003 by British tories [6].
This is an important piece of information which should appear in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 ( talk) 18:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like UK would like to negotiate a transitional period for establishing national trade agreements, once Brexit (withdrawal agreement) is effective. Should such a transitional period dealt with by this Brexit article, or by another more specific article? {{subst:Unsigned IP|— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Reference: www.leparisien.fr/international/brexit-londres-espere-negocier-une-union-douaniere-avec-bruxelles-15-08-2017-7193745.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not see in article any reference to the number of days remaining till Brexit. I am wondering, if we could add some piece of information? My suggestion is the link [13] (how-long-until-britain-leaves-the-eu-live-countdown).
If we do not add such information, people might believe we negate the reality and the nearness of the Brexit. 77.199.96.191 ( talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 ( talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
References
WP:NOTFORUM: Inappropriate use of a talk page. User has been blocked indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 22:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(Redacted) Administrator note Original post redacted as prohibited material (using talk page as a forum). Swarm ♠ 22:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
|
According to Michel Barnier, British would be out of 750 international agreements on 30 march. This will not be a cliff edge due to the 21 months transition period, but I believe this is quite notable. Not a single word in wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.170 ( talk) 16:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
End of the second paragraph, the conversion of Central European Time to GMT in brackets: The bit in brackets says 2018 which is a typo. It should say 2019. 2A00:23C4:328D:1A00:F9C5:1A1B:FFEE:EA8F ( talk) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
In the following paragraph (proposed change highlighted), I feel like the second statement is anti-climactic. It prompted me to look at the source, so here's my suggestion for an improvement:
It's more or less a word-for-word quote from the source. I don't feel that it adds undue weight, especially considering the first statement's (admittedly muted) appeal to emotion. But I will not come back to argue the case, if the first administrator seeing this happens to not agree with me. I leave that to other editors. ForgetfulMe ( talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
According to oxforddictionaries.com Brexit means: "The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union." - not the planned withdrawal. The planned withdrawal would be the "planned Brexit". So it would appear that the "short description" template value at the top of the article needs correcting. Any thoughts? -- DeFacto ( talk). 23:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently the article states:
References
However although the last sentence is meant to represent a balance the sources do not support it. The quote is a newspaper article title (and so is likely to be the work of a copy-editor), but even if it is not the journalist/author of the opinion piece was Jeremy White-Stanley who is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography article and the Daily Times is published in Pakistan and owned by a politician. It is not a reliable source for the sentence (it does not mention any comparative studies) and the quotation is not one made by an academic paper or an article about the attitudes of academics about this subject: "However, numerous academics have criticised this alternative for EU membership as 'post-imperial nostalgia'.!" ( MRDA).-- PBS ( talk) 22:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
What is the correct countdown?
According to [14] and [15] and [16] it remains 320 days and 11 hours before brexit.
According to sky [17] it remains 320 days and 12 hours before brexit.
Which one is right and why?
Is it possible to add such a dynamic information in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 ( talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/) is the prospective withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU).
The first line. It is not prospective, it is legally signed, article 50 delivered and the Magna Carta which succeeds The EU law by many years. I don't want a civil war, but I will if it starts. Tensions are high, follow law. Follow legal procedure of The UK before commenting. It is too partisan. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.7.85 ( talk) 17:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
References
I think that the map colours ought to be changed. It is misleading to have blue and yellow used for leave and remain as those colours are liked to political parties (Tories and WigsLiberals). It would be better if colours were chosen that were not associated with any main stream British political party. --
PBS (
talk)
21:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It is said: «The people of Ireland will not find a solution to Brexit in the parliament that is imposing it.» according to Paul Maskey https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/sinn-fein-mp-british-parliament-irish-republicans-brexit
«On Brexit, Irish people in the north look to Sinn Féin, to the Irish government, the Irish parliament and to Europe to defend their interests.» (according to Paul Maskey also)
I wonder if wikipedia miss this point here, and only acknowledge the adverse point of view? Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? If we consider that Brexit impacts four nations from the UK, is a due weight given to each of them? or is an undue weight given to England? 77.199.96.191 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The referendum was carried out on a UK-wide basis and not as individual nations. 'Undue weight given to England'? It is by far the largest and most cosmopolitan of the UK nations. It also has severe inequalities - via the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question - in its representation by the UK Government. I would suggest that 'undue weight' is perhaps given elsewhere, and it must be remembered that Wales voted to leave the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.161.238 ( talk) 02:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted (again) an opinion-editorial piece from the New York Times as a citation from a section concerning economic studies. We must be very careful in choosing sources in such a contentious subject, and where referring to economic studies should refer only to those studies, not to opinion pieces, in whatever newspaper. They might have a place when describing public or journalistic reactions, but they are not academic studies. Hogweard ( talk) 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I added this text to the lede which summarizes the contents of the body. The editor EddieHugh removed it and falsely claimed [2] that three other editors want it removed (when in fact it's just EddieHugh and Gravuritas, whose sole edits to this Wikipedia article have been to try to remove academic assessments of Brexit because of spurious non-Wiki policy reasons, namely a disdain for academia):
Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we first get in agreement about the text in the economics section (which has various issues, from wording to excessive citations and possibly WP:SYNTH, as pointed in the section below). Then, I'd be more than happy to start and RfC for the addition to the lead if there is still opposition. Heck, I might even support it if the text is good enough. So far there is not even agreement about the text in the economics section, I don't see how trying to forcibly include it in the lead does any good. Shall we focus on the discussion below first? Saturnalia0 ( talk) 22:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
So what is the consensus here? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I made my very first contribution to this article. I reverted an edit which had deleted a clearly evidenced and relevant passage. The one this discussion is about. My edit was immediately reverted, and I was (1) Accused of Edit Warring. I mean come off it! How can my only edit on this article constitute edit warring? And (2) threatened with ANI. This comes across to me as bullying and not argument. But I would welcome any observations anyone else might have, as although in the years I have been editing I have not been accused of edit warring after only one contribution, maybe I have just been lucky and its all part of the rough and tumble. But it did feel intimidatory. Also felt as if it might be an attempt to "bite the newby"(which obviously fails as I am not a newbie) Daithidebarra ( talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the paragraph on economic impact should be included in the lead section? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
In this edit [4], Saturnalia implies that the consensus among economists is something of the past, which it is not. It's poor writing. We would not write "There was a consensus among climate scientists that human activities contribute to climate change," we would write "there is a consensus..." even though there isn't a daily poll of climate scientists. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Economists have revised their pessimistic forecasts for the rest of the year and 2017 following a run of figures showing only a modest dip and steady rise in activity since the June 23 vote.[5]. From another pro-EU newspaper, the BBC:
Before last year's Brexit vote, there were warnings from many economists that the UK would suffer a catastrophic economic shock and be catapulted into recession by a Leave vote. As it turned out, those predictions were a touch pessimistic.and
Last year, not all economists thought the shock to the economy would be so profound ... Last year, some economists were positively gung-ho for Brexit ... Prof Minford says that "the consensus was for a recession", but "we thought it [the UK economy] would be pretty much unaffected".So... Yeah, there was consensus in 2016, precisely what I wrote. What's the problem?
bunktippinNot sure what that verb is but it sounds funny. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 17:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: Although initial forecasts have been considered overly gloomy, consensus among economists is that the long term effect of Brexit on the British economy will be negative. Although there is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the effect, estimates range from 1 to a 10 percent reduction of UK’s income per capita, depending whether the country leaves or stays in certain
free trade agreements with the UE.
Then a paragraph about the effects felt so far (both the positive and negative ones, stressing the more relevant ones). What do you guys think? Suggestions to the text are appreciated.
Saturnalia0 (
talk)
22:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Does the 'Economic effects' section adhere to Neutral point of view (NPOV) policies? If not, are the changes required small or major? EddieHugh ( talk) 00:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
(For reference, I'm referring to the version that's current at the time of writing.)
Several editors have applied or reapplied a NPOV tag to the section, and it has again been removed, although discussions are ongoing. These discussions (above) have reached the point where there is little movement in sight. My position is that No, the section does not adhere to NPOV, mainly because of WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL (eg, 1 sentence mentions short-term forecasts being inaccurately negative about Brexit, compared with 8 sentences of economists commenting on how difficult it is to make short-term forecasts and/or that long-term forecasts are easier; and only details that are supportive of research methods are given), Words to watch (eg, 'show', 'find', 'note' in reporting research, and a lack of hedging), WP:STRUCTURE (eg, reversing short-term and long-term chronology), and WP:SUBSTANTIATE (eg, "overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement" for 71%+).
While small changes to some wording would help, my view is that this would be superficial and not deal with the bigger NPOV problems, so Major changes to the section are needed. Please see the 'Justify the WP:NPOV tag…' section above, for more examples and fuller details (or ask if reading this page looks too much!). EddieHugh ( talk) 00:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A D Monroe III: I naively hoped that people would put their political views to one side. But wouldn't the same thing happen with a blow-by-blow attempt? Maybe my naivety was wrong and you are right. If there are further objections to the wording, or if the discussions continue to veer away from the actual question, I'll withdraw it. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Editing a section while its under discussion isn't a good way to reach consensus, and can be seen as being disruptive. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 16:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been waiting for a more clearly worded RfC, but my view is that the Economic Effects section is fine as it is. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Close RFC / keep current version (especially keep the current lead) per the comments above. An RFC cannot rewrite an entire section of this scale. It feels like this RFC is asking for a blank check for drastic rewrites, sight-unseen; what you need to do is produce specific proposed changes first, ideally tailored narrowly (drastic changes are hard to get consensus on) but focused on what you consider the key points going forwards, then, assuming you can't get consensus for it via simple discussion, go through an RFC to see which version is preferred. An RFC of "is this entire massive section biased?" is not reasonably actionable. To the extent that the complaints seem to actually be about the lead, though (which is something narrow enough to discuss), it appears to be well-cited to the point of absurdity, while most of the arguments against it seem to depend heavily on WP:SYNTH or a selective reading of the sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Please provide Wiki policy reasons for including such a tag [8]. In the discussions above, there are chiefly WP:OR rants about editors' hostility towards economics, as well as desires to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE by adding op-eds by politicians and other non-experts as a counterpoint to the near-unanimous assessment of economists. In other words, editors are trying to violate WP:FRINGE, and when other editors don't allow them to do it, they add a WP:NPOV tag. The WP:NPOV tag is without merit.
(also, can someone speed up the archiving on this talk page - the talk page is getting unwieldy in size). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That about sums it up. The NPOV tags were added because... someone doesn't like what reliable sources say. That's like the OPPOSITE of NPOV. You need policy based reasons to tag the article. That means specifying the exact policy that is being violated and HOW. Volunteer Marek 14:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
So (noting that the examples are just that and are not an exhaustive list):
I hope (and ask again) that this delineation leads to Volunteer Marek's (or another editor's) first edit being to restore the tags removed from the article. These are serious NPOV problems with the Economics section and should be highlighted as such in the article, until resolved. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Tags have been removed yet again, with "I don't like it" being the accusation against their inclusion. There are lots of editors who have pointed out specific (policy-based) problems, yet one editor ( Volunteer Marek) continues to remove the tags. To me, this is Disruptive editing. Please, VM, engage with the discussions. You asked for specific policy-based problems and they were listed. The default accusation of IDLI doesn't work. Engage, discuss. I'll give more specifics for each of the tags if you want them. EddieHugh ( talk) 21:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I've had a quick look through this talk page, and what has alarmed me the most is contributions from non-registered users, particularly when they denigrate users who are bringing something new to the table. They often claim to act in a NPOV spirit when it is clear that they are bringing their own biases to bear both on the article and the talk page. Here's an example of what I'm referring to from an IP address user;
"Explanation for other readers: what Soenke is referring to here is the German media strategy of telling Germans that the British voted for Brexit because they want their Empire back. Quite a lot of Germans believe this story." - 86.170.123.36 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Now, it seems to me, that the above IP user's dismissal of this contributor's concerns, whether or not we agree with contributor are highly problematic. And it's by no means an isolated incident. I have noticed both in the edits to the article and the talk page, one or two IP users making substantial edits over an extended period of time. I would like to motion for this article and the talk page to be editable only by registered users. I know that those wishing to cause mischief could circumnavigate this, but it would add a layer of protection to the article, to ensure it meets wikipedia's enclylopedic standards. I am beginning to become highly uncomfortable with the way 1 or 2 totally anonymous non-registered IP users are setting the tone, content and substance of this entire article - often undoing edits at a whim, or bullying other users into keeping their content by vandalising the page. This needs to stop now. EU explained ( talk) 20:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course you don't need "to register". Please refer to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Why_not_create_an_account%3F
Note that, ironically, EU explained has been blocked indefinitely, as a sock puppet. EddieHugh ( talk) 16:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following is copied from a user talk page, and is suggested new material: any objections, anyone?
startquote Thanks for the offer Gravuritas. To update the Brexit article, two insertions are needed, one in the lead and one in the body, as follows. Please add the following content to the Negotiations section, last paragraph of Brexit#History:
Since the German federal elections in September, a German caretaker government under Angela Merkel had unsuccessfully tried to form a stable coalition with various parties. On 7 Dec 2017 new elections were averted when the German socialist party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party, on condition that a "United States of Europe" be created by 2025.[1]
The following day (8 December), the UK and EU negotiators announced a "breakthrough agreement" to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a 2-year transition period after 2019. The net payment offered by the UK is estimated at 40 billion pounds but is conditional on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".[2][3][4]
And please add the following sentence to the lead, just after "Negotiations with the EU officially started in June 2017.": In December 2017, all EU leaders agreed to commence negotiations on future UK-EU trade and on a 2-year transition period after 2019.
Thanks. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC) ^ Oltermann, Philip (7 December 2017). "Martin Schulz wants 'United States of Europe' within eight years". Retrieved 8 December 2017 – via The Guardian. "Brexit breakthrough: May pledges 'no hard border' as commission says 'sufficient progress' made". The Irish Times. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 8 December 2017. "Brexit: 'Breakthrough' deal paves way for future trade talks". BBC News. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2017. "Brexit: EU leaders agree to move talks to next stage". BBC News. 15 December 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2017.
endquote
Gravuritas ( talk) 11:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
What has German politics got to do with anything here?
Seems to be just feed for the english fascists who love screaming about the united states of europe. Doesn't really add anything to the issue itself unless it proves critical in remaking the german government and drastically altering future negotiations. Which it won't as its one quite loony opening demand from one German faction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:202C:A600:20AE:6A2D:1A1D:414B ( talk) 19:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Some quibbles:
I would prefer to make "8 December" less prominent (or remove it). From an encyclopedic perspective, the provisional agreement at Commission level was superseded by the decision at European Council level, a week later; if we need an exact day at all, it should be the European Council decision.
I don't think we should have "breakthrough agreement" (both words) in quotes, unless we can attribute those exact words. As I understand it, Juncker called the progress toward an agreement (in the form of a "report" or joint statement) a "breakthrough" (though headlines may have journalistically called it a "breakthrough deal").
I don't like "to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships ...". (in that order and with "immediately). March 2018 is definitely not "immediately" According to the source "The first issue to be discussed, early next year, will be the details of an expected two-year transition period after the UK's exit in March 2019. Talks on trade and security co-operation are set to follow in March." The timing (not anything close to immediately) is important in the light of other statements that don't need to be mentioned in this article.
Also, I really don't think we should refer to discussions about trade as "negotiations" in encyclopedic style. This is not just nit-picking. It has been made abundantly clear that the UK cannot engage in formal trade negotiations until they are no longer a member. And talks on the "framework" for the future relationship with the Union (not just trade) cannot start until the guidelines are drawn up. We should be at least as picky as the BBC journalist who writes "EU negotiators won't have the authority to start discussions with the UK on future relations (including trade and also things like security and foreign policy) until another set of guidelines is adopted in March 2018. ... but it emphasises that formal trade negotiations can only begin after the UK has left the EU." [my emphasis]
I don't think we need "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" (and I didn't see it in the cited sources).
I'm not sure we really need details of the net payment in this article, especially since no specific figure (in pounds or euros) has been agreed, and I don't see a reliable source for "estimated at 40 billion pounds". If we include an estimate, it should be attributed and we should mention whether it includes the quasi-membership contributions during the transition. One of the BBC sources states "Downing Street sources say it will be between £35bn and £39bn, including budget contributions during a two-year 'transition' period after March 2019".
I don't think this needs to be in the lede at all, especially without context. It looks like just the most recent bit of news regarding the progress of talks.
So how about something like
possibly adding
-- Boson ( talk) 12:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
References
Merry Christmas, Everyone. Taking into account the various comments, here is a new consensus version. Boson complained he could not find the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" principle of the negotiations - but it is cited in the Irish Times source. Enjoy. 86.170.121.254 ( talk) 08:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
I am seeing more and more in the media that supporters of Brexit are being called Quitlings? Does anyone know the origin of this term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have the energy to made additions to this article, but one thing I think this article is really lacking is a bit about that bus - I rather feel that the claim printed on the side of it is one of the central claims of the Leave campaign and has attracted enough media commentary to be worthy of inclusion. If anyone has a free image of it on tour, even better. Cnbrb ( talk) 16:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the benefits of Brexit in the lead section? Why does it only contain negative (or neutral) information? Overall, the article seems light on reporting the positive aspects of Brexit. It seems to have been written mostly by people opposed to Brexit, and quoting only opinions that support that view. Many people believe that Brexit is and will be a Very Good Thing. Their opinions seem significantly underrepresented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.213.228 ( talk) 01:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
One editor is pushing a lede which is heavily unbalanced and uncited; claiming an established long term consensus on the economic implications of Brexit where one does not exist (as well as highlighting challenges whilst ignoring positive arguments in favour of EU withdrawal). A simple Google search finds dissenting opinions such as a report from PwC which claims that Brexit will not affect the long term future of the UK economy. [1] Regardless, long-term economic forecasting is highly dependent on complex global factors and to present such material as an article of inevitable fact in the lede borders on irresponsible speculation. -- RaviC ( talk) 02:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
References
The user Gravuritas has removed text on the Government's own assessment of the impact of Brexit. The text is sourced to the Financial Times and Buzzfeed, which the user describes as "bent reporting". After having first tried to introduce language that introduces bias to readers and which could not be found in the RS [10], the user instead just opted to remove the text in its entirety [11]. The rationale for the mass removal is "Bent summary of bent reporting- cf “3 of the most plausible scenarios” with “every scenario”". Response: (1) The user did not tweak the language, which raises questions as to good faith. (2) "every scenario" reflects of the sources, but if the user feels passionately about using "the three most plausible scenarios", I would be fine with that. The only problem is that when we say "the three most plausible scenarios", we would need to write an additional sentence clarifying what those scenarios are. That's why "every scenario" is better. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Current edit-war like behaviour is based on mis-parsing of a sentence by my two esteemed opponents. The relevant study is described as studying “three of the most plausible scenarios”. That’s all. It only looked at three. The edit Snoo & VM are trying to insert includes the phrase “three of the most plausible scenarios examined..”. You can only use that phrase if there were more than three scenarios examined, and someone has selected the most plausible three. For a certainty, you need more than three for this to makevsense, and by implication, you need a lot more than three. So please cut down on the hysterical opposition to anything I do on this page, and get both versions of the sentence parsed and explained to you both by someone expert in the field. Gravuritas ( talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Gravuritas ( talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands’ fishing industry exports almost exclusively to the EU, with 94 per cent of fishing exports by bulk heading to the single market in 2017. Fishing accounts for 41 per cent of the islands’ exports and two-thirds of the corporation tax received by its treasury.
The islands mostly export loligo squid to Spain, a seafood that accounts for 89 per cent of their exports to the EU.
Falkland Islanders didn’t even have a vote in the referendum.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-falklands-islands-single-market-trade-eu-fishing-loligo-squid-government-a8347696.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 ( talk) 09:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I cut the lede paragraphs down: these are an introduction, not a place for detailed and contentious material. As I have been reminded that paragraphs in the lede do not generally get detailed citations attached, they cannot then be used for contentious material which required citation. All the material is found elsewhere, in the proper sections of the article. Hogweard ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The only sentence in this section is incoherent: "The Brexit also raise one point with the WTO as some countries, including Australia and the United States disagree on the WTO schedules split agreed between UK and EU". Is there a way to rewrite this so that it makes sense? BBQL ( talk) 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Might be: The Brexit also raise concerns within WTO members countries. For instance, while UK and the EU mutually agreed on split of WTO schedules with third countries, some third countries such as Australia and the United States disagreed on the modalities of such a split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Some treatment of the philosophical background would be appropriate, since its a high level article, and talking about various referenda and treata misses the point, of the philosophical ideas at work, that Britain is a monarchy not a democracy, that it has Royals on its money not William Wallaces, and that this kind of money is incompatible with other money. Etc. - Inowen ( talk) 08:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
On the Internet we can read: «The European farm funding budget faces a 10pc cut as a result of Brexit, while defence spending may be ramped up.» Source: https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/farm-budget-faces-cut-as-eu-may-raise-defence-spending-36676868.html
I did not see such a claim in this article.
Might be it could be added, because a 10% cut is quite notable. 77.199.96.191 ( talk) 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It looks like UK opt out are a first step to Brexit, or at least that
As such, I assume that list and dates of UK opt out should be registered in this wikipedia article.
Schengen Area | O (opt-in) | UK optout in 1997, with Amsterdam Treaty | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union | O | UK optout in 1992, with Maastricht Treaty [4]. | |||||
Area of freedom, security and justice | O (opt-in) | UK optout in 1997, with Amsterdam Treaty | |||||
Charter of Fundamental Rights | O | UK optout in 2007, with Lisbon Treaty | |||||
Social Chapter | F | UK optout in 1992, with Maastricht Treaty [5] | |||||
Legend | |||||||
| |||||||
"opt-in" – possibility to opt in on a case-by-case basis. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.12.218.135 ( talk) 17:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the basis of Brexit have been planned since july 2003 by British tories [6].
This is an important piece of information which should appear in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 ( talk) 18:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like UK would like to negotiate a transitional period for establishing national trade agreements, once Brexit (withdrawal agreement) is effective. Should such a transitional period dealt with by this Brexit article, or by another more specific article? {{subst:Unsigned IP|— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Reference: www.leparisien.fr/international/brexit-londres-espere-negocier-une-union-douaniere-avec-bruxelles-15-08-2017-7193745.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not see in article any reference to the number of days remaining till Brexit. I am wondering, if we could add some piece of information? My suggestion is the link [13] (how-long-until-britain-leaves-the-eu-live-countdown).
If we do not add such information, people might believe we negate the reality and the nearness of the Brexit. 77.199.96.191 ( talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 ( talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
References
WP:NOTFORUM: Inappropriate use of a talk page. User has been blocked indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 22:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(Redacted) Administrator note Original post redacted as prohibited material (using talk page as a forum). Swarm ♠ 22:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
|
According to Michel Barnier, British would be out of 750 international agreements on 30 march. This will not be a cliff edge due to the 21 months transition period, but I believe this is quite notable. Not a single word in wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.170 ( talk) 16:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
End of the second paragraph, the conversion of Central European Time to GMT in brackets: The bit in brackets says 2018 which is a typo. It should say 2019. 2A00:23C4:328D:1A00:F9C5:1A1B:FFEE:EA8F ( talk) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
In the following paragraph (proposed change highlighted), I feel like the second statement is anti-climactic. It prompted me to look at the source, so here's my suggestion for an improvement:
It's more or less a word-for-word quote from the source. I don't feel that it adds undue weight, especially considering the first statement's (admittedly muted) appeal to emotion. But I will not come back to argue the case, if the first administrator seeing this happens to not agree with me. I leave that to other editors. ForgetfulMe ( talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
According to oxforddictionaries.com Brexit means: "The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union." - not the planned withdrawal. The planned withdrawal would be the "planned Brexit". So it would appear that the "short description" template value at the top of the article needs correcting. Any thoughts? -- DeFacto ( talk). 23:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently the article states:
References
However although the last sentence is meant to represent a balance the sources do not support it. The quote is a newspaper article title (and so is likely to be the work of a copy-editor), but even if it is not the journalist/author of the opinion piece was Jeremy White-Stanley who is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography article and the Daily Times is published in Pakistan and owned by a politician. It is not a reliable source for the sentence (it does not mention any comparative studies) and the quotation is not one made by an academic paper or an article about the attitudes of academics about this subject: "However, numerous academics have criticised this alternative for EU membership as 'post-imperial nostalgia'.!" ( MRDA).-- PBS ( talk) 22:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
What is the correct countdown?
According to [14] and [15] and [16] it remains 320 days and 11 hours before brexit.
According to sky [17] it remains 320 days and 12 hours before brexit.
Which one is right and why?
Is it possible to add such a dynamic information in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 ( talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/) is the prospective withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU).
The first line. It is not prospective, it is legally signed, article 50 delivered and the Magna Carta which succeeds The EU law by many years. I don't want a civil war, but I will if it starts. Tensions are high, follow law. Follow legal procedure of The UK before commenting. It is too partisan. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.7.85 ( talk) 17:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
References
I think that the map colours ought to be changed. It is misleading to have blue and yellow used for leave and remain as those colours are liked to political parties (Tories and WigsLiberals). It would be better if colours were chosen that were not associated with any main stream British political party. --
PBS (
talk)
21:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It is said: «The people of Ireland will not find a solution to Brexit in the parliament that is imposing it.» according to Paul Maskey https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/sinn-fein-mp-british-parliament-irish-republicans-brexit
«On Brexit, Irish people in the north look to Sinn Féin, to the Irish government, the Irish parliament and to Europe to defend their interests.» (according to Paul Maskey also)
I wonder if wikipedia miss this point here, and only acknowledge the adverse point of view? Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? If we consider that Brexit impacts four nations from the UK, is a due weight given to each of them? or is an undue weight given to England? 77.199.96.191 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The referendum was carried out on a UK-wide basis and not as individual nations. 'Undue weight given to England'? It is by far the largest and most cosmopolitan of the UK nations. It also has severe inequalities - via the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question - in its representation by the UK Government. I would suggest that 'undue weight' is perhaps given elsewhere, and it must be remembered that Wales voted to leave the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.161.238 ( talk) 02:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted (again) an opinion-editorial piece from the New York Times as a citation from a section concerning economic studies. We must be very careful in choosing sources in such a contentious subject, and where referring to economic studies should refer only to those studies, not to opinion pieces, in whatever newspaper. They might have a place when describing public or journalistic reactions, but they are not academic studies. Hogweard ( talk) 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)