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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
User:snogansnoogans, you reverted my change to the claim that a certain piece of primary research 'shows' that specific economic effects resulted from the Brexit vote. Read the research in question: it shows that the economic effects followed the vote, not that they were caused by it.
Incidentally, I am familiar with WP:RS. It says: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." You in your summary said that Academic studies are generally the best sources; but note the title of the paper: "The consequences of the Brexit vote for UK inflation and living standards: First evidence". The paper does not show what the reverted version of the article says it shows. It merely presents evidence.
I am going to reinstate my change. I am happy to discuss the best form of words here, and I think 'is claimed to' is probably not correct, because I'm not aware that that claim has actually been made by anyone. The best thing would be to find a good secondary source that cites this paper. MrDemeanour ( talk) 11:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile no less than the Governor of the Bank of England says that every household is already £900 worse off as a result. [1] But what does he know? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Autocorrect mangled my reversion note. Brexit is still "planned" so, per wp:crystal, we can't report it as a done deal until it actually is a done deal. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
What's about Post-Brexit roaming charges once the Brexiting state is out of the digital single market, with Brexiters' ″no deal″?
Article fails to deal with this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.216 ( talk) 19:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Snooganssnoogans. There is no question of a border problem with France in the article body, and hence the lead needs to be updated accordingly. 81.131.172.167 ( talk) 12:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article from the section "Economic effects" is very biased. It's just Remain propaganda. Needs to be corrected. 195.11.204.67 ( talk) 18:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean? The comment is clear. 213.205.241.1 ( talk) 22:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Wrong to accuse people of being "a troll" for no reason. Talk pages are here for people to talk about the main article, including pointing out things wrong and suggesting solutions to that. 213.205.241.1 ( talk) 22:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest either (a) removing David Davis from the lead or (b) keeping David Davis but adding his EU counterparts Michel Barnier, Guy Verhofstadt and Didier Seeuws. My preference is for removing David Davis because the lead needs to be concise, and secondly Theresa May has arguably sidelined David Davis by appointing Oliver Robbins as her advisor. I shall BE BOLD and make the deletion. If you wish to revert it, please discuss your reasons and preferences here. 81.131.172.167 ( talk) 14:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The article header contains this message:
"British independent" redirects here. For the film awards, see British Independent Film Awards.
Is this really necessary? 81.131.172.24 ( talk) 17:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The lead contains this uninformative statement:
The size of the "divorce bill", the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements, and relations with the Republic of Ireland remain uncertain.
This is a meaningless sentence. The future of Switzerland is uncertain. The Pope's next encyclica is uncertain. Life is uncertain.
I think what the editor is trying to say is that these three EU negotiation demands/red lines (Ireland, euroclearing, divorce bill) have featured prominently in the negotiations. Can we reformulate accordingly? 81.131.171.190 ( talk) 10:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have tagged this although a cross-party "Remainer" coalition aims to defeat Brexit entirely. [2] as dubious because I have not come across any such coalition and as the Times is paywalled, I can't check the source. Would someone please verify and clarify? Is it an opinion piece or a factual report? [because some commentators regard anything other than "hard" as a defeat. If so, it adds nothing to the first part of the sentence]. Where is this in the body? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Commentators propose a wider context for Brexit, given election results in the USA and in several European countries, notably Poland, Hungary, Austria and Italy, prompting French president Macron in May 2018 to refer to Brexit as an "alarm bell".
Luxufluxo has removed this summary sentence from the lead and is requesting a discussion. The key statement is from President Macron's speech when receiving the Charlemagne Prize in May 2018: [6] I think we need to balance the current UK-only view with a more international view. Comments please. 81.131.171.12 ( talk) 12:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Thie purpose of this talk page is determine how best to improve the article. It is not to be used for opinion pieces and silly assertions like those above: see WP:NOTFORUM. Any further material in this vein will be deleted. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Friedman and Luxofluxo, this well-written Economist analysis [7] is specifically for you (see your deletion and comments above). I would be grateful if you could resurrect the deleted "international Brexit context" statement, and cite this Economist reference in support. Thank you. 81.131.171.183 ( talk) 17:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Someone please change this in the title summary. It's the Treaty on European Union, not the Treaty on the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.115.141 ( talk) 23:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can we add another entry to Brexit in Literature?
The earliest book on the subject is '51st State' by Peter Preston, Editor of The Guardian from 1975 until 1995.
the following taken from WorldCat.org 51st state Author: Peter Preston Publisher: London ; New York : Viking, 1998. Edition/Format: Print book : Fiction : EnglishView all editions and formats Summary: Inspired by the patriotism of his dying father, Rupert Warner uses his position to lead England out of the EC, and almost accidentally into the United States. Even more accidentally, he finds himself running for the Vice-Presidency, and who knows where that might lead.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/51st-state/oclc/39746908?referer=di&ht=edition
-- GovernmentBoffin ( talk) 12:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
LeoFrank
Talk
16:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Domestic Impact on the United Kingdom"->"Immigration"->"Long Term", the sentence "KPMG, based on a survey of 2,000 EU workers in UK, estimates that about a million EU citizens working in the UK, see their future in Britain as over or hanging in the balance.", should be changed to "KPMG, based on a survey of 2,000 EU workers in UK, estimates that about a million EU citizens working in the UK see their future in Britain as over or hanging in the balance." The comma is unnecessary and incorrect.
The question of when Britain leaves the UK is not determined by an act of the UK parliament but by the EU treaties. It is not an argument about which we need to give both sides. It is a fairly simple fact. Compare:
with
Moreover Article 50 allows two ways for the the date to changed by agreement between the EU and the UK. It is not set in in stone. This is why it's important to say "Absent agreement to the contrary". — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The article is already lengthy, and sections 5-Negotiations and 6-Post-Article 50 British legislation will expand with updates as the current negotiations continue or terminate, whether on 29 March 2019 GMT (or some other time, if so agreed). Some account of the background leading to the 2016 referendum, as in section 2 and in section 3, and of Procedure for leaving as in section 4 is needed to give informative context. But there looks like some scope for avoiding duplication by reducing the details set out in subsection 3.6-Irregularties, given that section 3 opens with a link to United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 as "Main article" (created in November 2016) , and subsection on 3.6 opens with a See also link to Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, created in January 2018, where such details would more suitably be placed. Thus, a shorter version could be:
Current section 3.6 has expanded from Explanations for the referendum outcome, 28 March 2018. [9] Qexigator ( talk) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Please can the publication of the policy be added to the article, see policy section here: https://www.gov.uk/government/brexit John a s ( talk) 07:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Information from this newspaper article Now the judges agree – the vote for Brexit was clearly tainted ought to be worked into the wikipedia article. It is a judgement from the high court. -- VanBuren ( talk) 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The Express is not a reliable source for pretty much any article on UK politics, never mind about Brexit. If the content is accurate and notable, it will have been covered in other more reliable sources, which should be used on this page instead. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 00:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
What will be the full impact of Brexit? I don't know and of course my own view is not important or relevant. But balance is important for the lead section. It is right that in the final paragraph of the lead section the broad consensus in existing economic research is included. There are three sentences in this paragraph about negative economic consequences of Brexit. I feel that to include at least one sentence in the paragraph about what Brexit supporters believe are future advantages of Brexit should be included to provide a balance. So that's what I've done today by adding one sentence to this paragraph with a reference from The Guardian.
On a slightly different note, in the second paragraph of the lead section, it states: "In the 1970s and 1980s, withdrawal from the EC was advocated mainly by Labour Party members and trade union figures." It is true that in the 1970s and early 1980s that the Labour Party was the more Eurosceptic of the two main parties, but that position may have changed by the late 1980s after Neil Kinnock changed Labour Party policy.
In the 1970s, Enoch Powell had supporters on the Conservative right-wing for EC withdrawal, but Labour Party members outnumbered Conservatives arguing for an exit. By the late 1980s, however, as well as a number of MPs from the Conservative Monday Club advocating withdrawal, they were supported by local Conservative members on the right of the party and by supporters of The Freedom Association. Perhaps the wording could be changed to "In the 1970s and early 1980s, withdrawal from the EC was advocated mainly by Labour Party members and trade union figures." (Obviously the bold text would not be used for that sentence in the article). I will at some point try to find an appropriate reference to verify this, before making the change. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 01:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Please add: The EU Council President Donald Tusk proposed a Canada-plus trade agreement to David Davis in March 2018. "Hard" Brexiteers such as David and Rees-Mogg are favourable to this EU proposal, as is EU chief negotiator Michael Barnier. In contrast, EU leaders rejected Theresa May's "soft" Brexit Chequers plan at a Salzburg summit meeting in September 2018. In the run-up to the Conservative Party conference in October 2018, David Davis is relaunching the Canada-plus option, in which the EU and UK envisage tariff-free trade on goods ("Canada") and ("plus") security co-operation between the EU and the UK. [10] [11]
That is an emergency patch to the Brexit article. In the next step, the Brexit article should explain the fine differences between the "ambitious new" Chequers plan and an "off-the shelf" Canada-plus agreement.
On a more general note, it is evident that the registered editors are not coping with keeping the Brexit article up-to-date. The editors' expertise is in overturning the referendum (that aspect of the Brexit article is quite professional and detailed), but little else. Suggest removing the semi-protection to allow a broader range of experts to maintain the article. 81.131.171.199 ( talk) 11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Coming back to your original request, the issue with this article is its sheer length. So we have to try to limit additions to what is hard fact not opinion. If DD were still in government, his view would deserve inclusion. But as now he is just another backbencher, it doesn't seem (at least to me, but I'm just another editor and don't make the rules) to be significant enough. If it becomes HMG policy, then it certainly is and will be. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Because this is a highly political topic, and editors will be highly polarized, I suggest that all editors declare their POV on this talkk page, and we keep a chart. - Inowen ( nlfte) 20:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to need a kind of general overview which talks about the fundamentals of Brexit and the idea of the UK in the European Union. - Inowen ( nlfte) 11:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Some basic thoughts:
The UK Brexit comes about in the context of global trade and money exchange, where the issues are political and not just economic. The world money system as built under US direction after WWII is largely democratic based, and the UK being an aristocratic monarchy makes its economic policy largely incompatible with other nations. At the basis of the economic issues are the differences in philosophy of government. The aristocratic group of Europe has always maintained that it has a right to rule by the way of inherited powers, and it has accordingly always claimed great wealth, in spite of two things 1) their nations may be economically hard-hit, and 2) the fact that they are aristocratic means that their nation's form of wealth generation is always retarded by aristocratic economic policy.
The UK's entry into the EU supplied it with the Euro as a transferrable type of currency, but then it also allowed the UK to trade pounds evenly with the US dollar, when in direct trading it is rare that they trade evenly. Because of this loophole allowing direct or near-direct trading with the UK pound, the US has had to limit foreign exchange trading. The aristocratic group has long seen the emerging democratic nations as a threat, and in diplomatic discussions has always insisted on an idea (sometimes called a "principle") of equivalence with democratic nations. In reality aristocratic nations are not politically equivalent with democratic nations because they don't honor basic civic rights such as the right to vote [12], and they are not economically equivalent with democratic nations because all of their basic methods of industry lose wealth rather than generate it. Because aristocrats lose wealth, their modus operandi since the World Wars has been to force democratic nations to give them money, and the Euro was simply a way for the UK to plug into the global money system, which is supported almost entirely by the wealth generation of democratic nations.- Inowen ( nlfte) 20:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The fourth word of the article is currently "impending," suggesting that Brexit will definitely occur. Given the UK's current political climate and shift in public opinion (to remain), this seems to be an unwise choice. I therefore propose changing it to "prospective." 79.66.207.160 ( talk) 20:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The references to a "second" referendum should be changed to "third." The first was in 1975 and the second in 2016. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:453F:EACF:1CEE:6AD3 ( talk) 14:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
"Some countries – such as Australia and the United States – wish to challenge the basis for division (i.e., division between the UK and the continuing EU) of the trade schedules previously agreed between them and the EU, because it reduces their flexibility"
But the WTO question is missing some points:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.96 ( talk) 18:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
There needs to be a definition of no-deal in the terms section. - Inowen ( nlfte) 19:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
No deal: Britain leaving the European Union with no formal agreement on the terms of the UK's withdrawal or new trade relations. [1]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I'm rather worried that there is a sense of WP:OWN for this article - particularly in the lead. The lead is showing one side of the debate - that most economists (1) believe that Brexit will slow the British economy down and (2) that Brexit has slowed the British economy down. This does not reflect the whole debate here. One of the constant themes has been that the pre-referendum forecasts were wrong in predicting a recession if there was a Leave vote.
Some examples:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/08/how-the-economics-profession-got-it-wrong-on-brexit/ https://eutoday.net/news/business-economy/2017/brexit-forecast-economists-admit-they-got-it-wrong https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-davis/all-brexit-economic-forecasts-were-wrong-british-minister-says-idUKKBN1FL4VX https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/30/brexit-minister-says-whitehall-economic-forecasts-are-always-wrong
I'm not saying that the economic forecasts, or the current consensus of the economics profession should not be in the article - it clearly should be. It's just that the lead reads in a very biased way without counterpoints. I am (cynical enough to be) aware that there will be a systemic bias within the Wikipedia editing demographic towards Remain and on a fluid subject like Brexit there should be an acceptance that the bias will be towards an anti-Brexit view. But there does need to be some balance here, and the last paragraph of the lead doesn't show it, and any effort to change this does seem to meet to automatic and almost unthinking reversion.
Hopefully this can be resolved on this talk page rather than going through the notice boards.
JASpencer ( talk) 15:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
First of all, a big thank you JASpencer for your hard work on this article. There are two solutions to the problem you describe:
The point was not what the forecasts say, the point is that the lead is really not representing the debate, but it is representing part of the debate. The Leave side of the argument is constantly saying that the forecasts have spectacularly failed to model the immediate outcome of the Leave vote. You don't have to like that line of argument (I don't as it happens) but that argument is made.
I personally don't think that the economic forecasts should be in the lead and that would elegantly remove that part of the bias. However if the forecasts are in then there needs to be balance here.
I suspect that debate here is not going to go anywhere as there are clearly ownership issues with the page and that this page does need to show that it's balance is disputed.
JASpencer ( talk) 14:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
We have to deal with the arguments of Brexiters, but since @ Snooganssnoogans: refuses to "equate them with expert assessments", we can't. By this logic, we shouldn't include political opinions on any subject, because they are almost never of the same quality as experts'. It is absurd to detail a process piloted by the British government without actually mentioning their stance. If it is still absolutely forbidden to mention both experts' and politicians' views in the same paragraph, then I think that the experts should be removed from the lede as they are not as important as the British government in the whole Brexit thing. T8612 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You have also already been told that you cannot compare Brexit with climate change. T8612 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I have just come in to this talk page after making an and having it reverted within 4 minutes by Snooganssnoogans with only a very perfunctory and unsatisfactory reason given for reversion. My edit was replacing this text:
There is a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term.
with this:
There is a broad consensus from economic modelling that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term.
It is obvious to me that you can not 'research' medium and long term effects of a future event while you can model them, as economists do. So it seems a fairly non-contentious edit to me, yet it was quickly reverted. I queried the reversion on Snooganssnoogans' talk page but have not yet received an answer. I have not undone the reversion as I am usually not interested in getting into edit wars (unlike, it seems, the reverter) but I would appreciate some comments from other editors on whether they judge this reversion appropriate. Thank you. Oska ( talk) 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
[Since the referendum] Immigration has slowed, foreign investment has increased, and unemployment has fallen to its lowest level since 1975.
Luxofluxo has deleted the above sentence from the lead, and is doubting whether the Guardian source sees a causal effect regarding the Brexit vote and employment.
The causal effect is given in the cited Guardian article as follows: The number of people in work also reached a record high of 32.2 million as 55,000 more people started a job, giving an employment rate of 75.4%. The number of job vacancies remained close to the record high reached in December, hovering at 815,000, amid fears of labour shortages triggered by Brexit. [15]
Pretty straightforward really. This should be reinstated in the lead, otherwise the reader will have the impression that the referendum had only negative economic effects. Over to you, Luxofluxo. 81.131.171.246 ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The previous commentator's attempt at impartiality disintegrated with his last remarks. The truth is that no-one knows whether Brexit will be economically harmful or not. In the short term, certainly, there will be disruption and difficulty (and doubtless a dip in economic output), but in the longer term Britain might conceivably grow faster than a slow-growing EU, just as Canada, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, the USA and New Zealand are managing to do now. What cannot be disputed, however, is that the abandonment of Brexit would be extremely dangerous and would lead to an absolute loss of trust in the institutions of British democracy with consequences that are hard to predict but which would certainly include political extremism, probably include civil disobedience and mass protest, and possibly include violence and civil war. Anyone who imagines that this would be "highly unlikely" or a "minor inconvenience" is being every bit as complacent as the most starry-eyed Brexiteer. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
185.108.92.22 (
talk)
12:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
All, please read Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I have crossed out contributions that are opinions about the topic rather than about improving the article through reliable sources. Further contributions that are editorial Ising will be deleted. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
A recent Guardian analysis [1] agrees that The British economy is putting in a resilient performance, led by strong consumer and business activity but Senior economists are, however, warning there is a “lull before the storm”. So as a compromise, we can quite both these aspects. Opinions? 81.131.171.172 ( talk) 19:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The BBC has just reported that UK employment has reached a record high of 32.4 million, and wage increases are accelerating at their fastest rate since 2015. This time it is not a "lull before the storm" as above, but a "flash in the pan" due to the unusually hot summer. These assessments by expert economists are revealing and should be included. 86.178.192.176 ( talk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Now that the withdrawal agreement and declaration on future UK-EU relationships have been finalised (BBC 13 Nov 2018), we need a new section to explain the pincer movement that led to this breakthrough (keywords: Trump's external pressure on Germany, Italian internal pressure on Eurozone), and another new section which explains the forthcoming "educational" response by the UK against Ireland (digital tax announcement by Hammond in most recent budget) and against France (expansion of the Ramsgate-Belgian trade link at the expense of Calais). A starting point is the Financial Times of 11 Nov 2018 and the German "Welt" of today. I cannot implement these changes because the article is closed to the general Wikipedia community. So can a registered Wikipedian (fluent in German and French) please take on this task? 86.178.192.176 ( talk) 22:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we should be very careful about using these terms especially unqualified. These terms are almost exclusively used by people who support remain (I voted remain - not that that should matter, just so you don't think I am applying my own bias to an article). For those who support leave a "Soft" Brexit isn't a real Brexit, and they are more likely to use terms like BRINO (Brexit in name only) e.g.
Brino is a version of leaving the European Union that would mean staying in the EU customs union and/or single market, with a very long or indefinite transition period. It is also known as a soft Brexit.( https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1044888/Brexit-news-what-is-BRINO-what-does-BRINO-mean-Brexit-in-name-only)
And for instance, the BBC recognises that Brexiteers don't use the term Hard Brexit e.g.
For those who back a "hard" Brexit - or "clean" Brexit as supporters prefer ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37500140)
For some Soft/Hard Brexit was coined to give the instinctive impression that Hard Brexit is extreme (i.e. pushed by a radical fringe), and Soft Brexit fulfils the Brexit referendum outcome whilst being more reasonable (when Brexiteers think of this as BRINO). Hence these terms are political in nature. I do not think this page adequately reflects this, and so I think alterations to language and explanations should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopal22 ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article has not been updated to include the latest developments in the Electoral Commission's findings that Vote Leave broke electoral law and its subsequent fine and suggestion of a criminal investigation by the police, with only Leave.EU mentioned in such a regard so far.. [2]. In addition, both of these findings should not be in a section entitled "potential irregulaties." They are certainly not "potential", and are more than irregulaties. The Electoral Commission is the statutory body with the power to interpret where electoral law has been broken, and it has found against them both. This is a pretty major misrepresentation as to how serious these findings are.
In addition, the People's Vote should be added to the terminology section and described in further detail under a new section, 4.3 "People's Vote". [3] [4] [5] 213.205.194.175 ( talk) 19:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
There is a discussion on whether the Chequers plan and the new political declaration should have two separate articles, link here: Talk:The framework for the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union#Second draft - November 2018. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 23:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a tag sitting at the top of the page which says "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page". There should not be tags like that on articles without a section on the talk page clearly describing what the issues are and discussing how to resolve them. Such tags are not intended as "warnings" to readers but an invitation to outside editors (like me) to join the discussion and resolve the issues. You cannot expect people to read through a long talk page to find out what the problem is, it needs its own section with a current discussion. I am removing that tag. Smeat75 ( talk) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research." to "It poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research, as well as opportunities." Opportunities for the education sector are summarised at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/0/will-brexit-impact-british-universities/ and also in a government paper entitled Exiting the EU: challenges and opportunities for higher education available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmeduc/683/683.pdf. Dena.walemy ( talk) 18:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of editors on this page who repeatedly try to insert wild speculations by pro-Brexit politicians, often to rebut expert assessments and RS reporting. For some reason, these editors never try to insert the wild speculations of anti-Brexit politicians. Not only do the attempts to use rhetoric by politicians to rebut expert assessments and RS reporting violate WP:FALSEBALANCE, but the desire to exclusively insert commentary by pro-Brexit politicians is a clear and blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Most recently, the editor RichardWeiss sought to include random speculations by pro-Brexit politicians to rebut an actual peer-reviewed study with the rationale that these wild speculations are needed for "balance". [16] The editor John Maynard Friedman sought to include the same content with the claim that so long as a RS reported on the wild speculations by politicians, it was totally fine to use these wild speculations ("nonsense", the editor called them) to rebut a peer-reviewed study. [17] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: I think there should be a section on newspapers that lists their main opinion on Brexit. The Daily Mail and The Sun have had a lot of influence on the vote and the following push for a hard Brexit; it must be mentioned somewhere. The DM's headline attack against the Supreme Court was extraordinary. T8612 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I think we should keep this limited to one question - should the content about universities possibly benefiting from Brexit be included in the page? My opinion is no, because the article should summarise the sources, and this view is clearly a fringe one. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 08:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
2A02:8084:26E1:4080:29BB:19DC:5A10:F788 ( talk) 02:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)The official name for the Republic of Ireland is just that, the Republic of Ireland. In this article the word 'Eire" is used erroneously which no longer has any official usage in Ireland or Britain. The word "Éire" is Irish for Ireland. The historical use of "Eire"(without accent over E) in place of Republic of Ireland or Ireland was partly because British Law forbade the use of Ireland in official documents up until 1981 post Irish independence. This is largely down to post colonial hang ups from the British civil service and a general avoidance of the word "Ireland". Its simply factually incorrect to refer to Republic of Ireland as Eire and it is offensive. For example when speaking of Spain in the English language one does not use the word Espagne, that would be considered strange. Source wikipedia. /info/en/?search=%C3%89ire
2A02:8084:26E1:4080:29F3:C194:94BC:ECAB ( talk) 16:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)I'm absolutely scarlet for using French for Spain ! Thank you for noting my point.
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Scotland Continuity Bill did not gain Royal Ascent as it was declared "not law" by the Supreme Court which ruled that section 17 of the Bill to be outwith the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, due to the passage and enactment of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 while the Bill was under review, and that the bill as far as that section is concerned is therefore 'not law'.[1] The Governments of Scotland and of the United Kingdom differed sharply on the outcome. 2A02:C7D:1BC:5A00:8518:AC45:4D01:EAEC ( talk) 12:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I have removed from the lead-section a recently-added paragraph quoting from an op-ed published in the New York Times by Martha Gill, a political journalist living in London. The new paragraph incorrectly asserted that the text was from the NYT itself and offered "an independent view" — but this was an op-ed, not an editorial from the paper.
In any case, this is undue weight from the lead. There are thousands of op-eds relating to Brexit; there is no reason to prize this one above others. And the article has thus far done a good job by excluding op-eds from the lead. We ought not to open the floodgates now. Neutrality talk 17:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add additional context onto this existing opening sentence.
'It follows the referendum of 23 June 2016 when 51.9 per cent of those who voted supported withdrawal'
To something like the following.
'It follows the referendum of 23 June 2016 when 51.9 per cent of those who voted supported withdrawal, which consisted of %37.4 of the eligible voters'
A majority of those who voted in the referendum did vote to leave the EU; but, a minority of the voters in the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. I feel the addition of this statistic portrays the result of the referendum more fully.
According to
/info/en/?search=2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Petition_for_a_new_referendum
46,500,001 Voters for the 2016 referendum.
17,410,742 Voted to leave the EU.
29,089,259 Did not vote to leave the EU.
IntoTheAbyssOfTheUnknown (
talk)
00:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mascot Continued division between "leave" and "remain" campaigners has sowed discord amongst the British population, however there are some who are trying to embrace the exceptional circumstances of Brexit by creating a positive mascot - a " Brexit Bear". A completely neutral mascot, the Brexit Bear looks to make light of the complexities of Brexit whilst encouraging a positive national dialogue that says no matter the circumstances, the UK will be united and will continue to thrive. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia Karpoff ( talk • contribs)
Add the following text under Brexit | Cultural References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia Karpoff ( talk • contribs)
References
The tables with the polls on a new referendum are very long and considerably lengthen the article ( /info/en/?search=Brexit#Post-referendum_opinion_polling). A solution would be to do as with other articles on elections and create a separate article with only the tables. T8612 (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I have today reinstated the removal of a short sentence with a reference "Supporters of Brexit have suggested that ending net contributions to the EU would allow for some cuts to taxes or increase in government spending" – until consensus is gained whether this should be included or removed. A similar sentence is currently included in the lead section of the Economic effects of Brexit article, which provides a balance. I don't think anybody is disputing that there is a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to have negative economic consequences, but that's not the issue here. In the interest of balance, and as per WP:LEAD, I feel that one sentence should at least be included to explain what supporters of Brexit have put forward. This sentence doesn't necessarily have to come after the negative economic consequences of Brexit are explained, because the issue is not to dispute that research, merely to provide a balance between the issues which have divided the country over Brexit. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 01:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this article is controlled by pro EU editors. How do we get a pro Brexit editor on the team who can give balance? And to whom should I complain about the pro EU bias of the editors? Skydog1974 ( talk) 05:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Over a million people are employed in the UK's financial service sector (from mortgages to investment banking), and predictions vary widely that between 10,000 and 200,000 of these jobs are at risk of moving to the Continent due to Brexit. The Irish Times have now published a survey to demonstrate that the risk is not hypothetical: As of September, 630 jobs have already been created in the banking sector on the Continent that might have been created in the UK were it not for Brexit. Can this Irish Times article please be cited accordingly: [2] 81.131.171.172 ( talk) 19:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
Just a politically unaligned chap dropping by to remind you all of your leftist confirmation bias. There are plenty of economists who claim that Brexit will result in long-term, favorable changes for England's economy; however, of course, those assertions not "credible." And where the hell did you get this "near unanimous" negative opinion thing from? Did you go door-to-door interviewing everybody with a BA? Ridiculous. I hope you understand that your bias reduces your credibility.
The standards for neutrality on here actually verge on comical. Like I've said, most people see through it, so it's not much of a threat. I'm just trying to help. A little introspection regarding your motives might improve the website -- even regain some of the public's trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C001:98BF:C57E:B4AC:1150:7D0C ( talk) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There is clearly heavy pro EU bias on this arty. It should have a warning to that effect like other suspect articles do. The Brexit article is nothing but pro EU propaganda. Skydog1974 ( talk) 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
All claims, there could be "long-term, favourable changes for England's economy" are based on the assumption that Britain could achieve more favourable trade conditions outside of the European Union. It is highly implausible, how they could be achieved. 2A02:8109:88C0:9BC:D8D2:A41B:E86A:476F ( talk) 02:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2003:E0:672C:A2B1:8594:D498:CD92:A625 ( talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2003:E0:672C:A2B1:8594:D498:CD92:A625 ( talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some notes on the internal politics:
At basis for the Brexit is the incompatibilty of the British monarchy with a heavily democratic European and Western World. The Brexit is the British public's vote of acceptance that the world finds Britain unfavorable as far as economic policy goes, accepting that Britain then will strive to live independently as a monarchist society, or fall into troubles due to civil unrest from austerity, and warmaking by the anti-democratic government.
The alternative to the British leaving the Euro would be for Britain to abolish its monarchy and accept democratic government. But given that that is unlikely to happen, there is a kind of skepticism of the Brexit, a sense that Brexit would be bad for the common British person, and an idea that there can be something short of a Brexit which will allow Britain to stay connected to the European money machine, while still appealing to Brexit supporters who won a majority vote.
Because the Brexit was voted for and is yet to be enacted, calls for a renegation of the vote promise to wipe out years of political progress that made the Brexit vote possible in the first place. Its possible to think of Brexit then as a large move on behalf of the British public in the direction of Republicanism, and then Brexit is the beginning of a large internal fight between the aristocratic government which claims legitimacy and clings to power, and a public who voted for the Brexit and are also trying to get another referendum on Scottish Independence.
- Inowen ( nlfte) 09:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
My "observations" are for how to approach the article, and explain what Brexit is all about in way where rubber meets road. There is the basic fact that Britain is aristocratic that needs to be mentioned in the article, as well as the basic idea of how aristocratic monetary policy is different from democratic (what people think) monetary policy, and how the difference between these two things is at the base of everything. The word "aristocratic" is not even mentioned in the article. The word "monarchy," meaning the very form of the British government, is not even mentioned. Inowen ( nlfte) 05:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would someone please revert this highly partisan edit which removed an entire well-sourced, factual section representing mainstream economic opinion from the lede and buried it without even an edit summary? Clearly the editor was aiming for some WP:FALSEBALANCE by removing the paragraph altogether simply because they disagree with it (and also performing some WP:ADVOCACY, I suspect). In any case such a change would require talk-page consensus. I can not revert it myself as the article is protected. Thank you. 121.212.179.61 ( talk) 00:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
(In view of the above) The npov move of a paragraph from lead to "Preamble" [18] would improve the article, and need not have been undone. Qexigator ( talk) 13:31, 18 January 2019 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
User:snogansnoogans, you reverted my change to the claim that a certain piece of primary research 'shows' that specific economic effects resulted from the Brexit vote. Read the research in question: it shows that the economic effects followed the vote, not that they were caused by it.
Incidentally, I am familiar with WP:RS. It says: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." You in your summary said that Academic studies are generally the best sources; but note the title of the paper: "The consequences of the Brexit vote for UK inflation and living standards: First evidence". The paper does not show what the reverted version of the article says it shows. It merely presents evidence.
I am going to reinstate my change. I am happy to discuss the best form of words here, and I think 'is claimed to' is probably not correct, because I'm not aware that that claim has actually been made by anyone. The best thing would be to find a good secondary source that cites this paper. MrDemeanour ( talk) 11:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile no less than the Governor of the Bank of England says that every household is already £900 worse off as a result. [1] But what does he know? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Autocorrect mangled my reversion note. Brexit is still "planned" so, per wp:crystal, we can't report it as a done deal until it actually is a done deal. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
What's about Post-Brexit roaming charges once the Brexiting state is out of the digital single market, with Brexiters' ″no deal″?
Article fails to deal with this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.216 ( talk) 19:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Snooganssnoogans. There is no question of a border problem with France in the article body, and hence the lead needs to be updated accordingly. 81.131.172.167 ( talk) 12:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article from the section "Economic effects" is very biased. It's just Remain propaganda. Needs to be corrected. 195.11.204.67 ( talk) 18:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean? The comment is clear. 213.205.241.1 ( talk) 22:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Wrong to accuse people of being "a troll" for no reason. Talk pages are here for people to talk about the main article, including pointing out things wrong and suggesting solutions to that. 213.205.241.1 ( talk) 22:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest either (a) removing David Davis from the lead or (b) keeping David Davis but adding his EU counterparts Michel Barnier, Guy Verhofstadt and Didier Seeuws. My preference is for removing David Davis because the lead needs to be concise, and secondly Theresa May has arguably sidelined David Davis by appointing Oliver Robbins as her advisor. I shall BE BOLD and make the deletion. If you wish to revert it, please discuss your reasons and preferences here. 81.131.172.167 ( talk) 14:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The article header contains this message:
"British independent" redirects here. For the film awards, see British Independent Film Awards.
Is this really necessary? 81.131.172.24 ( talk) 17:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The lead contains this uninformative statement:
The size of the "divorce bill", the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements, and relations with the Republic of Ireland remain uncertain.
This is a meaningless sentence. The future of Switzerland is uncertain. The Pope's next encyclica is uncertain. Life is uncertain.
I think what the editor is trying to say is that these three EU negotiation demands/red lines (Ireland, euroclearing, divorce bill) have featured prominently in the negotiations. Can we reformulate accordingly? 81.131.171.190 ( talk) 10:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have tagged this although a cross-party "Remainer" coalition aims to defeat Brexit entirely. [2] as dubious because I have not come across any such coalition and as the Times is paywalled, I can't check the source. Would someone please verify and clarify? Is it an opinion piece or a factual report? [because some commentators regard anything other than "hard" as a defeat. If so, it adds nothing to the first part of the sentence]. Where is this in the body? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Commentators propose a wider context for Brexit, given election results in the USA and in several European countries, notably Poland, Hungary, Austria and Italy, prompting French president Macron in May 2018 to refer to Brexit as an "alarm bell".
Luxufluxo has removed this summary sentence from the lead and is requesting a discussion. The key statement is from President Macron's speech when receiving the Charlemagne Prize in May 2018: [6] I think we need to balance the current UK-only view with a more international view. Comments please. 81.131.171.12 ( talk) 12:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Thie purpose of this talk page is determine how best to improve the article. It is not to be used for opinion pieces and silly assertions like those above: see WP:NOTFORUM. Any further material in this vein will be deleted. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Friedman and Luxofluxo, this well-written Economist analysis [7] is specifically for you (see your deletion and comments above). I would be grateful if you could resurrect the deleted "international Brexit context" statement, and cite this Economist reference in support. Thank you. 81.131.171.183 ( talk) 17:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Someone please change this in the title summary. It's the Treaty on European Union, not the Treaty on the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.115.141 ( talk) 23:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can we add another entry to Brexit in Literature?
The earliest book on the subject is '51st State' by Peter Preston, Editor of The Guardian from 1975 until 1995.
the following taken from WorldCat.org 51st state Author: Peter Preston Publisher: London ; New York : Viking, 1998. Edition/Format: Print book : Fiction : EnglishView all editions and formats Summary: Inspired by the patriotism of his dying father, Rupert Warner uses his position to lead England out of the EC, and almost accidentally into the United States. Even more accidentally, he finds himself running for the Vice-Presidency, and who knows where that might lead.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/51st-state/oclc/39746908?referer=di&ht=edition
-- GovernmentBoffin ( talk) 12:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
LeoFrank
Talk
16:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Domestic Impact on the United Kingdom"->"Immigration"->"Long Term", the sentence "KPMG, based on a survey of 2,000 EU workers in UK, estimates that about a million EU citizens working in the UK, see their future in Britain as over or hanging in the balance.", should be changed to "KPMG, based on a survey of 2,000 EU workers in UK, estimates that about a million EU citizens working in the UK see their future in Britain as over or hanging in the balance." The comma is unnecessary and incorrect.
The question of when Britain leaves the UK is not determined by an act of the UK parliament but by the EU treaties. It is not an argument about which we need to give both sides. It is a fairly simple fact. Compare:
with
Moreover Article 50 allows two ways for the the date to changed by agreement between the EU and the UK. It is not set in in stone. This is why it's important to say "Absent agreement to the contrary". — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The article is already lengthy, and sections 5-Negotiations and 6-Post-Article 50 British legislation will expand with updates as the current negotiations continue or terminate, whether on 29 March 2019 GMT (or some other time, if so agreed). Some account of the background leading to the 2016 referendum, as in section 2 and in section 3, and of Procedure for leaving as in section 4 is needed to give informative context. But there looks like some scope for avoiding duplication by reducing the details set out in subsection 3.6-Irregularties, given that section 3 opens with a link to United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 as "Main article" (created in November 2016) , and subsection on 3.6 opens with a See also link to Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, created in January 2018, where such details would more suitably be placed. Thus, a shorter version could be:
Current section 3.6 has expanded from Explanations for the referendum outcome, 28 March 2018. [9] Qexigator ( talk) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Please can the publication of the policy be added to the article, see policy section here: https://www.gov.uk/government/brexit John a s ( talk) 07:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Information from this newspaper article Now the judges agree – the vote for Brexit was clearly tainted ought to be worked into the wikipedia article. It is a judgement from the high court. -- VanBuren ( talk) 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The Express is not a reliable source for pretty much any article on UK politics, never mind about Brexit. If the content is accurate and notable, it will have been covered in other more reliable sources, which should be used on this page instead. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 00:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
What will be the full impact of Brexit? I don't know and of course my own view is not important or relevant. But balance is important for the lead section. It is right that in the final paragraph of the lead section the broad consensus in existing economic research is included. There are three sentences in this paragraph about negative economic consequences of Brexit. I feel that to include at least one sentence in the paragraph about what Brexit supporters believe are future advantages of Brexit should be included to provide a balance. So that's what I've done today by adding one sentence to this paragraph with a reference from The Guardian.
On a slightly different note, in the second paragraph of the lead section, it states: "In the 1970s and 1980s, withdrawal from the EC was advocated mainly by Labour Party members and trade union figures." It is true that in the 1970s and early 1980s that the Labour Party was the more Eurosceptic of the two main parties, but that position may have changed by the late 1980s after Neil Kinnock changed Labour Party policy.
In the 1970s, Enoch Powell had supporters on the Conservative right-wing for EC withdrawal, but Labour Party members outnumbered Conservatives arguing for an exit. By the late 1980s, however, as well as a number of MPs from the Conservative Monday Club advocating withdrawal, they were supported by local Conservative members on the right of the party and by supporters of The Freedom Association. Perhaps the wording could be changed to "In the 1970s and early 1980s, withdrawal from the EC was advocated mainly by Labour Party members and trade union figures." (Obviously the bold text would not be used for that sentence in the article). I will at some point try to find an appropriate reference to verify this, before making the change. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 01:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Please add: The EU Council President Donald Tusk proposed a Canada-plus trade agreement to David Davis in March 2018. "Hard" Brexiteers such as David and Rees-Mogg are favourable to this EU proposal, as is EU chief negotiator Michael Barnier. In contrast, EU leaders rejected Theresa May's "soft" Brexit Chequers plan at a Salzburg summit meeting in September 2018. In the run-up to the Conservative Party conference in October 2018, David Davis is relaunching the Canada-plus option, in which the EU and UK envisage tariff-free trade on goods ("Canada") and ("plus") security co-operation between the EU and the UK. [10] [11]
That is an emergency patch to the Brexit article. In the next step, the Brexit article should explain the fine differences between the "ambitious new" Chequers plan and an "off-the shelf" Canada-plus agreement.
On a more general note, it is evident that the registered editors are not coping with keeping the Brexit article up-to-date. The editors' expertise is in overturning the referendum (that aspect of the Brexit article is quite professional and detailed), but little else. Suggest removing the semi-protection to allow a broader range of experts to maintain the article. 81.131.171.199 ( talk) 11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Coming back to your original request, the issue with this article is its sheer length. So we have to try to limit additions to what is hard fact not opinion. If DD were still in government, his view would deserve inclusion. But as now he is just another backbencher, it doesn't seem (at least to me, but I'm just another editor and don't make the rules) to be significant enough. If it becomes HMG policy, then it certainly is and will be. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Because this is a highly political topic, and editors will be highly polarized, I suggest that all editors declare their POV on this talkk page, and we keep a chart. - Inowen ( nlfte) 20:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to need a kind of general overview which talks about the fundamentals of Brexit and the idea of the UK in the European Union. - Inowen ( nlfte) 11:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Some basic thoughts:
The UK Brexit comes about in the context of global trade and money exchange, where the issues are political and not just economic. The world money system as built under US direction after WWII is largely democratic based, and the UK being an aristocratic monarchy makes its economic policy largely incompatible with other nations. At the basis of the economic issues are the differences in philosophy of government. The aristocratic group of Europe has always maintained that it has a right to rule by the way of inherited powers, and it has accordingly always claimed great wealth, in spite of two things 1) their nations may be economically hard-hit, and 2) the fact that they are aristocratic means that their nation's form of wealth generation is always retarded by aristocratic economic policy.
The UK's entry into the EU supplied it with the Euro as a transferrable type of currency, but then it also allowed the UK to trade pounds evenly with the US dollar, when in direct trading it is rare that they trade evenly. Because of this loophole allowing direct or near-direct trading with the UK pound, the US has had to limit foreign exchange trading. The aristocratic group has long seen the emerging democratic nations as a threat, and in diplomatic discussions has always insisted on an idea (sometimes called a "principle") of equivalence with democratic nations. In reality aristocratic nations are not politically equivalent with democratic nations because they don't honor basic civic rights such as the right to vote [12], and they are not economically equivalent with democratic nations because all of their basic methods of industry lose wealth rather than generate it. Because aristocrats lose wealth, their modus operandi since the World Wars has been to force democratic nations to give them money, and the Euro was simply a way for the UK to plug into the global money system, which is supported almost entirely by the wealth generation of democratic nations.- Inowen ( nlfte) 20:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The fourth word of the article is currently "impending," suggesting that Brexit will definitely occur. Given the UK's current political climate and shift in public opinion (to remain), this seems to be an unwise choice. I therefore propose changing it to "prospective." 79.66.207.160 ( talk) 20:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The references to a "second" referendum should be changed to "third." The first was in 1975 and the second in 2016. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:453F:EACF:1CEE:6AD3 ( talk) 14:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
"Some countries – such as Australia and the United States – wish to challenge the basis for division (i.e., division between the UK and the continuing EU) of the trade schedules previously agreed between them and the EU, because it reduces their flexibility"
But the WTO question is missing some points:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.96 ( talk) 18:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
There needs to be a definition of no-deal in the terms section. - Inowen ( nlfte) 19:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
No deal: Britain leaving the European Union with no formal agreement on the terms of the UK's withdrawal or new trade relations. [1]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I'm rather worried that there is a sense of WP:OWN for this article - particularly in the lead. The lead is showing one side of the debate - that most economists (1) believe that Brexit will slow the British economy down and (2) that Brexit has slowed the British economy down. This does not reflect the whole debate here. One of the constant themes has been that the pre-referendum forecasts were wrong in predicting a recession if there was a Leave vote.
Some examples:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/08/how-the-economics-profession-got-it-wrong-on-brexit/ https://eutoday.net/news/business-economy/2017/brexit-forecast-economists-admit-they-got-it-wrong https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-davis/all-brexit-economic-forecasts-were-wrong-british-minister-says-idUKKBN1FL4VX https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/30/brexit-minister-says-whitehall-economic-forecasts-are-always-wrong
I'm not saying that the economic forecasts, or the current consensus of the economics profession should not be in the article - it clearly should be. It's just that the lead reads in a very biased way without counterpoints. I am (cynical enough to be) aware that there will be a systemic bias within the Wikipedia editing demographic towards Remain and on a fluid subject like Brexit there should be an acceptance that the bias will be towards an anti-Brexit view. But there does need to be some balance here, and the last paragraph of the lead doesn't show it, and any effort to change this does seem to meet to automatic and almost unthinking reversion.
Hopefully this can be resolved on this talk page rather than going through the notice boards.
JASpencer ( talk) 15:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
First of all, a big thank you JASpencer for your hard work on this article. There are two solutions to the problem you describe:
The point was not what the forecasts say, the point is that the lead is really not representing the debate, but it is representing part of the debate. The Leave side of the argument is constantly saying that the forecasts have spectacularly failed to model the immediate outcome of the Leave vote. You don't have to like that line of argument (I don't as it happens) but that argument is made.
I personally don't think that the economic forecasts should be in the lead and that would elegantly remove that part of the bias. However if the forecasts are in then there needs to be balance here.
I suspect that debate here is not going to go anywhere as there are clearly ownership issues with the page and that this page does need to show that it's balance is disputed.
JASpencer ( talk) 14:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
We have to deal with the arguments of Brexiters, but since @ Snooganssnoogans: refuses to "equate them with expert assessments", we can't. By this logic, we shouldn't include political opinions on any subject, because they are almost never of the same quality as experts'. It is absurd to detail a process piloted by the British government without actually mentioning their stance. If it is still absolutely forbidden to mention both experts' and politicians' views in the same paragraph, then I think that the experts should be removed from the lede as they are not as important as the British government in the whole Brexit thing. T8612 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You have also already been told that you cannot compare Brexit with climate change. T8612 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I have just come in to this talk page after making an and having it reverted within 4 minutes by Snooganssnoogans with only a very perfunctory and unsatisfactory reason given for reversion. My edit was replacing this text:
There is a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term.
with this:
There is a broad consensus from economic modelling that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term.
It is obvious to me that you can not 'research' medium and long term effects of a future event while you can model them, as economists do. So it seems a fairly non-contentious edit to me, yet it was quickly reverted. I queried the reversion on Snooganssnoogans' talk page but have not yet received an answer. I have not undone the reversion as I am usually not interested in getting into edit wars (unlike, it seems, the reverter) but I would appreciate some comments from other editors on whether they judge this reversion appropriate. Thank you. Oska ( talk) 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
[Since the referendum] Immigration has slowed, foreign investment has increased, and unemployment has fallen to its lowest level since 1975.
Luxofluxo has deleted the above sentence from the lead, and is doubting whether the Guardian source sees a causal effect regarding the Brexit vote and employment.
The causal effect is given in the cited Guardian article as follows: The number of people in work also reached a record high of 32.2 million as 55,000 more people started a job, giving an employment rate of 75.4%. The number of job vacancies remained close to the record high reached in December, hovering at 815,000, amid fears of labour shortages triggered by Brexit. [15]
Pretty straightforward really. This should be reinstated in the lead, otherwise the reader will have the impression that the referendum had only negative economic effects. Over to you, Luxofluxo. 81.131.171.246 ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The previous commentator's attempt at impartiality disintegrated with his last remarks. The truth is that no-one knows whether Brexit will be economically harmful or not. In the short term, certainly, there will be disruption and difficulty (and doubtless a dip in economic output), but in the longer term Britain might conceivably grow faster than a slow-growing EU, just as Canada, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, the USA and New Zealand are managing to do now. What cannot be disputed, however, is that the abandonment of Brexit would be extremely dangerous and would lead to an absolute loss of trust in the institutions of British democracy with consequences that are hard to predict but which would certainly include political extremism, probably include civil disobedience and mass protest, and possibly include violence and civil war. Anyone who imagines that this would be "highly unlikely" or a "minor inconvenience" is being every bit as complacent as the most starry-eyed Brexiteer. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
185.108.92.22 (
talk)
12:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
All, please read Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I have crossed out contributions that are opinions about the topic rather than about improving the article through reliable sources. Further contributions that are editorial Ising will be deleted. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
A recent Guardian analysis [1] agrees that The British economy is putting in a resilient performance, led by strong consumer and business activity but Senior economists are, however, warning there is a “lull before the storm”. So as a compromise, we can quite both these aspects. Opinions? 81.131.171.172 ( talk) 19:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The BBC has just reported that UK employment has reached a record high of 32.4 million, and wage increases are accelerating at their fastest rate since 2015. This time it is not a "lull before the storm" as above, but a "flash in the pan" due to the unusually hot summer. These assessments by expert economists are revealing and should be included. 86.178.192.176 ( talk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Now that the withdrawal agreement and declaration on future UK-EU relationships have been finalised (BBC 13 Nov 2018), we need a new section to explain the pincer movement that led to this breakthrough (keywords: Trump's external pressure on Germany, Italian internal pressure on Eurozone), and another new section which explains the forthcoming "educational" response by the UK against Ireland (digital tax announcement by Hammond in most recent budget) and against France (expansion of the Ramsgate-Belgian trade link at the expense of Calais). A starting point is the Financial Times of 11 Nov 2018 and the German "Welt" of today. I cannot implement these changes because the article is closed to the general Wikipedia community. So can a registered Wikipedian (fluent in German and French) please take on this task? 86.178.192.176 ( talk) 22:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we should be very careful about using these terms especially unqualified. These terms are almost exclusively used by people who support remain (I voted remain - not that that should matter, just so you don't think I am applying my own bias to an article). For those who support leave a "Soft" Brexit isn't a real Brexit, and they are more likely to use terms like BRINO (Brexit in name only) e.g.
Brino is a version of leaving the European Union that would mean staying in the EU customs union and/or single market, with a very long or indefinite transition period. It is also known as a soft Brexit.( https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1044888/Brexit-news-what-is-BRINO-what-does-BRINO-mean-Brexit-in-name-only)
And for instance, the BBC recognises that Brexiteers don't use the term Hard Brexit e.g.
For those who back a "hard" Brexit - or "clean" Brexit as supporters prefer ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37500140)
For some Soft/Hard Brexit was coined to give the instinctive impression that Hard Brexit is extreme (i.e. pushed by a radical fringe), and Soft Brexit fulfils the Brexit referendum outcome whilst being more reasonable (when Brexiteers think of this as BRINO). Hence these terms are political in nature. I do not think this page adequately reflects this, and so I think alterations to language and explanations should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopal22 ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article has not been updated to include the latest developments in the Electoral Commission's findings that Vote Leave broke electoral law and its subsequent fine and suggestion of a criminal investigation by the police, with only Leave.EU mentioned in such a regard so far.. [2]. In addition, both of these findings should not be in a section entitled "potential irregulaties." They are certainly not "potential", and are more than irregulaties. The Electoral Commission is the statutory body with the power to interpret where electoral law has been broken, and it has found against them both. This is a pretty major misrepresentation as to how serious these findings are.
In addition, the People's Vote should be added to the terminology section and described in further detail under a new section, 4.3 "People's Vote". [3] [4] [5] 213.205.194.175 ( talk) 19:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
There is a discussion on whether the Chequers plan and the new political declaration should have two separate articles, link here: Talk:The framework for the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union#Second draft - November 2018. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 23:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a tag sitting at the top of the page which says "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page". There should not be tags like that on articles without a section on the talk page clearly describing what the issues are and discussing how to resolve them. Such tags are not intended as "warnings" to readers but an invitation to outside editors (like me) to join the discussion and resolve the issues. You cannot expect people to read through a long talk page to find out what the problem is, it needs its own section with a current discussion. I am removing that tag. Smeat75 ( talk) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research." to "It poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research, as well as opportunities." Opportunities for the education sector are summarised at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/0/will-brexit-impact-british-universities/ and also in a government paper entitled Exiting the EU: challenges and opportunities for higher education available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmeduc/683/683.pdf. Dena.walemy ( talk) 18:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of editors on this page who repeatedly try to insert wild speculations by pro-Brexit politicians, often to rebut expert assessments and RS reporting. For some reason, these editors never try to insert the wild speculations of anti-Brexit politicians. Not only do the attempts to use rhetoric by politicians to rebut expert assessments and RS reporting violate WP:FALSEBALANCE, but the desire to exclusively insert commentary by pro-Brexit politicians is a clear and blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Most recently, the editor RichardWeiss sought to include random speculations by pro-Brexit politicians to rebut an actual peer-reviewed study with the rationale that these wild speculations are needed for "balance". [16] The editor John Maynard Friedman sought to include the same content with the claim that so long as a RS reported on the wild speculations by politicians, it was totally fine to use these wild speculations ("nonsense", the editor called them) to rebut a peer-reviewed study. [17] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: I think there should be a section on newspapers that lists their main opinion on Brexit. The Daily Mail and The Sun have had a lot of influence on the vote and the following push for a hard Brexit; it must be mentioned somewhere. The DM's headline attack against the Supreme Court was extraordinary. T8612 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I think we should keep this limited to one question - should the content about universities possibly benefiting from Brexit be included in the page? My opinion is no, because the article should summarise the sources, and this view is clearly a fringe one. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 08:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
2A02:8084:26E1:4080:29BB:19DC:5A10:F788 ( talk) 02:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)The official name for the Republic of Ireland is just that, the Republic of Ireland. In this article the word 'Eire" is used erroneously which no longer has any official usage in Ireland or Britain. The word "Éire" is Irish for Ireland. The historical use of "Eire"(without accent over E) in place of Republic of Ireland or Ireland was partly because British Law forbade the use of Ireland in official documents up until 1981 post Irish independence. This is largely down to post colonial hang ups from the British civil service and a general avoidance of the word "Ireland". Its simply factually incorrect to refer to Republic of Ireland as Eire and it is offensive. For example when speaking of Spain in the English language one does not use the word Espagne, that would be considered strange. Source wikipedia. /info/en/?search=%C3%89ire
2A02:8084:26E1:4080:29F3:C194:94BC:ECAB ( talk) 16:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)I'm absolutely scarlet for using French for Spain ! Thank you for noting my point.
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Scotland Continuity Bill did not gain Royal Ascent as it was declared "not law" by the Supreme Court which ruled that section 17 of the Bill to be outwith the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, due to the passage and enactment of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 while the Bill was under review, and that the bill as far as that section is concerned is therefore 'not law'.[1] The Governments of Scotland and of the United Kingdom differed sharply on the outcome. 2A02:C7D:1BC:5A00:8518:AC45:4D01:EAEC ( talk) 12:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I have removed from the lead-section a recently-added paragraph quoting from an op-ed published in the New York Times by Martha Gill, a political journalist living in London. The new paragraph incorrectly asserted that the text was from the NYT itself and offered "an independent view" — but this was an op-ed, not an editorial from the paper.
In any case, this is undue weight from the lead. There are thousands of op-eds relating to Brexit; there is no reason to prize this one above others. And the article has thus far done a good job by excluding op-eds from the lead. We ought not to open the floodgates now. Neutrality talk 17:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add additional context onto this existing opening sentence.
'It follows the referendum of 23 June 2016 when 51.9 per cent of those who voted supported withdrawal'
To something like the following.
'It follows the referendum of 23 June 2016 when 51.9 per cent of those who voted supported withdrawal, which consisted of %37.4 of the eligible voters'
A majority of those who voted in the referendum did vote to leave the EU; but, a minority of the voters in the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. I feel the addition of this statistic portrays the result of the referendum more fully.
According to
/info/en/?search=2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Petition_for_a_new_referendum
46,500,001 Voters for the 2016 referendum.
17,410,742 Voted to leave the EU.
29,089,259 Did not vote to leave the EU.
IntoTheAbyssOfTheUnknown (
talk)
00:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mascot Continued division between "leave" and "remain" campaigners has sowed discord amongst the British population, however there are some who are trying to embrace the exceptional circumstances of Brexit by creating a positive mascot - a " Brexit Bear". A completely neutral mascot, the Brexit Bear looks to make light of the complexities of Brexit whilst encouraging a positive national dialogue that says no matter the circumstances, the UK will be united and will continue to thrive. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia Karpoff ( talk • contribs)
Add the following text under Brexit | Cultural References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia Karpoff ( talk • contribs)
References
The tables with the polls on a new referendum are very long and considerably lengthen the article ( /info/en/?search=Brexit#Post-referendum_opinion_polling). A solution would be to do as with other articles on elections and create a separate article with only the tables. T8612 (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I have today reinstated the removal of a short sentence with a reference "Supporters of Brexit have suggested that ending net contributions to the EU would allow for some cuts to taxes or increase in government spending" – until consensus is gained whether this should be included or removed. A similar sentence is currently included in the lead section of the Economic effects of Brexit article, which provides a balance. I don't think anybody is disputing that there is a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to have negative economic consequences, but that's not the issue here. In the interest of balance, and as per WP:LEAD, I feel that one sentence should at least be included to explain what supporters of Brexit have put forward. This sentence doesn't necessarily have to come after the negative economic consequences of Brexit are explained, because the issue is not to dispute that research, merely to provide a balance between the issues which have divided the country over Brexit. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 01:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this article is controlled by pro EU editors. How do we get a pro Brexit editor on the team who can give balance? And to whom should I complain about the pro EU bias of the editors? Skydog1974 ( talk) 05:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Over a million people are employed in the UK's financial service sector (from mortgages to investment banking), and predictions vary widely that between 10,000 and 200,000 of these jobs are at risk of moving to the Continent due to Brexit. The Irish Times have now published a survey to demonstrate that the risk is not hypothetical: As of September, 630 jobs have already been created in the banking sector on the Continent that might have been created in the UK were it not for Brexit. Can this Irish Times article please be cited accordingly: [2] 81.131.171.172 ( talk) 19:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
Just a politically unaligned chap dropping by to remind you all of your leftist confirmation bias. There are plenty of economists who claim that Brexit will result in long-term, favorable changes for England's economy; however, of course, those assertions not "credible." And where the hell did you get this "near unanimous" negative opinion thing from? Did you go door-to-door interviewing everybody with a BA? Ridiculous. I hope you understand that your bias reduces your credibility.
The standards for neutrality on here actually verge on comical. Like I've said, most people see through it, so it's not much of a threat. I'm just trying to help. A little introspection regarding your motives might improve the website -- even regain some of the public's trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C001:98BF:C57E:B4AC:1150:7D0C ( talk) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There is clearly heavy pro EU bias on this arty. It should have a warning to that effect like other suspect articles do. The Brexit article is nothing but pro EU propaganda. Skydog1974 ( talk) 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
All claims, there could be "long-term, favourable changes for England's economy" are based on the assumption that Britain could achieve more favourable trade conditions outside of the European Union. It is highly implausible, how they could be achieved. 2A02:8109:88C0:9BC:D8D2:A41B:E86A:476F ( talk) 02:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2003:E0:672C:A2B1:8594:D498:CD92:A625 ( talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2003:E0:672C:A2B1:8594:D498:CD92:A625 ( talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some notes on the internal politics:
At basis for the Brexit is the incompatibilty of the British monarchy with a heavily democratic European and Western World. The Brexit is the British public's vote of acceptance that the world finds Britain unfavorable as far as economic policy goes, accepting that Britain then will strive to live independently as a monarchist society, or fall into troubles due to civil unrest from austerity, and warmaking by the anti-democratic government.
The alternative to the British leaving the Euro would be for Britain to abolish its monarchy and accept democratic government. But given that that is unlikely to happen, there is a kind of skepticism of the Brexit, a sense that Brexit would be bad for the common British person, and an idea that there can be something short of a Brexit which will allow Britain to stay connected to the European money machine, while still appealing to Brexit supporters who won a majority vote.
Because the Brexit was voted for and is yet to be enacted, calls for a renegation of the vote promise to wipe out years of political progress that made the Brexit vote possible in the first place. Its possible to think of Brexit then as a large move on behalf of the British public in the direction of Republicanism, and then Brexit is the beginning of a large internal fight between the aristocratic government which claims legitimacy and clings to power, and a public who voted for the Brexit and are also trying to get another referendum on Scottish Independence.
- Inowen ( nlfte) 09:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
My "observations" are for how to approach the article, and explain what Brexit is all about in way where rubber meets road. There is the basic fact that Britain is aristocratic that needs to be mentioned in the article, as well as the basic idea of how aristocratic monetary policy is different from democratic (what people think) monetary policy, and how the difference between these two things is at the base of everything. The word "aristocratic" is not even mentioned in the article. The word "monarchy," meaning the very form of the British government, is not even mentioned. Inowen ( nlfte) 05:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would someone please revert this highly partisan edit which removed an entire well-sourced, factual section representing mainstream economic opinion from the lede and buried it without even an edit summary? Clearly the editor was aiming for some WP:FALSEBALANCE by removing the paragraph altogether simply because they disagree with it (and also performing some WP:ADVOCACY, I suspect). In any case such a change would require talk-page consensus. I can not revert it myself as the article is protected. Thank you. 121.212.179.61 ( talk) 00:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
(In view of the above) The npov move of a paragraph from lead to "Preamble" [18] would improve the article, and need not have been undone. Qexigator ( talk) 13:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)