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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Any kind of polls made in 2019 that is related to Brexit, could and should be given a chapter here, I think. From the outside it's very difficult to understand what's going on in the House of Commons. Most of the Tory party MPs' vocabulary appears to have shrunken to one single word - "no". Watched a spot at France 24 in English, and solely based on that, it seems like ordinary people in the UK understand less and less. And during the last couple of weeks more or less nothing at all. Brexiters and remainers alike. Wouldn't the final outcome be a better subject for a referendum than the one held ? Any polls on that ? And where is that Nigel Farage now ? He said "it's just to negotiate" , but not even he could anticipate the problems to be inside the Parliament alone. Any modern polls on UKIP ? Boeing720 ( talk) 08:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, UK MPs aren't due to vote on whether to accept either of the extensions (12 April with no deal, 22 May with deal) offered by the EU Council on the evening of Thursday 21 March until after they have voted for a third time on whether to accept Theresa May's deal. Until that happens, the leave date is 29 March - and if they reject an extension it will stay as 29 March. -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
as set out in the letter from the Permanent Representative of the UK to the European Union, Sir Tim Barrow, of 22 March 2019, it has agreed, in accordance with Article 50(3) TEU, to the extension of the period referred to in that Article and to this decision,
Wednesday [27 March 2019]: ... MPs will also vote on changing the Brexit date in UK law from 29 March.and
Friday [29 March 2019]: This is written into law as the day the UK leaves the EU, although the PM has said she will pass legislation this week to remove it. The earliest Brexit is likely to happen is now 12 April.[5] -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
So, on 11 March, Octoberwoodland said the NPOV tag was unnecessary. Then, on 14 March, Octoberwoodland proposed removing the tag. 8 opposed (including me), 5 supported. On 17 March, the tag was removed, and Octoberwoodland closed the discussion (hatting it) saying that the UNBALANCED tag was more justified. It is not for a supporter of the status quo to make that decision. This itself is unneutral and unbalanced. I am not British and have no direct interest in Brexit, but this kind of editing shows why the NPOV is justified. There was no reason to remove the NPOV tag given that a majority supported it. The editing of the article should be open, and not controlled by a small group.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
all you need to do is register for a user name; or alternatively make an edit request on Wikipedia. 84.250.17.211 ( talk) 16:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
According to UK legislation it's "11.00 p.m. on 12th April 2019"; according to an EU website it's "13 April 2019, 00:00h (CET)". Because of daylight saving time, UK time will be UTC+01:00, which is the same as CET. Are these times GMT and CET, or BST and CEST? Peter James ( talk) 22:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like MPs might vote on the 8 options:
Those 8 options should appear on the "Read" page, with the number of MPs who voted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.83 ( talk) 19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Motion B states that the UK will leave the European Union without an agreement on April 12, according to the timetable set last week by European leaders.
- Motion D proposes a so-called "common market 2.0" agreement with accession to the European single market and customs arrangement.
- Motion H suggests that the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) and join the European Free Trade Agreement.
- Motion J proposes that the Brexit agreement include an undertaking to negotiate with the EU a permanent and comprehensive customs union covering the entire United Kingdom.
- Motion K takes up the Labor Party's plan, with customs union and close alignment on the single market.
- Motion L calls for a revocation of Article 50 (the triggering of which formally initiated the negotiations on the terms of the divorce) if Parliament does not consent to a Brexit without agreement, and therefore a cancellation of Brexit.
- Motion M asks for a confirmation referendum of any divorce agreement.
- Motion O suggests that the UK seek a "managed no-deal" (Brexit without a "managed" agreement) if it is not possible to find a divorce agreement
References
Can people stop reverting my edit when clearly I've replaced a image of a timeline where Brexit was set to happen March 29th (which it didn't) with a new timeline of Brexit happening April 12th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfodudeUK ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Taking into note the NPOV tag put on this article, I note that at current, the derogatory term "Remoaner" is included as a definition in the article in the terminology section, under "Remainer", yet the derogratory term, "Brextremist" is not. I propose, and would find it hard that the request could be denied given both a multitude of Reliable Sources demonstrating its wide usage and the former's inclusion, that Brextremist is hence included, and the definition for Leavers now read's as follows, also using the anchor "Leaver", which is far more common than "Brexiter":
References
UK must pay for French ports after Brexit, Macron to tell May. The Independent.
Brextremist bore Peter Bone's tea room hissy fit during a discussion of the details of Theresa May's bad plan confirmed that leaving is a religion for the headbangers' headbanger. As Tory colleagues discussed trade and the backstop, Bone-head startled MPs sitting nearby by raising his arms in the air and wailing: "I don't care. I don't care. I just want to leave."
Someone has absurdly put a note saying 'add information to correct the article' when of course, it's locked by its owners. This paragraph is biased: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing , [8][9][10] while pro-Europeanists , who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership." The correct term(s) are things like 'remain supporters/remainers and 'leave supporters/Brexit supporters/Brexiters/Brexiteers'. These are the sort of terms used by everybody, politicians, media, etc. Brexiters are pro-European and are not eurosceptic. 86.187.169.128 ( talk) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed [9] two tabloid sources (The Sun and the Daily Express) that had been used to support a description of the word "Remoaner". I added two reliable sources instead - an academic book by a university lecturer and two linguistics professors, and an Open University article - and I adjusted the text, as per those sources, so that it actually defined the term remoaner, rather than just saying who used it. The text was reverted by Railhis to again use The Sun as a source, with the definition of remoaner removed, and replaced by just a description of who uses the term ('sourced' to The Sun). The Sun is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and the article as edited by Railhis no longer defines the term remoaner - it just says it is derogatory, and used by "pro-Brexit media outlets". PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 10:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Remain + -tard (prefix + suffix not a blend)
use that code above, it works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:D800:F438:E7DC:ABB6:BA1 ( talk) 15:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British from the European Union. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash ( talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose that sections Domestic impact on the United Kingdom and Impact of Brexit on bilateral UK relations be split into a separate page called Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom. The current page seems WP:TOOBIG and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Emass100 ( talk) 18:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Surprised that this has not come up on the talk page before, evidently. Shouldn't there be a definition of Lexit in the " Terminology and etymology" section? I'm speaking as an American with an outside (but avidly interested) perspective on UK politics but, even from across the pond, it seems like the term has currency in the Brexit discourse and would be worth defining. It follows from the phrase in the lead: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing". The page Lexit currently redirects to Withdrawal from the European Union, which leads me to suspect the term "Lexit" may be used in national contexts beyond the UK (after all, any EU nation could in theory have a "left exit" of its own); nevertheless, it seems worth defining in the UK context on this page. Thoughts? — BLZ · talk 06:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
new dates need to be changed as well as old Mahri8 ( talk) 15:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add in why leavers are also referred to as Quitlings? Is it linked to Quislings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 ( talk) 13:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add in a section and find out what happened to this>
50 pence Brexit celebration coin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 ( talk) 13:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change X (While serving as Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab said the UK will not pay the financial settlement to the EU in a no-deal scenario.[21] The UK Government's estimate of the financial settlement in March 2019 is £38 billion.[22]) to Y (If the UK were to strike a no-deal with the European Union over Brexit, they would be due to pay a financial settlement of £38 billion. Although, Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab has come out and said that the UK will not pay the financial settlement if this were to occur. Johnatela ( talk) 14:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a lengthy discussion last month in March about a tag for the article to indicate that concerns had been expressed among various editors. The editor John Maynard Friedman stated on 17 March 2019: "Being bold, I have changed the tag from template:npov to Template:Unbalanced because IMO the latter is a better reflection of the dispute within Wikipedia terms."
A month later, I don't think the dispute within Wikipedia terms has yet been resolved. Indeed, there is nothing in the talk page archive or in the current talk page to state that the various editors who expressed concerns are now happy that the issues have been settled. Therefore, until there's a consensus that the issues have been resolved, I'm restoring the Template:Unbalanced tag which was removed from the article on 19 April 2019 (UK time). Regards, Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing, while pro-Europeanists, who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership and maintaining the customs union and single market, with Labour Party leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn citing that the UK economy will experience a recession and lack stability if the UK leaves the EU's single market. [1]
The Brexit Minister, Stephen Barclay, has stated that leaving the EU single market and customs union would allow the UK to craft and enter into it's own free trade agreements with both the EU and other countries and long term would benefit the UK by removing trade limitations and releasing the UK of contractual obligations related to a variety of EU related trade agreements imposed by the EU on its members. [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
I haven't been checking this page too often, but I'm not sure what has happened to this discussion; my understanding is that the biased tag (later unbalanced tag) was placed on the article in response to concerns expressed of a lack of leave arguments, not a lack of remain ones. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 07:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
There are so many pro- and anti-Brexit political arguments, and these examples don't properly reflect them at all. Furthermore, the pro-Brexit argument was dumped in behind text noting that there's an economic consensus that the economic impact will be adverse, so the text is used to rebut this consensus. So, the solution is to add two-three sentences that concisely summarize the pro- and anti-Brexit arguments, and not use it to impugn the academic assessments. It could go something like this (this is poorly written but just sketched out here as an example): "Opponents and supporters of Brexit disagree as to the economic effects of Brexit. Supporters of Brexit emphasize what they consider to be a surrender of sovereignty to the EU, and opposition to overreach by the EU. Remainers emphasize the economic and political stability of continuing EU membership, arguing that departure from the EU leaves Britain weaker and poorer." Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Article says, "The Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, pledged during the campaign for the 2015 UK General Election to hold a new referendum—a promise which he fulfilled in 2016 . . . ." [Emphasis mine.] Was there an old referendum? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 17:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC))
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the wording of the phrase "These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit." to "These estimates differ depending on whether the UK exits the EU with a "hard Brexit" or "soft Brexit" or similar to fit with the grammar used in the surrounding paragraphs.
The phrase can be found in the section Impact>On the United Kingdom>In the long term KermitTheFish ( talk) 20:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Please" should be deleted from the 'Customs Union' section of 'Terminology and etymology'. "Please see" does not belong in an encyclopaedia article. 71.235.184.247 ( talk) 23:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Article states (with no immediate citation),
References
An editor removed a peer-reviewed May 2019 study authored by Barry Eichengreen about Brexit's impact on financial institutions, with the ludicrous suggestion that the study is somehow unreliable. [10] The study should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not an article about the economic impacts of Brexit, or the predicted economic impacts of Brexit. It is a broad-scope article that should briefly cover all pertinent aspects of Brexit, which, as has been stated on this page before, is not just an economic phenomenon. There is already a paragraph in the article about predicted effects on the financial sector, given in broad brush strokes. There does not need to be an additional sentence that quotes estimated figures on one specific aspect, particularly as there are sub-articles that are more suited to greater depth of coverage. The study that was added deals with estimates and predictions; the study abstract states it "provides a survey of the still limited literature on EU membership and international capital flows" and "provides new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment" and concludes that "the impact on cross-border capital flows to and from the UK is likely to be substantial" (my emphases). I have not suggested that the study is somehow unreliable, but that it deals with estimates. I do not believe there is justification for such additional estimates in a broad-scope article that already mentions general predictions about the financial sector. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 00:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
[2] - Here is a free access link to the document in question. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 05:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
References
The section on Impact is sub-divided into "On the United Kingdom" and "On the European Union". These are treated asymmetrically.
"On UK" starts with a disproportionate and tendentious discussion of "Economic effects" subdivided into "Immediate", "In the long term" and "In the short term", followed by "Inequality" (from economic pov) and "Financial sector" (from financial services pov). These headings are not used in the EU part of this section. The reciprocal effects for UK being free from EU "Structure and budget" are not discussed.
The result is that the information about all these forecasts or assessments is unbalanced, as between the negotiating parties, and inherently NPOV unreliable, perhaps tending to polemical.
The UK section continues with sub-headings for information about topics which affect reciprocally both UK and EU, and would mostly be better presented if treated as such in a single UK and EU section, or another article: Relocation of agencies, Energy, Fisheries, Health, Academic, Migration, Scotland, Transport (subdivided for Aviation, Rail, Road traffic, Shipping), Bilateral relations (sub-divided for International agreements, Security, European Union, Border with the Republic of Ireland, Border with France, Gibraltar and Spain, Relations with CANZUK countries). Qexigator ( talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The title "Impact" in itself operates as tendentious rhetoric, unless explained in some npov way. Contributors (but not necessarily the ordinary reader) may be aware that, while Wikipedia has no article on "Impact statement", there are articles on Environmental impact statement / Environmental impact assessment, Victim impact statement and more generally Problem statement. Of the two Wiktionary [12] definitions, the second is the more relevant: "An analysis or study which describes the expected effects of a policy, project, or action being contemplated by a business or government organization." The article would be improved by changing the section heading to "Brexit impact analysis and comment".
A websearch on "Brexit impact analysis and comment" includes, for example, "Brexit Impact Studies" [13], published by EU, and a report "The Impact of Brexit on Birmingham and the West Midlands" [14]"commissioned and published by Birmingham City Council. Both of these are more in-depth, wide-ranging and informative than the narrowly focussed "peer reviewed" statistical article relying on IMF and BIS data. The Birmingham report (last update 21 November 2018) includes a well-reasoned review of the "Overall Context", making the point that "People need information not opinion" (p.5), and a section on "Public Sector Impact" (p.62).
In view of this and other comment above on this page, I propose to go ahead with re-arranging the text of the current version by re-grouping the existing text and sources under "Brexit impact analysis and comment", with subsections for "Affecting United Kingdom and European Union", "Mainly affecting United Kingdom", "Mainly affecting EU", and headings:
Qexigator ( talk) 17:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Done, with some tweaks. 09:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Now undone by another editor. [15] 19:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Given the now current version of the "Impacts" section, [16] should we reconsider moving parts of it to the other articles that cover the same topics, such as Brexit and the Irish border, Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit, Impact of Brexit on the European Union, Economic effects of Brexit? Qexigator ( talk) 06:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
All of the above, all of the sections, look only at economic impacts, the impact on migration. They do not consider the effect of not having the EU decide on what’s what in Britain any more. Therefore, the section will be glaringly incomplete. Is it necessary to follow the Remainers’ agenda in the structure and ignore the positive effect of the stripping away of control from Brussels? Boscaswell talk 01:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is Brexit on that date, Plus it said on ITV news© it will be on 31 october So its oR - RobloxFanEditor 02:08, 18 May 2019(UTC)
This is an example: “The growth of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 2010s and the influence of the cross-party People's Pledge campaign have been described as influential in bringing about a referendum.” True, of course, but it is only part of the reason. And stating the situation like that is overlooking the real reasons why over 50% voted Leave. It wasn’t just because of some campaigning, such an assertion is deeply insulting to the voting public. In the way it written is an implied suggestion that people only voted Leave because of some campaigning. Over time, people could see the ever-increasing encroachment on their lives and on democracy resulting from the succession of treaties, and the declared desire of many in the EU that it should become a European superstate. Everyone living in Britain knew this. Some were happy with that or wished to be unaware of it, but the majority weren’t. No doubt there’ll be those who think that this piece here is mere grandstanding. By all means think that if you want to, but we come back to what I say at the start, that it was far more than mere campaigning which had 51.7% people voting Leave. Boscaswell talk 00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change this line (4th paragraph from top of article):
"The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy.[a]"
to this:
"The broad consensus among economists is that 'if the UK left the EU and the single market' it would likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy.[a]"
The reason is that the survey the reference to the Independent article is based on did not ask the economists about 'Brexit' but that which I enclose in single quotes, and this is taken from the survey itself, which you may wish to link to. Whatever the article said, the actual findings of the survey have been garbled in the process resulting in inaccuracy, hence it is better to link back to the source, which is here: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/economists-views-brexit I'll leave it to your discretion on exactly how this is best formatted, but please do correct it as the meaning is wrong. 2.97.33.138 ( talk) 15:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sam
Sailor
16:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Would be quite interesting. -- BJforSR ( talk) 14:12, 8 June 2019 (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.
Should the following sentence be added to the section about Brexit's impact on the British financial sector: Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
According to a 2019 study, Brexit will adversely affect London-based financial institutions; by the most conservative estimate, FDI stocks will decline by 12% and foreign portfolio investments will decline by as much as 30%. [1]
The study in question is peer-reviewed. It is authored by the economists Barry Eichengreen (University of California, Berkeley), William Jungerman (University of Minnesota) and Mingyang Liu (University of Southern California).
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. And as a reminder that WP:CRYSTAL exists for a good reason, remember all the economists who said that the gov't shutdown would hurt the US economy? [20] How'd that turn out? Adoring nanny ( talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
by the most conservative estimatewhich is ambiguous (it is the most conservative estimate from that study, not overall), as well as tongue-in-cheek considering the politics of Brexit. Citing study bounds (between X and Y) would be acceptable if the study is one of the most prominent ones on the subject (I have no idea whether that is true, since I have no familiarity with the field). Tigraan Click here to contact me 06:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If I was from a country that has no dog in the ring over Brexit I would read the Impacts section and consider the British to be irrational for leaving because it is overwhelmingly negative with little to no positive aspects.
For a start the section is not balanced as the subsections tend to emphasize negative affects on Britain while not mentioning positive/negative effects on Europe. For example in the academic section it states "The UK received more from the European agencies and institutions for research than it financially contributed" then presumably that means more cash for research in other EU countries. Given a simple economic model of the market place without further explanation the two sentences in the fisheries section "Brexit would lead to higher prices in seafood for consumers (because the UK imports most of its seafood). British fishermen would be able to catch more fish, but the price for UK fish would decline." need more of an explanation. The section on security mentions the problems for Britain, but not for other European countries--for example Britain exporting troubles to other European countries as happened during The Troubles. [27] It also does not mention the advantages to Five Eyes of the reduction of European institutions oversight and potential meddling (eg as happen in 2000–2001 Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System).
If I was from a country that has no dog in the ring, then I may not be aware of the benefits that some consider to be worth the economic cost. It has been pointed out by several observers that many leavers were from those regions that were left behind economically and work in minimum wage jobs they just do not believe that things can get any worse, and so might get better. A second group are those who think that the economic costs are outweighed by the constitutional benefits as was shown in the recent YouGov poll of Tory members. [28] [29]
To understand this apparent turkeys voting for Christmas one has to include in the impact section the perceived non-economic benefits that accrue if Britain leaves in October 2019 as perceived by Leavers. If UK leaves without a deal, then the British government and Parliament recovers control of some areas of competence that have been ceded to EU institutions, for example the UK Supreme Court will become the Supreme Count of the land with citizens having no right to appeal to the European Court of Justice. There are others Such as MPs being able to hold HMG to account for all aspects of government, and it is that sort of thing that needs to be in the section on impacts if the section is to have a neutral presentation of the issue. -- PBS ( talk) 16:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Re
European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
When will the United Kingdom rejoin the EFTA after leaving the European Union? :/ --
62.63.238.25 (
talk)
18:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This is significant news: it effectively makes Labour a Remain party, with the Conservatives and Brexit Party as the Brexit parties. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I've opened a rename discussion at the above page which people may be interested in, to rename it to No-deal Brexit. FOARP ( talk) 08:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like Brexit will provide additional costs (€6.5m or £55.7m) for taxpayers, if ex-EMA's american tenant has to be paid €6.5m for the first year, as a result of the UK's decision to leave the bloc. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/22/wework-us-brexit-european-medicines-agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.251 ( talk) 19:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The court case R (Miller) v Secretary etc. is mentioned. But there is no word on who brought it - and why etc. (2001:16b8:5c53:ce00:c562:1456:9084:cae7 06:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In the event of a No Deal Brexit, UK aviation would seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British flyers." should be "In the event of a No Deal Brexit, UK aviation would be seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British flyers." 194.78.36.66 ( talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This line in the article "This was included in the Conservative Party manifesto for the election." should include a reference to the full text of the manifesto which should be most unbiased source of information, in addition to the two news media summaries already cited. [1]
79.97.229.225 ( talk) 12:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC) longtimereader1 13 August 2019
The German press translates Mr. Berkow's statement "...I will fight it with every bone in my body to stop that happening" [30] as 'er werde "bis zum zum letzten Atemzug kämpfen" and Der Spiegel even uses it as the filename of the page: john-bercow-kuendigt-boris-johnson-kampf-bis-zum-letzten-atemzug-an-a-1281808.html.
In everyday verbal usage this German phrase is meant without dark connotation but in written speech that connotation definitely looms in the background: The 1-1 English re-translation of the German press translation would be "fight to the last breath". I doubt that his original phrase has this connotation.
The 1-1 German translation of the original phrase would be "mit jedem Knochen meines Körpers" what is very uncommon in everyday usage. But I think that the common German phrase "mit Leib und Seele dafür streiten/kämpfen" (= "fight with heart and soul") is much closer to the English original. -- Moreevo ( talk) 07:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It is remarkable that this article contains such a biased piece of pro-Brexit propaganda right in its introduction. The truth is that the Withdrawal Agreement was drafted to avoid conflicts in Northern Ireland and that no backstop would mean a hard border and the return of The Troubles. A possible source for this is the Withdrawal Agreement itself, but I'm sure the editors of this article want to keep it this way: an unbalanced pro-Brexit propaganda piece. Rominator ( talk) 09:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
— preamble to the associated Treaty
A comprehensive trade agreement would be highly preferable to "lots of fantastic mini-deals". It would be bad if Britain would have to sign a series of mini-deals with the U.S., perhaps would even have to look from year to year. What is Boris Johnson willing to offer to get a comprehensive and lasting agreement, perhaps the Bermuda Islands and Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha and more leverage over the Strait of Gibraltar? Wouldn't that pale in comparison to the high-flying American Greenland deal plans? The backstop with a back-up stop (i.e. distant expiration date) would be in accordance to the vote and British and European needs. -- Moreevo ( talk) 12:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
When reading this article, I cannot find what the unilateral political declaration says. This is a weakness of this Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article of the withdrawal agreement suffers this same problem.
Nothaynes ( talk) 19:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
3 September: "A motion for an emergency debate to pass a bill that would rule out a unilateral no-deal Brexit by forcing the Government to reach an Agreement, get parliamentary approval for no-deal Brexit." Come again? Is that what it was? Nothing about forcing the PM to request another extension? 4 September: "The Benn Bill ..." what exactly is the Benn bill? Boscaswell talk 04:38, 9 September 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Any kind of polls made in 2019 that is related to Brexit, could and should be given a chapter here, I think. From the outside it's very difficult to understand what's going on in the House of Commons. Most of the Tory party MPs' vocabulary appears to have shrunken to one single word - "no". Watched a spot at France 24 in English, and solely based on that, it seems like ordinary people in the UK understand less and less. And during the last couple of weeks more or less nothing at all. Brexiters and remainers alike. Wouldn't the final outcome be a better subject for a referendum than the one held ? Any polls on that ? And where is that Nigel Farage now ? He said "it's just to negotiate" , but not even he could anticipate the problems to be inside the Parliament alone. Any modern polls on UKIP ? Boeing720 ( talk) 08:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, UK MPs aren't due to vote on whether to accept either of the extensions (12 April with no deal, 22 May with deal) offered by the EU Council on the evening of Thursday 21 March until after they have voted for a third time on whether to accept Theresa May's deal. Until that happens, the leave date is 29 March - and if they reject an extension it will stay as 29 March. -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
as set out in the letter from the Permanent Representative of the UK to the European Union, Sir Tim Barrow, of 22 March 2019, it has agreed, in accordance with Article 50(3) TEU, to the extension of the period referred to in that Article and to this decision,
Wednesday [27 March 2019]: ... MPs will also vote on changing the Brexit date in UK law from 29 March.and
Friday [29 March 2019]: This is written into law as the day the UK leaves the EU, although the PM has said she will pass legislation this week to remove it. The earliest Brexit is likely to happen is now 12 April.[5] -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
So, on 11 March, Octoberwoodland said the NPOV tag was unnecessary. Then, on 14 March, Octoberwoodland proposed removing the tag. 8 opposed (including me), 5 supported. On 17 March, the tag was removed, and Octoberwoodland closed the discussion (hatting it) saying that the UNBALANCED tag was more justified. It is not for a supporter of the status quo to make that decision. This itself is unneutral and unbalanced. I am not British and have no direct interest in Brexit, but this kind of editing shows why the NPOV is justified. There was no reason to remove the NPOV tag given that a majority supported it. The editing of the article should be open, and not controlled by a small group.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
all you need to do is register for a user name; or alternatively make an edit request on Wikipedia. 84.250.17.211 ( talk) 16:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
According to UK legislation it's "11.00 p.m. on 12th April 2019"; according to an EU website it's "13 April 2019, 00:00h (CET)". Because of daylight saving time, UK time will be UTC+01:00, which is the same as CET. Are these times GMT and CET, or BST and CEST? Peter James ( talk) 22:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like MPs might vote on the 8 options:
Those 8 options should appear on the "Read" page, with the number of MPs who voted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.83 ( talk) 19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Motion B states that the UK will leave the European Union without an agreement on April 12, according to the timetable set last week by European leaders.
- Motion D proposes a so-called "common market 2.0" agreement with accession to the European single market and customs arrangement.
- Motion H suggests that the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) and join the European Free Trade Agreement.
- Motion J proposes that the Brexit agreement include an undertaking to negotiate with the EU a permanent and comprehensive customs union covering the entire United Kingdom.
- Motion K takes up the Labor Party's plan, with customs union and close alignment on the single market.
- Motion L calls for a revocation of Article 50 (the triggering of which formally initiated the negotiations on the terms of the divorce) if Parliament does not consent to a Brexit without agreement, and therefore a cancellation of Brexit.
- Motion M asks for a confirmation referendum of any divorce agreement.
- Motion O suggests that the UK seek a "managed no-deal" (Brexit without a "managed" agreement) if it is not possible to find a divorce agreement
References
Can people stop reverting my edit when clearly I've replaced a image of a timeline where Brexit was set to happen March 29th (which it didn't) with a new timeline of Brexit happening April 12th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfodudeUK ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Taking into note the NPOV tag put on this article, I note that at current, the derogatory term "Remoaner" is included as a definition in the article in the terminology section, under "Remainer", yet the derogratory term, "Brextremist" is not. I propose, and would find it hard that the request could be denied given both a multitude of Reliable Sources demonstrating its wide usage and the former's inclusion, that Brextremist is hence included, and the definition for Leavers now read's as follows, also using the anchor "Leaver", which is far more common than "Brexiter":
References
UK must pay for French ports after Brexit, Macron to tell May. The Independent.
Brextremist bore Peter Bone's tea room hissy fit during a discussion of the details of Theresa May's bad plan confirmed that leaving is a religion for the headbangers' headbanger. As Tory colleagues discussed trade and the backstop, Bone-head startled MPs sitting nearby by raising his arms in the air and wailing: "I don't care. I don't care. I just want to leave."
Someone has absurdly put a note saying 'add information to correct the article' when of course, it's locked by its owners. This paragraph is biased: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing , [8][9][10] while pro-Europeanists , who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership." The correct term(s) are things like 'remain supporters/remainers and 'leave supporters/Brexit supporters/Brexiters/Brexiteers'. These are the sort of terms used by everybody, politicians, media, etc. Brexiters are pro-European and are not eurosceptic. 86.187.169.128 ( talk) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed [9] two tabloid sources (The Sun and the Daily Express) that had been used to support a description of the word "Remoaner". I added two reliable sources instead - an academic book by a university lecturer and two linguistics professors, and an Open University article - and I adjusted the text, as per those sources, so that it actually defined the term remoaner, rather than just saying who used it. The text was reverted by Railhis to again use The Sun as a source, with the definition of remoaner removed, and replaced by just a description of who uses the term ('sourced' to The Sun). The Sun is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and the article as edited by Railhis no longer defines the term remoaner - it just says it is derogatory, and used by "pro-Brexit media outlets". PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 10:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Remain + -tard (prefix + suffix not a blend)
use that code above, it works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:D800:F438:E7DC:ABB6:BA1 ( talk) 15:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British from the European Union. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash ( talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose that sections Domestic impact on the United Kingdom and Impact of Brexit on bilateral UK relations be split into a separate page called Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom. The current page seems WP:TOOBIG and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Emass100 ( talk) 18:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Surprised that this has not come up on the talk page before, evidently. Shouldn't there be a definition of Lexit in the " Terminology and etymology" section? I'm speaking as an American with an outside (but avidly interested) perspective on UK politics but, even from across the pond, it seems like the term has currency in the Brexit discourse and would be worth defining. It follows from the phrase in the lead: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing". The page Lexit currently redirects to Withdrawal from the European Union, which leads me to suspect the term "Lexit" may be used in national contexts beyond the UK (after all, any EU nation could in theory have a "left exit" of its own); nevertheless, it seems worth defining in the UK context on this page. Thoughts? — BLZ · talk 06:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
new dates need to be changed as well as old Mahri8 ( talk) 15:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add in why leavers are also referred to as Quitlings? Is it linked to Quislings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 ( talk) 13:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add in a section and find out what happened to this>
50 pence Brexit celebration coin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 ( talk) 13:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change X (While serving as Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab said the UK will not pay the financial settlement to the EU in a no-deal scenario.[21] The UK Government's estimate of the financial settlement in March 2019 is £38 billion.[22]) to Y (If the UK were to strike a no-deal with the European Union over Brexit, they would be due to pay a financial settlement of £38 billion. Although, Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab has come out and said that the UK will not pay the financial settlement if this were to occur. Johnatela ( talk) 14:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a lengthy discussion last month in March about a tag for the article to indicate that concerns had been expressed among various editors. The editor John Maynard Friedman stated on 17 March 2019: "Being bold, I have changed the tag from template:npov to Template:Unbalanced because IMO the latter is a better reflection of the dispute within Wikipedia terms."
A month later, I don't think the dispute within Wikipedia terms has yet been resolved. Indeed, there is nothing in the talk page archive or in the current talk page to state that the various editors who expressed concerns are now happy that the issues have been settled. Therefore, until there's a consensus that the issues have been resolved, I'm restoring the Template:Unbalanced tag which was removed from the article on 19 April 2019 (UK time). Regards, Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing, while pro-Europeanists, who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership and maintaining the customs union and single market, with Labour Party leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn citing that the UK economy will experience a recession and lack stability if the UK leaves the EU's single market. [1]
The Brexit Minister, Stephen Barclay, has stated that leaving the EU single market and customs union would allow the UK to craft and enter into it's own free trade agreements with both the EU and other countries and long term would benefit the UK by removing trade limitations and releasing the UK of contractual obligations related to a variety of EU related trade agreements imposed by the EU on its members. [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
I haven't been checking this page too often, but I'm not sure what has happened to this discussion; my understanding is that the biased tag (later unbalanced tag) was placed on the article in response to concerns expressed of a lack of leave arguments, not a lack of remain ones. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 07:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
There are so many pro- and anti-Brexit political arguments, and these examples don't properly reflect them at all. Furthermore, the pro-Brexit argument was dumped in behind text noting that there's an economic consensus that the economic impact will be adverse, so the text is used to rebut this consensus. So, the solution is to add two-three sentences that concisely summarize the pro- and anti-Brexit arguments, and not use it to impugn the academic assessments. It could go something like this (this is poorly written but just sketched out here as an example): "Opponents and supporters of Brexit disagree as to the economic effects of Brexit. Supporters of Brexit emphasize what they consider to be a surrender of sovereignty to the EU, and opposition to overreach by the EU. Remainers emphasize the economic and political stability of continuing EU membership, arguing that departure from the EU leaves Britain weaker and poorer." Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Article says, "The Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, pledged during the campaign for the 2015 UK General Election to hold a new referendum—a promise which he fulfilled in 2016 . . . ." [Emphasis mine.] Was there an old referendum? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 17:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC))
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the wording of the phrase "These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit." to "These estimates differ depending on whether the UK exits the EU with a "hard Brexit" or "soft Brexit" or similar to fit with the grammar used in the surrounding paragraphs.
The phrase can be found in the section Impact>On the United Kingdom>In the long term KermitTheFish ( talk) 20:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Please" should be deleted from the 'Customs Union' section of 'Terminology and etymology'. "Please see" does not belong in an encyclopaedia article. 71.235.184.247 ( talk) 23:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Article states (with no immediate citation),
References
An editor removed a peer-reviewed May 2019 study authored by Barry Eichengreen about Brexit's impact on financial institutions, with the ludicrous suggestion that the study is somehow unreliable. [10] The study should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not an article about the economic impacts of Brexit, or the predicted economic impacts of Brexit. It is a broad-scope article that should briefly cover all pertinent aspects of Brexit, which, as has been stated on this page before, is not just an economic phenomenon. There is already a paragraph in the article about predicted effects on the financial sector, given in broad brush strokes. There does not need to be an additional sentence that quotes estimated figures on one specific aspect, particularly as there are sub-articles that are more suited to greater depth of coverage. The study that was added deals with estimates and predictions; the study abstract states it "provides a survey of the still limited literature on EU membership and international capital flows" and "provides new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment" and concludes that "the impact on cross-border capital flows to and from the UK is likely to be substantial" (my emphases). I have not suggested that the study is somehow unreliable, but that it deals with estimates. I do not believe there is justification for such additional estimates in a broad-scope article that already mentions general predictions about the financial sector. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 00:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
[2] - Here is a free access link to the document in question. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 05:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
References
The section on Impact is sub-divided into "On the United Kingdom" and "On the European Union". These are treated asymmetrically.
"On UK" starts with a disproportionate and tendentious discussion of "Economic effects" subdivided into "Immediate", "In the long term" and "In the short term", followed by "Inequality" (from economic pov) and "Financial sector" (from financial services pov). These headings are not used in the EU part of this section. The reciprocal effects for UK being free from EU "Structure and budget" are not discussed.
The result is that the information about all these forecasts or assessments is unbalanced, as between the negotiating parties, and inherently NPOV unreliable, perhaps tending to polemical.
The UK section continues with sub-headings for information about topics which affect reciprocally both UK and EU, and would mostly be better presented if treated as such in a single UK and EU section, or another article: Relocation of agencies, Energy, Fisheries, Health, Academic, Migration, Scotland, Transport (subdivided for Aviation, Rail, Road traffic, Shipping), Bilateral relations (sub-divided for International agreements, Security, European Union, Border with the Republic of Ireland, Border with France, Gibraltar and Spain, Relations with CANZUK countries). Qexigator ( talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The title "Impact" in itself operates as tendentious rhetoric, unless explained in some npov way. Contributors (but not necessarily the ordinary reader) may be aware that, while Wikipedia has no article on "Impact statement", there are articles on Environmental impact statement / Environmental impact assessment, Victim impact statement and more generally Problem statement. Of the two Wiktionary [12] definitions, the second is the more relevant: "An analysis or study which describes the expected effects of a policy, project, or action being contemplated by a business or government organization." The article would be improved by changing the section heading to "Brexit impact analysis and comment".
A websearch on "Brexit impact analysis and comment" includes, for example, "Brexit Impact Studies" [13], published by EU, and a report "The Impact of Brexit on Birmingham and the West Midlands" [14]"commissioned and published by Birmingham City Council. Both of these are more in-depth, wide-ranging and informative than the narrowly focussed "peer reviewed" statistical article relying on IMF and BIS data. The Birmingham report (last update 21 November 2018) includes a well-reasoned review of the "Overall Context", making the point that "People need information not opinion" (p.5), and a section on "Public Sector Impact" (p.62).
In view of this and other comment above on this page, I propose to go ahead with re-arranging the text of the current version by re-grouping the existing text and sources under "Brexit impact analysis and comment", with subsections for "Affecting United Kingdom and European Union", "Mainly affecting United Kingdom", "Mainly affecting EU", and headings:
Qexigator ( talk) 17:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Done, with some tweaks. 09:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Now undone by another editor. [15] 19:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Given the now current version of the "Impacts" section, [16] should we reconsider moving parts of it to the other articles that cover the same topics, such as Brexit and the Irish border, Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit, Impact of Brexit on the European Union, Economic effects of Brexit? Qexigator ( talk) 06:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
All of the above, all of the sections, look only at economic impacts, the impact on migration. They do not consider the effect of not having the EU decide on what’s what in Britain any more. Therefore, the section will be glaringly incomplete. Is it necessary to follow the Remainers’ agenda in the structure and ignore the positive effect of the stripping away of control from Brussels? Boscaswell talk 01:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is Brexit on that date, Plus it said on ITV news© it will be on 31 october So its oR - RobloxFanEditor 02:08, 18 May 2019(UTC)
This is an example: “The growth of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 2010s and the influence of the cross-party People's Pledge campaign have been described as influential in bringing about a referendum.” True, of course, but it is only part of the reason. And stating the situation like that is overlooking the real reasons why over 50% voted Leave. It wasn’t just because of some campaigning, such an assertion is deeply insulting to the voting public. In the way it written is an implied suggestion that people only voted Leave because of some campaigning. Over time, people could see the ever-increasing encroachment on their lives and on democracy resulting from the succession of treaties, and the declared desire of many in the EU that it should become a European superstate. Everyone living in Britain knew this. Some were happy with that or wished to be unaware of it, but the majority weren’t. No doubt there’ll be those who think that this piece here is mere grandstanding. By all means think that if you want to, but we come back to what I say at the start, that it was far more than mere campaigning which had 51.7% people voting Leave. Boscaswell talk 00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change this line (4th paragraph from top of article):
"The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy.[a]"
to this:
"The broad consensus among economists is that 'if the UK left the EU and the single market' it would likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy.[a]"
The reason is that the survey the reference to the Independent article is based on did not ask the economists about 'Brexit' but that which I enclose in single quotes, and this is taken from the survey itself, which you may wish to link to. Whatever the article said, the actual findings of the survey have been garbled in the process resulting in inaccuracy, hence it is better to link back to the source, which is here: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/economists-views-brexit I'll leave it to your discretion on exactly how this is best formatted, but please do correct it as the meaning is wrong. 2.97.33.138 ( talk) 15:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sam
Sailor
16:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Would be quite interesting. -- BJforSR ( talk) 14:12, 8 June 2019 (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.
Should the following sentence be added to the section about Brexit's impact on the British financial sector: Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
According to a 2019 study, Brexit will adversely affect London-based financial institutions; by the most conservative estimate, FDI stocks will decline by 12% and foreign portfolio investments will decline by as much as 30%. [1]
The study in question is peer-reviewed. It is authored by the economists Barry Eichengreen (University of California, Berkeley), William Jungerman (University of Minnesota) and Mingyang Liu (University of Southern California).
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. And as a reminder that WP:CRYSTAL exists for a good reason, remember all the economists who said that the gov't shutdown would hurt the US economy? [20] How'd that turn out? Adoring nanny ( talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
by the most conservative estimatewhich is ambiguous (it is the most conservative estimate from that study, not overall), as well as tongue-in-cheek considering the politics of Brexit. Citing study bounds (between X and Y) would be acceptable if the study is one of the most prominent ones on the subject (I have no idea whether that is true, since I have no familiarity with the field). Tigraan Click here to contact me 06:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If I was from a country that has no dog in the ring over Brexit I would read the Impacts section and consider the British to be irrational for leaving because it is overwhelmingly negative with little to no positive aspects.
For a start the section is not balanced as the subsections tend to emphasize negative affects on Britain while not mentioning positive/negative effects on Europe. For example in the academic section it states "The UK received more from the European agencies and institutions for research than it financially contributed" then presumably that means more cash for research in other EU countries. Given a simple economic model of the market place without further explanation the two sentences in the fisheries section "Brexit would lead to higher prices in seafood for consumers (because the UK imports most of its seafood). British fishermen would be able to catch more fish, but the price for UK fish would decline." need more of an explanation. The section on security mentions the problems for Britain, but not for other European countries--for example Britain exporting troubles to other European countries as happened during The Troubles. [27] It also does not mention the advantages to Five Eyes of the reduction of European institutions oversight and potential meddling (eg as happen in 2000–2001 Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System).
If I was from a country that has no dog in the ring, then I may not be aware of the benefits that some consider to be worth the economic cost. It has been pointed out by several observers that many leavers were from those regions that were left behind economically and work in minimum wage jobs they just do not believe that things can get any worse, and so might get better. A second group are those who think that the economic costs are outweighed by the constitutional benefits as was shown in the recent YouGov poll of Tory members. [28] [29]
To understand this apparent turkeys voting for Christmas one has to include in the impact section the perceived non-economic benefits that accrue if Britain leaves in October 2019 as perceived by Leavers. If UK leaves without a deal, then the British government and Parliament recovers control of some areas of competence that have been ceded to EU institutions, for example the UK Supreme Court will become the Supreme Count of the land with citizens having no right to appeal to the European Court of Justice. There are others Such as MPs being able to hold HMG to account for all aspects of government, and it is that sort of thing that needs to be in the section on impacts if the section is to have a neutral presentation of the issue. -- PBS ( talk) 16:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Re
European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
When will the United Kingdom rejoin the EFTA after leaving the European Union? :/ --
62.63.238.25 (
talk)
18:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This is significant news: it effectively makes Labour a Remain party, with the Conservatives and Brexit Party as the Brexit parties. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I've opened a rename discussion at the above page which people may be interested in, to rename it to No-deal Brexit. FOARP ( talk) 08:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like Brexit will provide additional costs (€6.5m or £55.7m) for taxpayers, if ex-EMA's american tenant has to be paid €6.5m for the first year, as a result of the UK's decision to leave the bloc. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/22/wework-us-brexit-european-medicines-agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.251 ( talk) 19:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The court case R (Miller) v Secretary etc. is mentioned. But there is no word on who brought it - and why etc. (2001:16b8:5c53:ce00:c562:1456:9084:cae7 06:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In the event of a No Deal Brexit, UK aviation would seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British flyers." should be "In the event of a No Deal Brexit, UK aviation would be seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British flyers." 194.78.36.66 ( talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This line in the article "This was included in the Conservative Party manifesto for the election." should include a reference to the full text of the manifesto which should be most unbiased source of information, in addition to the two news media summaries already cited. [1]
79.97.229.225 ( talk) 12:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC) longtimereader1 13 August 2019
The German press translates Mr. Berkow's statement "...I will fight it with every bone in my body to stop that happening" [30] as 'er werde "bis zum zum letzten Atemzug kämpfen" and Der Spiegel even uses it as the filename of the page: john-bercow-kuendigt-boris-johnson-kampf-bis-zum-letzten-atemzug-an-a-1281808.html.
In everyday verbal usage this German phrase is meant without dark connotation but in written speech that connotation definitely looms in the background: The 1-1 English re-translation of the German press translation would be "fight to the last breath". I doubt that his original phrase has this connotation.
The 1-1 German translation of the original phrase would be "mit jedem Knochen meines Körpers" what is very uncommon in everyday usage. But I think that the common German phrase "mit Leib und Seele dafür streiten/kämpfen" (= "fight with heart and soul") is much closer to the English original. -- Moreevo ( talk) 07:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It is remarkable that this article contains such a biased piece of pro-Brexit propaganda right in its introduction. The truth is that the Withdrawal Agreement was drafted to avoid conflicts in Northern Ireland and that no backstop would mean a hard border and the return of The Troubles. A possible source for this is the Withdrawal Agreement itself, but I'm sure the editors of this article want to keep it this way: an unbalanced pro-Brexit propaganda piece. Rominator ( talk) 09:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
— preamble to the associated Treaty
A comprehensive trade agreement would be highly preferable to "lots of fantastic mini-deals". It would be bad if Britain would have to sign a series of mini-deals with the U.S., perhaps would even have to look from year to year. What is Boris Johnson willing to offer to get a comprehensive and lasting agreement, perhaps the Bermuda Islands and Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha and more leverage over the Strait of Gibraltar? Wouldn't that pale in comparison to the high-flying American Greenland deal plans? The backstop with a back-up stop (i.e. distant expiration date) would be in accordance to the vote and British and European needs. -- Moreevo ( talk) 12:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
When reading this article, I cannot find what the unilateral political declaration says. This is a weakness of this Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article of the withdrawal agreement suffers this same problem.
Nothaynes ( talk) 19:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
3 September: "A motion for an emergency debate to pass a bill that would rule out a unilateral no-deal Brexit by forcing the Government to reach an Agreement, get parliamentary approval for no-deal Brexit." Come again? Is that what it was? Nothing about forcing the PM to request another extension? 4 September: "The Benn Bill ..." what exactly is the Benn bill? Boscaswell talk 04:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)