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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I am having my edit reverted by Snooganssnoogans. (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brexit&type=revision&diff=914920611&oldid=914889830) It introduces some info about a survey by the Central Bank of Ireland (a rather notable establishment, I suggest), which in essence says that the impact of Brexit on London's financial sector could be pretty small. No problem with that, eh? Apparently there is. There was a contentious edit to this same subsection (see /info/en/?search=Talk:Brexit/Archive_8#Peer-reviewed_research_about_Brexit_impact_on_financial_institutions) about the mention of a survey which looked at something different, though still related to financial matters: it looked at the impact on share values. Not an economic impact, directly. The arguments against its inclusion were 1. that it cost $39.95 to see it and therefore shouldn't be cited, 2. that there was already a survey mentioned that talked of the impact on the financial sector (though the one being argued about was not really that), 3. that there was already far too much detail in the article (true!) and 4. something about it being peer-reviewed, which frankly is a silly argument, but which caused ripples. Eventually the edit in of that article was allowed, or so it says on the Talk page ref. I've quoted. (I can't see the RS noticeboard discussion as there's no link to it.)
The point I wish to make is this. Yes, there are a lot of surveys and forecasts mentioned in the article. But the one I want to have included actually puts Brexit in a "not so bad after all" light, whereas the others mentioned in this particular subsection are all negative to Brexit. Looking at other discussions in this Talk page it's fairly obvious that there is significant resistance by an editor or two to including anything which isn't negative about Brexit. (There have been several instances lately of edits introducing material which isn't negative about Brexit being instantly reverted pretty damned quickly, without any Talk discussion before doing so. This is another one.) But wait! Isn't the ideal that Wikipedia should be fair, should be balanced? I would like that, too, but I'm having difficulty in doing what I can to make it so. So please, other editors, what about it?
Octoberwoodland, PaleCloudedWhite, Asarlaí, Knox490, Kind Tennis Fan...you may be interested in this - I cordially invite your participation. Please Support, or otherwise, my edit. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 04:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The disputed edit regarding the bank survey has actually been hideously misrepresented, and attempting to use it to "balance" concerns about a post-brexit UK economy stops making sense the moment you read the actual study and not just the press release. While the inclusion of this study in Wikipedia was used to argue, approximately, "Early estimates predicted [bad stuff]; however, a new study predicts the financial industry will be okay," what the authors are really concluding is that London's GFCI ranking will barely change, reflecting that it will remain one of the world's most competitive global financial centers, even if 20% of its clients flee the country and/or the economy contracts by 3.8%. They do not present any new estimates for how the UK will fare with or without brexit, aside from using ad hoc models to interrogate their method. Otherwise they rely on a 2016 estimate published in Economic Modelling. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this should be in the Timeline: "The European Union Referendum Act was passed in the House of Commons on 7 September 2015." Inclusion is needed, because, in part, the economy of the UK started to change about a month or so after that, with a distinct decline in the value of the pound on world markets, declining slowly up to a precipitous drop in value on the day after the Referendum, and never recovered since. Thus, the date that it was announced is important, since it appears to have fairly quickly influenced confidence in the UK economy and the value of the pound. The date of announcemnet is inextricably linked to the changes that are still unfolding today. Pound value --> https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-effective-exchange-rates/GBP-history#charts
If you look at the official results: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum
It clearly states:
51.9% Leave, 48.1% Remain
Rounding up 51.9% to 52% is incorrect. Rounding down 48.1% to 48% is incorrect.
Wikipedia should ensure the official results are reported.
Please amend the article to reflect this.
Thanks -- JayDv ( talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have tagged the article as needing POV checking on the lede. At present, the lede only covers and addresses the negative aspects of brexit. It needs to also address the positive aspects, which are lacking in the article. Numerous editors have stated they feel this article is biased and that the lede needs more balanced content. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 22:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I added some of the most basic and obvious effects of leaving the EU, which should have been in the lead long ago, but Snooganssnoogans has removed them. They removed the following:
That isn't speculation, it's the law. It's in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, a law passed by the UK parliament that will come into effect once the UK leaves the EU. There are plenty of reliable sources for it, but here is the one I used. Are there any sources which contradict it?
That's reliably sourced to this UK parliament briefing paper (altho many other sources could be used), which says this will happen whether there's a withdrawal agreement or not. It's also already noted in the article. Are there any sources which contradict it?
That's reliably sourced to here (altho again many other sources could be used), which notes the UK will no longer have to make yearly contributions to the EU budget, but may pay for participation in specific programs, should it so choose. It's also already noted in the article. Are there any sources which contradict it?
Snooganssnoogans removed these things because of the mistaken belief that they "depend on what kind of Brexit there is". Yet they didn't remove the negative economic forecasts from the lead, even tho these really do depend on the kind of Brexit, and the lead itself says this. We can't remove things which are certain while keeping things which are forecasts. ~ Asarlaí 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I've
added the content to the article (under
"Law and courts"), as I'd intended to do, and
re-added it to the lead as follows:
"Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, EU law and the EU Court of Justice will no longer have supremacy over UK law or its Supreme Court after withdrawal, and the UK could amend or repeal EU laws it has retained."
But now Snoogans is reverting it again because we "cannot include this without also including that softer versions of Brexit (e.g. EEA membership) would force the UK to adopt EU law". However, currently the UK is due to leave the EEA, and the Withdrawal Act is due to come into force. So Snoogans is preventing this being added to the lead because things *might* change, even tho it's the law and there are no hints of things changing. By Snoogans logic, we should also remove the forecasts and speculation about migration/education/security from the lead because they could change. Are there any recent reliable sources saying the UK is seeking EEA membership? ~ Asarlaí 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a problem with the last sentence, which is an extraordinary claim, and such requires extraordinary sources, or better attribution to Barnard. I have added that to the body now. But overall the part in the lead about law is clearly the result of an content dispute, and are too long because everybody wanted their part to be included for balance. I suggest it is replaces by the following sentence:
I don't really know if the withdrawal agreement should be included, because I don't really know to what scope EU law and ECJ will still have jurisdiction if and if not the backstop comes into force. But we can always fix that later. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 09:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I have now implemented this. The wording is slightly modified from what is written above. Most notably, I choose to leave out the comment on trade agreements, as this is WP:CRYSTAL. I have added the IfG-report to the body, as this is used in the lead. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 00:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Instead you should add a counterbalancing quote: please read and follow WP:ACHIEVE NPOV
I believe that this article should be given more protection, as it is very contrevertial. Lbc07 ( talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I know this is not the place for it but I don't have the "status" to correct this little irritating grammar error..."not agreed a trade agreement before the end of the transition period" Can someone please correct it and delete my comment? Tx Much obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Hugot ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Text has been added to article about "trusted traders schemes and using GPS to track lorries" to deal with the problems caused by the border between N-Ireland and Ireland. These "solutions" are explicitly attributed to "Brexit supporters" in the cited source, with the EU explicitly saying that these solutions are not operational. In other words, this is just more fringe pro-Brexit propaganda that is being repeatedly inserted into the article without attribution, without balance and without discussion. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The lead has a paragraph which reads:"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."
According to Investopedia: "Long term refers to the extended period of time that an asset is held. Depending on the type of security, a long-term asset can be held for as little as one year or for as long as 30 years or more. Generally speaking, long-term investing for individuals is often thought to be in the range of at least seven to ten years of holding time, although there is no absolute rule." [4]
First of all, economists have a poor record of predicting recessions, etc. According to the leading business website Bloomberg.com: "In 1966, four years before securing the Nobel Prize for economics, Paul Samuelson quipped that declines in U.S. stock prices had correctly predicted nine of the last five American recessions. His profession would kill for such accuracy. With recession talk returning to haunt financial markets and the corridors of central banks, a review of the past suggests that those who are paid to call turning points in economic growth have a dismal record. Unlike the stock market, they’re more likely to miss recessions than to predict ones that never occur. The lowlight, of course, was the widespread failure to forecast America’s Great Recession, which began in December 2007—nine months before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy." [5] So the consensus of economists is rather dubious in value. Economics is still a social science and it is rightly often called the "dysmal science".
Second, economists are not political scientists and they have no idea if the European Union will even last 5 years. In much of Europe and the world at large, the populist right is growing at a substantial clip. [6] [7] And even if economists were political scientists, most political scientists failed to predict Brexit would happen. The Economist states about the original Brexit related vote: "The same is true of the Brexit vote, albeit over a shorter time period. For the vast majority of the campaign, both polls and markets had "remain" with a solid lead." [8] Knox490 ( talk) 16:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
"Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Russia will destroy the European Union, according to a chief Brexit negotiator in Brussels. Guy Verhofstadt has told The Times the rise of populism and the far-right could bring down the Union by 2024 if they cannot be replaced by a 'new vision of the EU'." [9]
If the EU dissolves by 2024, the whole argument that Brexit will cause long term economic damage is certainly compromised. Knox490 ( talk) 05:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Knox490: Pray that Mr. Imgauw (In-my-great-and-unmatched-wisdom) won't get a 2nd term. Look what the dealing was with Ukraine and how the Istanbul towers played out. Post Brexit Britain would degrade to a vassal state and eventually sold out for three towers. -- Moreevo ( talk) 20:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This Brexit article is biased. It breaks Wikipedia's NPOV (see: WP:NPOV) policy.
Where are the potential long term benefits of Brexit in the article? And why aren't they in the lead of the article?
Switzerland is not part of the European Union and here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's Economy of Switzerland article: "The economy of Switzerland is one of the world's most advanced free market economies. The service sector has come to play a significant economic role, particularly the Swiss banking industry and tourism. The economy of Switzerland ranks first in the world in the 2015 Global Innovation Index and the 2017 Global Competitiveness Report. According to United Nations data for 2016, Switzerland is the third richest landlocked country in the world after Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, and together with the latter and Norway the only three countries in the world with a GDP per capita above US$70,000 that are neither island nations nor ministates." Knox490 ( talk) 02:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't directly stand in the iraq war spalt that (The war itself is largely considered to be bad) Or Britains decision to join the Eu was really good in financial terms. Or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland are the only nations in western Europe. Not paying a ton of taxes to poor economies in East Europe and Southern Europe in development aid and agricultural aid. And having higher GDP per capita than most other western European countries that is a member of Eu. Netherland, France, Belgium etcetera all have lower GDP per capita than Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and Norway. Only Ireland and Luxembourg has a higher Gdp per capita in the Eu than Norway and Switzerland. source /info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Maybe something to mention. Maybe the free market and free movement could outweigh the cost but still something to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.125.89 ( talk) 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph is now clearly out of date, at a minimum this sentence needs corrected; "In order for such an extension to be granted if it is requested by the Prime Minister, it would be necessary for there to be unanimous agreement by all other heads of EU governments.", since the "UK" and the Prime Minister have both sent letters (one a request for the extension, which Donald Tusk has also advised be acceeded to, and a personal one in which Boris Johnson says he doesn't want an extension (which may be found in contempt of court, depending on the government's response to the EU's response, in the Inner Court of Session in Edinburgh)). I suppose this is all in the air though but the current sentence as written above is now inaccurate and will stay so for the rest of history.
I, apparently, am not allowed to fix any of this. Apologies for your opaque editting permission system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.125.41.18 ( talk) 02:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A new Brexit deal has been agreed in principle and awaits to be signed off by both the UK and the EU. 80.192.117.201 ( talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see a section on the attitude of the EU itself on Brexit, particularly:
1 the attitude of various member states before the 2016 referendum; 2 the appointment of Barnier, a well-known anglophobe, as 'negotiator' (e.g. why was it not a Dane, or a Bulgarian?); 3 the fact that JC Juncker and G Verhofstadt have never expressed any regret that the UK is to leave the EU; 4 the conspiracy theory that the EU may well have deliberately planned to provoke Brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 ( talk) 22:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I am seeking consensus to add a countdown to the current Brexit date at the top of the article since agreement could not be reached through editing alone. I think that since this is an article about a scheduled event, everyone entering this article should see on the top how much time left till brexit will happen, without having to scroll down and search for the information in the article.
Thank you for your time, The Very Best Editor ( talk) 16:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Can we add the Nutshell template to this article? We could be writing about this for years to come! Something like this:
This page in a nutshell: Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithr32 ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
That article is literally a copy of the impact section, with Asarlaí even porting content there to keep them in sync. We should not have the same content two places, so either we should delete the other article, or we should split the section out in its own article, and only leave a summary here. I propose that we split, because of several reasons. One is length. This article is already >100kb prose size, which means that it per WP:SIZERULE "Almost certainly should be divided". I know that there are other parts of the article that really need trimming, but the impact section alone is 33 Kb. In addition, it seems like it is the the only other high-level Brexit topic that does not have its own sub-article. I think it will be a good idea to give it one, considering that Brexit have not even happened yet. The only negative thing I have to say about a split, is that we have to write a good high-level summary about the impact. What do others think? ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 00:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I have gone ahead and done this. As it stands now, it is a wall of text, as there is no subsections, but I feel there should not be any, as it goes against the concept of it being a summary. I would say that it needs to be about 2/3 of the current length, but trimming is hard. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 02:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
We can not expect anybody to make sense of this unfolding and infinite essay on the subject. Keep the issue concise and current - as opposed to an on-going narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.171 ( talk) 15:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In the "Timeline" section, I have edited the content under the 2020 entry at 31 January 2020] as that is only the current deadline for the UK to leave the EU with a Brexit agreement, and unrelated to any negotiations of any "trade deals" that may follow. And that Brexit agreement has to be ratified by the UK parliament by then. If the agreement is not ratified by then, the default position would be a no-deal Brexit on that date. Of course the UK could ask the EC to agree another extension, but they would have to ask for that first, and that need hasn't yet arisen. If the UK does leave on, or before, the 31 January 2020, then "trade deals" would need to be negotiated, but that is a separate issue. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Now that the election is over, I suggest the editors should allow the rest of us to "take back control" and fix the Brexit article. Over the past 2 years the editors have simply been fighting with each other along tribal lines, and do not seem to have the skills or resources or inclination to remove mistakes and include important information such as from David Cameron's published memoir. Tribal Editors, please realise that this job is too big for you to handle. And you have nothing to gain now that the political decisions have been taken. It needs the whole Wikipedia community to make this article great again. If you block us for too long, then people's memories and interest will fade, and an opportunity to document an important milestone in history will have been lost to Wikipedia. May a Christmas miracle happen and you will have a change of heart. 86.172.133.200 ( talk) 10:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It's best to keep the article protected, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 20:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The editor DeFacto has decided to continue with the war on peer-reviewed research by arguing that academic studies are not reliable sources, in clear contradiction to what WP:RS says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." I restored the long-standing version of the article text (because he has no consensus to bully his anti-intellectual changes into the article). That leaves one recently peer-reviewed study out [12]: a 2019 study in the American Journal of Public Health [13], which linked regions that experienced increases in suicides and drug-related deaths to support for Leave in the Brexit vote. This is pertinent info, published in arguably the top public health journal, and should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
In this section, we discuss prominent hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the EU referendum result and how we try to capture them in our empirical analysis."
The advantage of this particular dataset is not only the impressive sample size (30,895 respondents), but also the number of variables included in the questionnaire that allows us to investigate all of the hypothesized factors.
The Brexit referendum confronted British voters with a choice that could have profound consequences for the British economy in a context of high uncertainty. Drawing on important lessons from prospect theory, I argue that citizens who were in the domain of economic losses were more likely to take a risk and vote in favor of Brexit. On the contrary, I hold that citizens who were in the domain of economic gains tended to be more risk averse and were more likely to support ‘Remain’ in the referendum. Using data from several waves of the British Election Study 2014–2019 Internet Panel, I find strong support for these theoretical expectations."
I started this discussion on the RS noticeboard. [14] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I have now addressed the OR-issues raised by Slatersteven, which I do believe is the same as the one the DeFacto originally raised, even though I must say that I am a bit confused at this point. I have placed a sentence in a failed verification span, because there needs to be looked into what exactly the sources say here, and it appeared to be a bit complicated. Snooganssnoogans, you are good at studies, can you help here? Also I would say that those suicide and drug studies can be included with attribution, so we avoid saying that all research say that this is the case. DeFacto, if you have more issues, could you please be very specific what text you are having problems with, that makes everything much easier. ― Hebsen ( talk) 23:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The timeline have become messy and very large, especially the second half of the 2019 section, as it have been the go-to place for updates and contains a lot of recentism. I am wondering whether we should trim it so it is only contains major events, or we should split it out to another page (Timeline of Brexit), and then make a new one with the most important events. What do other think? ― Hebsen ( talk) 23:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Aint here yet, thus I would argue it is best not to have a timeline that has not yet happened. The government may have said X, that does not mean X will occur (after all this is the umpteenth final last, final last time). Slatersteven ( talk) 19:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Brexit was the withdrawal 78.86.138.0 ( talk) 18:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
H Wojciech G ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
If we left the EU then we have to still follow their rules!?Why do we even have to follow them if we left the Eu and I think their 'ONLY EU RULES' but why do we need them if we are not in the EU!?? Wojciech G ( talk) 22:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The Brexit articles should be consistent with the fact that the UK has ceased to be a member of the EU as a result of a ratified treaty, and by the same treaty continues under some major treaty obligations previously incurred as a member, subject to further negotiations in the period up to the end of this year. It is no part of Wikipedia articles to discuss the political or other merits of the situation, unless it is part of a public debate which can be reported on the basis of reliable sources. Qexigator ( talk) 23:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Just wondering if this article needs to be updated/merged with other related articles to reflect current events? Wagnerp16 ( talk) 18:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Time to replace present tenses with past tense forms throughout. 109.245.38.9 ( talk) 11:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
What actual evidence (data) is there for the following statement other than generalizations? Is this statement simply an opinion? How does the linked article related to the arts sector verify this claim? UK is leaving in a few days, so it's irrelevant - but still, "Wiki-misinformation"?
Ringo Starr in favour of Brexit. Dame Joan Collins too. This "section" could present both sides, since NOT ALL people within arts, aside from the few asked in a questionnaire which was then used to represent every person in arts, are against Brexit.
This section should be a balanced reflection of both sides within the sector rather than simply linking to an opinion poll.
"Brexit has inspired many creative works, such as murals, sculptures, novels, plays, movies and video games. The response of British artists and writers to Brexit has in general been negative, reflecting a reported overwhelming percentage of people involved in Britain's creative industries voting against leaving the European Union." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.131 ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Is a derogatisation. The article euroscepticism says it can mean opposition to EU institutions, policies, reforms, membership... it literally says there is a spectrum type "range". It's a bag for opposition of all forms in any detail. It gives the impression that complainers do not have the basis of complaint, but simply wish to be sceptical. I'm not sure if anyone is going to accept that fact, but such labels are boomerangs since ancient times. Allow people to collectivise on their own terms, or by something which endears you to them, or caveat emptor. ~ R. T. G 18:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please help: I am trying to find out whether the Withdrawal Agreement (e.g. divorce payments to EU) comes into force automatically on Dec 31, or whether its requirements are contingent on agreement of a future UK-EU relationship ("nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"). Please point me towards a Wikipedia article where the Brexit agreements are explained in context. Also, I propose you place a link into the article header to allow readers to access that information quickly without having to read all the "ideological padding" in the present article. 31.4.130.77 ( talk) 12:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Now that Brexit happened, the 47 years of membership is history, which will become a more important topic than the process of leaving. Therefore I propose the following mergers.
Ythlev ( talk) 07:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There needs to be a paragraph in the lead explaining the reasons behind Brexit.
- Economic issues faced by many of the Leave voters (jobs, poverty, claims that money being spent on the EU could be spent on the NHS)
- Concerns over immigration (and the role that the Migration Crisis played) and any consequent issues with multiculturalism
- Cultural Nationalism (regional areas in England wanting more attention etc...)
As a foreigner wanting to understand Brexit, it feels a bit bare.
Tsukide ( talk) 15:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It is written: Exit day was 31 January 2020 at 11.00 p.m.[156] The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by a UK Statutory Instrument on 11 April 2019), in section 20 (1), defined 'exit day' as 11:00 p.m. on 31 October 2019.[139] Originally, 'exit day' was defined as 11:00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 GMT (UTC+0).[172][174][175][176][177]
This is a British point of view because it fails to provide a non British point of view:
To solve those issues, I suggest to write:
Withdrawal was agreed both by the EU and the UK to be in the night between January 2020 and February 2020 in article 185 of the withdrawal agreement. Due to a British time zone, Exit day was set to 31 January 2020 at 11.00 p.m.[156] (British time) by a British law That British law, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by a UK Statutory Instrument on 11 April 2019), in section 20 (1), defined 'exit day' as 11:00 p.m. on 31 October 2019.[139] Originally, 'exit day' was defined as 11:00 p.m. on 29 March — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 ( talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This article still contain the word no deal when this word does not exist anymore:
That means that the concept of no deal is promoted neither by the UK side nor by the EU one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 ( talk) 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe there is missing a post Brexit section to redirect to post Brexit concepts, that would cover:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/fears-about-us-food-standards-hysterical-says-boris-johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 ( talk) 23:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Is seems a bit strange to me that the article contains no reference to the attempt to pass the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, or the subsequent Lisbon Treaty, given the crucial role that both played in leading to the Brexit referendum.
As I understand it, there was a clear sequence of events:
For me, this sequence is crucial to understanding the context of how the Brexit referendum came about, and should definitely form part of any definitive description of Brexit. Is it worth adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.29.181.148 ( talk) 15:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor Boscaswell is edit-warring [16] the sentence "In January 2020 the International Monetary Fund reported that the British economy outpaced the Eurozone in 2019 and predicted that it would outpace the Eurozone in the first two years after Brexit." into the section about the "Impact" of Brexit. However, the sentence in question has nothing to do with the impact of Brexit. It's entirely possible for Brexit to adversely impact the British economy while the British economy still does better than other economies, because there are many many many things that affect how well an economy does. The goal of the sentence is to dispute academic assessments that Brexit has adversely affected and will adversely affect the British economy. In terms of the warped causality behind the sentence, it's akin to adding "The smoker X lived longer than several non-smokers" to the article on the health harms of tobacco smoking. It's a meaningless statement that is solely intended to dispute the economic consensus that Brexit adversely affects the economy. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. And I think the reasoning given is tendentious. The IMF predictions are made by reputably some of the world's very best economists. That the IMF has changed its mind is significant, and the academic consensus is overstated and evaporating, and I think that the tone of this paragraph is too negative and exhibits bias. Argument by Snoogans seems to be that if the economy does badly that's because of Brexit and if it does well it's despite Brexit. When the supposed consensus of economists said that Britain's economy was going to do badly they meant in comparison with the EU it was leaving. What else could they mean? And if you read the cited refs that is several times clear. Now Britain does better than the EU and those who have never believed Brexit could be a good thing refuse to attribute it to Brexit. Now, I get it, we can't be sure, there is no control experiment, but the supposed consensus of opinion from economists 2016 and later was that Brexit would cause Britain to do badly. We must report that in the article. Nevertheless it would exhibit bias not to also record lowerst unemployment since 1975, improved GDP, best balance of payments for 17(?) years, tax revenue up, and the IMF's change of mind. The IMF (a primary constituent of the economic consensus) has changed its mind. I will restore the sentence as it is not as characterised by Snoogans, and it is well referenced, and it is highly significant, and moderates an incorrect impression. The article must be fair and reflect all significant views. The IMF's is not a fringe view, and Snoogans is wrong to say this is nothing to do with Brexit. Please revert here for further chat before removing relevant balancing authoritatively reference content citing the revised opinion of a major commentator. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 06:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Procedurally there are a number of WP guidelines being broken here. The primary need is to retain the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Doubtless we both can do the alphabet soup of WP: refs. It seems you have neglected my argument entirely. You do this by falsely claiming my misunderstanding of causality. I suggest the smoking example is not relevant as made here and repeated by you. I have conceded - and you fail to acknowledge - that we don't have a control experiment, but the economic results do DIRECTLY CONTRADICT SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS made in many of the cited refs in support of the Brexit is bad ecnomic "consensus". When most of the cited refs are years old and make specific forecasts which are already shown to be incorrect then it shows a particular anti-Brexit bias to continue to cite these predictions as an authoritative consensus when we know so many of the predictions have been shown to be false in the prediction timescale used. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
We know Brexit is a divisive issue and people of good faith and bad faith are on BOTH sides. So let's leave Brexit out of it and consider something else. As a thought experiment consider the general case where predictions made 4 and 3 years ago on any other issue were being directly contradicted by actual outcomes. And that one of the most cited most respected major predictor (and indeed used as a source by several of the other predictors) changed their mind. And then a WP editor attempts to moderate the WP article on the issue to show that the once consensus is now broken. He does so without removing the earlier claims, he merely adds two properly referenced respected sources for the information. He doesn't overstate the case. Yet this is reverted. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Smoking: That's an example which begs the question, we know that smoking was bad! What about an example where the once consensual assertions turned out to be false? Here we have one. The SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS in the admittedly long list of citations are shown to be false in the predicted timescales? The smoking example would be relevant if the WHO had reversed its opinion and said smoking wasn't anywhere near as bad as thought and was actually good for you. I know smoking is bad for you, the medical consensus was never contradicted by data. But the IMF - a body as prestigious as WHO - has changed its mind, and the economic stats (third time now) DIRECTLY CONTRADICT many of the predictions made by and in the same timescales as which they were made. How can WP not reflect this? Paul Beardsell ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
How I wish I had chosen a user name such as "Balance". I deny the nominative determinism of one's user name. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The cited predictions are not as characterised in the article, many of them. The cited predictions make specific forecasts which have not come true. I am not suggesting that the predictions be removed, and the edit-war amendment did not contradict the assertions, it merely added that the interesting fact that the IMF has changed its mind, and is now forecasting a very different outcome of Brexit than it did. The IMF made specific predictions which they now contradict. Why is there determined opposition to recognising this is in the article? The then-consensus of opinion is no longer, several important players say differently. The BoE's Mark Carney is another. This paragraph in question may once have seemed balanced but now it gives a false impression. It's an encyclopedia. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 17:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Please write an informative article on Brexit. Such an article should explain the Brexit process. For example, the Prime Minister said yesterday that if there is no agreement on a trade deal at the end of 2020 (highly likely, as a single member of the 27 nations can block the agreement?), then trade will continue under WTO or under Withdrawal Agreement conditions. WTO is clear, but I thought that the Withdrawal Agreement refers to the current 11-month transition period only. Pardon my frustration, but the current Brexit article is worse than useless at explaining Brexit. To be honest, I could do better. I urge the responsible editors to get their act together. 31.4.156.18 ( talk) 10:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
(moved from Hebsen's talk page)
Hello, Here, I know what you're saying. But there appear to be no liberals or centrists who are Brexit unless I have been ignorant for many years. -- Tomb Blaster ( talk) 17:41, 4 February 2020 (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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I am having my edit reverted by Snooganssnoogans. (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brexit&type=revision&diff=914920611&oldid=914889830) It introduces some info about a survey by the Central Bank of Ireland (a rather notable establishment, I suggest), which in essence says that the impact of Brexit on London's financial sector could be pretty small. No problem with that, eh? Apparently there is. There was a contentious edit to this same subsection (see /info/en/?search=Talk:Brexit/Archive_8#Peer-reviewed_research_about_Brexit_impact_on_financial_institutions) about the mention of a survey which looked at something different, though still related to financial matters: it looked at the impact on share values. Not an economic impact, directly. The arguments against its inclusion were 1. that it cost $39.95 to see it and therefore shouldn't be cited, 2. that there was already a survey mentioned that talked of the impact on the financial sector (though the one being argued about was not really that), 3. that there was already far too much detail in the article (true!) and 4. something about it being peer-reviewed, which frankly is a silly argument, but which caused ripples. Eventually the edit in of that article was allowed, or so it says on the Talk page ref. I've quoted. (I can't see the RS noticeboard discussion as there's no link to it.)
The point I wish to make is this. Yes, there are a lot of surveys and forecasts mentioned in the article. But the one I want to have included actually puts Brexit in a "not so bad after all" light, whereas the others mentioned in this particular subsection are all negative to Brexit. Looking at other discussions in this Talk page it's fairly obvious that there is significant resistance by an editor or two to including anything which isn't negative about Brexit. (There have been several instances lately of edits introducing material which isn't negative about Brexit being instantly reverted pretty damned quickly, without any Talk discussion before doing so. This is another one.) But wait! Isn't the ideal that Wikipedia should be fair, should be balanced? I would like that, too, but I'm having difficulty in doing what I can to make it so. So please, other editors, what about it?
Octoberwoodland, PaleCloudedWhite, Asarlaí, Knox490, Kind Tennis Fan...you may be interested in this - I cordially invite your participation. Please Support, or otherwise, my edit. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 04:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The disputed edit regarding the bank survey has actually been hideously misrepresented, and attempting to use it to "balance" concerns about a post-brexit UK economy stops making sense the moment you read the actual study and not just the press release. While the inclusion of this study in Wikipedia was used to argue, approximately, "Early estimates predicted [bad stuff]; however, a new study predicts the financial industry will be okay," what the authors are really concluding is that London's GFCI ranking will barely change, reflecting that it will remain one of the world's most competitive global financial centers, even if 20% of its clients flee the country and/or the economy contracts by 3.8%. They do not present any new estimates for how the UK will fare with or without brexit, aside from using ad hoc models to interrogate their method. Otherwise they rely on a 2016 estimate published in Economic Modelling. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this should be in the Timeline: "The European Union Referendum Act was passed in the House of Commons on 7 September 2015." Inclusion is needed, because, in part, the economy of the UK started to change about a month or so after that, with a distinct decline in the value of the pound on world markets, declining slowly up to a precipitous drop in value on the day after the Referendum, and never recovered since. Thus, the date that it was announced is important, since it appears to have fairly quickly influenced confidence in the UK economy and the value of the pound. The date of announcemnet is inextricably linked to the changes that are still unfolding today. Pound value --> https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-effective-exchange-rates/GBP-history#charts
If you look at the official results: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum
It clearly states:
51.9% Leave, 48.1% Remain
Rounding up 51.9% to 52% is incorrect. Rounding down 48.1% to 48% is incorrect.
Wikipedia should ensure the official results are reported.
Please amend the article to reflect this.
Thanks -- JayDv ( talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have tagged the article as needing POV checking on the lede. At present, the lede only covers and addresses the negative aspects of brexit. It needs to also address the positive aspects, which are lacking in the article. Numerous editors have stated they feel this article is biased and that the lede needs more balanced content. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 22:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I added some of the most basic and obvious effects of leaving the EU, which should have been in the lead long ago, but Snooganssnoogans has removed them. They removed the following:
That isn't speculation, it's the law. It's in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, a law passed by the UK parliament that will come into effect once the UK leaves the EU. There are plenty of reliable sources for it, but here is the one I used. Are there any sources which contradict it?
That's reliably sourced to this UK parliament briefing paper (altho many other sources could be used), which says this will happen whether there's a withdrawal agreement or not. It's also already noted in the article. Are there any sources which contradict it?
That's reliably sourced to here (altho again many other sources could be used), which notes the UK will no longer have to make yearly contributions to the EU budget, but may pay for participation in specific programs, should it so choose. It's also already noted in the article. Are there any sources which contradict it?
Snooganssnoogans removed these things because of the mistaken belief that they "depend on what kind of Brexit there is". Yet they didn't remove the negative economic forecasts from the lead, even tho these really do depend on the kind of Brexit, and the lead itself says this. We can't remove things which are certain while keeping things which are forecasts. ~ Asarlaí 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I've
added the content to the article (under
"Law and courts"), as I'd intended to do, and
re-added it to the lead as follows:
"Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, EU law and the EU Court of Justice will no longer have supremacy over UK law or its Supreme Court after withdrawal, and the UK could amend or repeal EU laws it has retained."
But now Snoogans is reverting it again because we "cannot include this without also including that softer versions of Brexit (e.g. EEA membership) would force the UK to adopt EU law". However, currently the UK is due to leave the EEA, and the Withdrawal Act is due to come into force. So Snoogans is preventing this being added to the lead because things *might* change, even tho it's the law and there are no hints of things changing. By Snoogans logic, we should also remove the forecasts and speculation about migration/education/security from the lead because they could change. Are there any recent reliable sources saying the UK is seeking EEA membership? ~ Asarlaí 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a problem with the last sentence, which is an extraordinary claim, and such requires extraordinary sources, or better attribution to Barnard. I have added that to the body now. But overall the part in the lead about law is clearly the result of an content dispute, and are too long because everybody wanted their part to be included for balance. I suggest it is replaces by the following sentence:
I don't really know if the withdrawal agreement should be included, because I don't really know to what scope EU law and ECJ will still have jurisdiction if and if not the backstop comes into force. But we can always fix that later. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 09:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I have now implemented this. The wording is slightly modified from what is written above. Most notably, I choose to leave out the comment on trade agreements, as this is WP:CRYSTAL. I have added the IfG-report to the body, as this is used in the lead. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 00:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Instead you should add a counterbalancing quote: please read and follow WP:ACHIEVE NPOV
I believe that this article should be given more protection, as it is very contrevertial. Lbc07 ( talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I know this is not the place for it but I don't have the "status" to correct this little irritating grammar error..."not agreed a trade agreement before the end of the transition period" Can someone please correct it and delete my comment? Tx Much obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Hugot ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Text has been added to article about "trusted traders schemes and using GPS to track lorries" to deal with the problems caused by the border between N-Ireland and Ireland. These "solutions" are explicitly attributed to "Brexit supporters" in the cited source, with the EU explicitly saying that these solutions are not operational. In other words, this is just more fringe pro-Brexit propaganda that is being repeatedly inserted into the article without attribution, without balance and without discussion. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The lead has a paragraph which reads:"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."
According to Investopedia: "Long term refers to the extended period of time that an asset is held. Depending on the type of security, a long-term asset can be held for as little as one year or for as long as 30 years or more. Generally speaking, long-term investing for individuals is often thought to be in the range of at least seven to ten years of holding time, although there is no absolute rule." [4]
First of all, economists have a poor record of predicting recessions, etc. According to the leading business website Bloomberg.com: "In 1966, four years before securing the Nobel Prize for economics, Paul Samuelson quipped that declines in U.S. stock prices had correctly predicted nine of the last five American recessions. His profession would kill for such accuracy. With recession talk returning to haunt financial markets and the corridors of central banks, a review of the past suggests that those who are paid to call turning points in economic growth have a dismal record. Unlike the stock market, they’re more likely to miss recessions than to predict ones that never occur. The lowlight, of course, was the widespread failure to forecast America’s Great Recession, which began in December 2007—nine months before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy." [5] So the consensus of economists is rather dubious in value. Economics is still a social science and it is rightly often called the "dysmal science".
Second, economists are not political scientists and they have no idea if the European Union will even last 5 years. In much of Europe and the world at large, the populist right is growing at a substantial clip. [6] [7] And even if economists were political scientists, most political scientists failed to predict Brexit would happen. The Economist states about the original Brexit related vote: "The same is true of the Brexit vote, albeit over a shorter time period. For the vast majority of the campaign, both polls and markets had "remain" with a solid lead." [8] Knox490 ( talk) 16:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
"Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Russia will destroy the European Union, according to a chief Brexit negotiator in Brussels. Guy Verhofstadt has told The Times the rise of populism and the far-right could bring down the Union by 2024 if they cannot be replaced by a 'new vision of the EU'." [9]
If the EU dissolves by 2024, the whole argument that Brexit will cause long term economic damage is certainly compromised. Knox490 ( talk) 05:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Knox490: Pray that Mr. Imgauw (In-my-great-and-unmatched-wisdom) won't get a 2nd term. Look what the dealing was with Ukraine and how the Istanbul towers played out. Post Brexit Britain would degrade to a vassal state and eventually sold out for three towers. -- Moreevo ( talk) 20:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This Brexit article is biased. It breaks Wikipedia's NPOV (see: WP:NPOV) policy.
Where are the potential long term benefits of Brexit in the article? And why aren't they in the lead of the article?
Switzerland is not part of the European Union and here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's Economy of Switzerland article: "The economy of Switzerland is one of the world's most advanced free market economies. The service sector has come to play a significant economic role, particularly the Swiss banking industry and tourism. The economy of Switzerland ranks first in the world in the 2015 Global Innovation Index and the 2017 Global Competitiveness Report. According to United Nations data for 2016, Switzerland is the third richest landlocked country in the world after Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, and together with the latter and Norway the only three countries in the world with a GDP per capita above US$70,000 that are neither island nations nor ministates." Knox490 ( talk) 02:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't directly stand in the iraq war spalt that (The war itself is largely considered to be bad) Or Britains decision to join the Eu was really good in financial terms. Or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland are the only nations in western Europe. Not paying a ton of taxes to poor economies in East Europe and Southern Europe in development aid and agricultural aid. And having higher GDP per capita than most other western European countries that is a member of Eu. Netherland, France, Belgium etcetera all have lower GDP per capita than Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and Norway. Only Ireland and Luxembourg has a higher Gdp per capita in the Eu than Norway and Switzerland. source /info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Maybe something to mention. Maybe the free market and free movement could outweigh the cost but still something to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.125.89 ( talk) 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph is now clearly out of date, at a minimum this sentence needs corrected; "In order for such an extension to be granted if it is requested by the Prime Minister, it would be necessary for there to be unanimous agreement by all other heads of EU governments.", since the "UK" and the Prime Minister have both sent letters (one a request for the extension, which Donald Tusk has also advised be acceeded to, and a personal one in which Boris Johnson says he doesn't want an extension (which may be found in contempt of court, depending on the government's response to the EU's response, in the Inner Court of Session in Edinburgh)). I suppose this is all in the air though but the current sentence as written above is now inaccurate and will stay so for the rest of history.
I, apparently, am not allowed to fix any of this. Apologies for your opaque editting permission system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.125.41.18 ( talk) 02:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A new Brexit deal has been agreed in principle and awaits to be signed off by both the UK and the EU. 80.192.117.201 ( talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see a section on the attitude of the EU itself on Brexit, particularly:
1 the attitude of various member states before the 2016 referendum; 2 the appointment of Barnier, a well-known anglophobe, as 'negotiator' (e.g. why was it not a Dane, or a Bulgarian?); 3 the fact that JC Juncker and G Verhofstadt have never expressed any regret that the UK is to leave the EU; 4 the conspiracy theory that the EU may well have deliberately planned to provoke Brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 ( talk) 22:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I am seeking consensus to add a countdown to the current Brexit date at the top of the article since agreement could not be reached through editing alone. I think that since this is an article about a scheduled event, everyone entering this article should see on the top how much time left till brexit will happen, without having to scroll down and search for the information in the article.
Thank you for your time, The Very Best Editor ( talk) 16:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Can we add the Nutshell template to this article? We could be writing about this for years to come! Something like this:
This page in a nutshell: Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithr32 ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
That article is literally a copy of the impact section, with Asarlaí even porting content there to keep them in sync. We should not have the same content two places, so either we should delete the other article, or we should split the section out in its own article, and only leave a summary here. I propose that we split, because of several reasons. One is length. This article is already >100kb prose size, which means that it per WP:SIZERULE "Almost certainly should be divided". I know that there are other parts of the article that really need trimming, but the impact section alone is 33 Kb. In addition, it seems like it is the the only other high-level Brexit topic that does not have its own sub-article. I think it will be a good idea to give it one, considering that Brexit have not even happened yet. The only negative thing I have to say about a split, is that we have to write a good high-level summary about the impact. What do others think? ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 00:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I have gone ahead and done this. As it stands now, it is a wall of text, as there is no subsections, but I feel there should not be any, as it goes against the concept of it being a summary. I would say that it needs to be about 2/3 of the current length, but trimming is hard. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 02:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
We can not expect anybody to make sense of this unfolding and infinite essay on the subject. Keep the issue concise and current - as opposed to an on-going narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.171 ( talk) 15:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In the "Timeline" section, I have edited the content under the 2020 entry at 31 January 2020] as that is only the current deadline for the UK to leave the EU with a Brexit agreement, and unrelated to any negotiations of any "trade deals" that may follow. And that Brexit agreement has to be ratified by the UK parliament by then. If the agreement is not ratified by then, the default position would be a no-deal Brexit on that date. Of course the UK could ask the EC to agree another extension, but they would have to ask for that first, and that need hasn't yet arisen. If the UK does leave on, or before, the 31 January 2020, then "trade deals" would need to be negotiated, but that is a separate issue. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Now that the election is over, I suggest the editors should allow the rest of us to "take back control" and fix the Brexit article. Over the past 2 years the editors have simply been fighting with each other along tribal lines, and do not seem to have the skills or resources or inclination to remove mistakes and include important information such as from David Cameron's published memoir. Tribal Editors, please realise that this job is too big for you to handle. And you have nothing to gain now that the political decisions have been taken. It needs the whole Wikipedia community to make this article great again. If you block us for too long, then people's memories and interest will fade, and an opportunity to document an important milestone in history will have been lost to Wikipedia. May a Christmas miracle happen and you will have a change of heart. 86.172.133.200 ( talk) 10:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It's best to keep the article protected, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 20:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The editor DeFacto has decided to continue with the war on peer-reviewed research by arguing that academic studies are not reliable sources, in clear contradiction to what WP:RS says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." I restored the long-standing version of the article text (because he has no consensus to bully his anti-intellectual changes into the article). That leaves one recently peer-reviewed study out [12]: a 2019 study in the American Journal of Public Health [13], which linked regions that experienced increases in suicides and drug-related deaths to support for Leave in the Brexit vote. This is pertinent info, published in arguably the top public health journal, and should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
In this section, we discuss prominent hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the EU referendum result and how we try to capture them in our empirical analysis."
The advantage of this particular dataset is not only the impressive sample size (30,895 respondents), but also the number of variables included in the questionnaire that allows us to investigate all of the hypothesized factors.
The Brexit referendum confronted British voters with a choice that could have profound consequences for the British economy in a context of high uncertainty. Drawing on important lessons from prospect theory, I argue that citizens who were in the domain of economic losses were more likely to take a risk and vote in favor of Brexit. On the contrary, I hold that citizens who were in the domain of economic gains tended to be more risk averse and were more likely to support ‘Remain’ in the referendum. Using data from several waves of the British Election Study 2014–2019 Internet Panel, I find strong support for these theoretical expectations."
I started this discussion on the RS noticeboard. [14] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I have now addressed the OR-issues raised by Slatersteven, which I do believe is the same as the one the DeFacto originally raised, even though I must say that I am a bit confused at this point. I have placed a sentence in a failed verification span, because there needs to be looked into what exactly the sources say here, and it appeared to be a bit complicated. Snooganssnoogans, you are good at studies, can you help here? Also I would say that those suicide and drug studies can be included with attribution, so we avoid saying that all research say that this is the case. DeFacto, if you have more issues, could you please be very specific what text you are having problems with, that makes everything much easier. ― Hebsen ( talk) 23:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The timeline have become messy and very large, especially the second half of the 2019 section, as it have been the go-to place for updates and contains a lot of recentism. I am wondering whether we should trim it so it is only contains major events, or we should split it out to another page (Timeline of Brexit), and then make a new one with the most important events. What do other think? ― Hebsen ( talk) 23:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Aint here yet, thus I would argue it is best not to have a timeline that has not yet happened. The government may have said X, that does not mean X will occur (after all this is the umpteenth final last, final last time). Slatersteven ( talk) 19:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Brexit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Brexit was the withdrawal 78.86.138.0 ( talk) 18:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
H Wojciech G ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
If we left the EU then we have to still follow their rules!?Why do we even have to follow them if we left the Eu and I think their 'ONLY EU RULES' but why do we need them if we are not in the EU!?? Wojciech G ( talk) 22:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The Brexit articles should be consistent with the fact that the UK has ceased to be a member of the EU as a result of a ratified treaty, and by the same treaty continues under some major treaty obligations previously incurred as a member, subject to further negotiations in the period up to the end of this year. It is no part of Wikipedia articles to discuss the political or other merits of the situation, unless it is part of a public debate which can be reported on the basis of reliable sources. Qexigator ( talk) 23:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Just wondering if this article needs to be updated/merged with other related articles to reflect current events? Wagnerp16 ( talk) 18:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Time to replace present tenses with past tense forms throughout. 109.245.38.9 ( talk) 11:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
What actual evidence (data) is there for the following statement other than generalizations? Is this statement simply an opinion? How does the linked article related to the arts sector verify this claim? UK is leaving in a few days, so it's irrelevant - but still, "Wiki-misinformation"?
Ringo Starr in favour of Brexit. Dame Joan Collins too. This "section" could present both sides, since NOT ALL people within arts, aside from the few asked in a questionnaire which was then used to represent every person in arts, are against Brexit.
This section should be a balanced reflection of both sides within the sector rather than simply linking to an opinion poll.
"Brexit has inspired many creative works, such as murals, sculptures, novels, plays, movies and video games. The response of British artists and writers to Brexit has in general been negative, reflecting a reported overwhelming percentage of people involved in Britain's creative industries voting against leaving the European Union." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.131 ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Is a derogatisation. The article euroscepticism says it can mean opposition to EU institutions, policies, reforms, membership... it literally says there is a spectrum type "range". It's a bag for opposition of all forms in any detail. It gives the impression that complainers do not have the basis of complaint, but simply wish to be sceptical. I'm not sure if anyone is going to accept that fact, but such labels are boomerangs since ancient times. Allow people to collectivise on their own terms, or by something which endears you to them, or caveat emptor. ~ R. T. G 18:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please help: I am trying to find out whether the Withdrawal Agreement (e.g. divorce payments to EU) comes into force automatically on Dec 31, or whether its requirements are contingent on agreement of a future UK-EU relationship ("nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"). Please point me towards a Wikipedia article where the Brexit agreements are explained in context. Also, I propose you place a link into the article header to allow readers to access that information quickly without having to read all the "ideological padding" in the present article. 31.4.130.77 ( talk) 12:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Now that Brexit happened, the 47 years of membership is history, which will become a more important topic than the process of leaving. Therefore I propose the following mergers.
Ythlev ( talk) 07:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There needs to be a paragraph in the lead explaining the reasons behind Brexit.
- Economic issues faced by many of the Leave voters (jobs, poverty, claims that money being spent on the EU could be spent on the NHS)
- Concerns over immigration (and the role that the Migration Crisis played) and any consequent issues with multiculturalism
- Cultural Nationalism (regional areas in England wanting more attention etc...)
As a foreigner wanting to understand Brexit, it feels a bit bare.
Tsukide ( talk) 15:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It is written: Exit day was 31 January 2020 at 11.00 p.m.[156] The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by a UK Statutory Instrument on 11 April 2019), in section 20 (1), defined 'exit day' as 11:00 p.m. on 31 October 2019.[139] Originally, 'exit day' was defined as 11:00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 GMT (UTC+0).[172][174][175][176][177]
This is a British point of view because it fails to provide a non British point of view:
To solve those issues, I suggest to write:
Withdrawal was agreed both by the EU and the UK to be in the night between January 2020 and February 2020 in article 185 of the withdrawal agreement. Due to a British time zone, Exit day was set to 31 January 2020 at 11.00 p.m.[156] (British time) by a British law That British law, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by a UK Statutory Instrument on 11 April 2019), in section 20 (1), defined 'exit day' as 11:00 p.m. on 31 October 2019.[139] Originally, 'exit day' was defined as 11:00 p.m. on 29 March — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 ( talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This article still contain the word no deal when this word does not exist anymore:
That means that the concept of no deal is promoted neither by the UK side nor by the EU one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 ( talk) 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe there is missing a post Brexit section to redirect to post Brexit concepts, that would cover:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/fears-about-us-food-standards-hysterical-says-boris-johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.115 ( talk) 23:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Is seems a bit strange to me that the article contains no reference to the attempt to pass the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, or the subsequent Lisbon Treaty, given the crucial role that both played in leading to the Brexit referendum.
As I understand it, there was a clear sequence of events:
For me, this sequence is crucial to understanding the context of how the Brexit referendum came about, and should definitely form part of any definitive description of Brexit. Is it worth adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.29.181.148 ( talk) 15:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor Boscaswell is edit-warring [16] the sentence "In January 2020 the International Monetary Fund reported that the British economy outpaced the Eurozone in 2019 and predicted that it would outpace the Eurozone in the first two years after Brexit." into the section about the "Impact" of Brexit. However, the sentence in question has nothing to do with the impact of Brexit. It's entirely possible for Brexit to adversely impact the British economy while the British economy still does better than other economies, because there are many many many things that affect how well an economy does. The goal of the sentence is to dispute academic assessments that Brexit has adversely affected and will adversely affect the British economy. In terms of the warped causality behind the sentence, it's akin to adding "The smoker X lived longer than several non-smokers" to the article on the health harms of tobacco smoking. It's a meaningless statement that is solely intended to dispute the economic consensus that Brexit adversely affects the economy. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. And I think the reasoning given is tendentious. The IMF predictions are made by reputably some of the world's very best economists. That the IMF has changed its mind is significant, and the academic consensus is overstated and evaporating, and I think that the tone of this paragraph is too negative and exhibits bias. Argument by Snoogans seems to be that if the economy does badly that's because of Brexit and if it does well it's despite Brexit. When the supposed consensus of economists said that Britain's economy was going to do badly they meant in comparison with the EU it was leaving. What else could they mean? And if you read the cited refs that is several times clear. Now Britain does better than the EU and those who have never believed Brexit could be a good thing refuse to attribute it to Brexit. Now, I get it, we can't be sure, there is no control experiment, but the supposed consensus of opinion from economists 2016 and later was that Brexit would cause Britain to do badly. We must report that in the article. Nevertheless it would exhibit bias not to also record lowerst unemployment since 1975, improved GDP, best balance of payments for 17(?) years, tax revenue up, and the IMF's change of mind. The IMF (a primary constituent of the economic consensus) has changed its mind. I will restore the sentence as it is not as characterised by Snoogans, and it is well referenced, and it is highly significant, and moderates an incorrect impression. The article must be fair and reflect all significant views. The IMF's is not a fringe view, and Snoogans is wrong to say this is nothing to do with Brexit. Please revert here for further chat before removing relevant balancing authoritatively reference content citing the revised opinion of a major commentator. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 06:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Procedurally there are a number of WP guidelines being broken here. The primary need is to retain the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Doubtless we both can do the alphabet soup of WP: refs. It seems you have neglected my argument entirely. You do this by falsely claiming my misunderstanding of causality. I suggest the smoking example is not relevant as made here and repeated by you. I have conceded - and you fail to acknowledge - that we don't have a control experiment, but the economic results do DIRECTLY CONTRADICT SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS made in many of the cited refs in support of the Brexit is bad ecnomic "consensus". When most of the cited refs are years old and make specific forecasts which are already shown to be incorrect then it shows a particular anti-Brexit bias to continue to cite these predictions as an authoritative consensus when we know so many of the predictions have been shown to be false in the prediction timescale used. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
We know Brexit is a divisive issue and people of good faith and bad faith are on BOTH sides. So let's leave Brexit out of it and consider something else. As a thought experiment consider the general case where predictions made 4 and 3 years ago on any other issue were being directly contradicted by actual outcomes. And that one of the most cited most respected major predictor (and indeed used as a source by several of the other predictors) changed their mind. And then a WP editor attempts to moderate the WP article on the issue to show that the once consensus is now broken. He does so without removing the earlier claims, he merely adds two properly referenced respected sources for the information. He doesn't overstate the case. Yet this is reverted. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Smoking: That's an example which begs the question, we know that smoking was bad! What about an example where the once consensual assertions turned out to be false? Here we have one. The SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS in the admittedly long list of citations are shown to be false in the predicted timescales? The smoking example would be relevant if the WHO had reversed its opinion and said smoking wasn't anywhere near as bad as thought and was actually good for you. I know smoking is bad for you, the medical consensus was never contradicted by data. But the IMF - a body as prestigious as WHO - has changed its mind, and the economic stats (third time now) DIRECTLY CONTRADICT many of the predictions made by and in the same timescales as which they were made. How can WP not reflect this? Paul Beardsell ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
How I wish I had chosen a user name such as "Balance". I deny the nominative determinism of one's user name. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The cited predictions are not as characterised in the article, many of them. The cited predictions make specific forecasts which have not come true. I am not suggesting that the predictions be removed, and the edit-war amendment did not contradict the assertions, it merely added that the interesting fact that the IMF has changed its mind, and is now forecasting a very different outcome of Brexit than it did. The IMF made specific predictions which they now contradict. Why is there determined opposition to recognising this is in the article? The then-consensus of opinion is no longer, several important players say differently. The BoE's Mark Carney is another. This paragraph in question may once have seemed balanced but now it gives a false impression. It's an encyclopedia. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 17:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Please write an informative article on Brexit. Such an article should explain the Brexit process. For example, the Prime Minister said yesterday that if there is no agreement on a trade deal at the end of 2020 (highly likely, as a single member of the 27 nations can block the agreement?), then trade will continue under WTO or under Withdrawal Agreement conditions. WTO is clear, but I thought that the Withdrawal Agreement refers to the current 11-month transition period only. Pardon my frustration, but the current Brexit article is worse than useless at explaining Brexit. To be honest, I could do better. I urge the responsible editors to get their act together. 31.4.156.18 ( talk) 10:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
(moved from Hebsen's talk page)
Hello, Here, I know what you're saying. But there appear to be no liberals or centrists who are Brexit unless I have been ignorant for many years. -- Tomb Blaster ( talk) 17:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)