Talk:Brexit

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fedegarb, Jovanna13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jovanna13.

Brexit in the parliament that is imposing it.

It is said: «The people of Ireland will not find a solution to Brexit in the parliament that is imposing it.» according to Paul Maskey https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/sinn-fein-mp-british-parliament-irish-republicans-brexit

«On Brexit, Irish people in the north look to Sinn Féin, to the Irish government, the Irish parliament and to Europe to defend their interests.» (according to Paul Maskey also)

I wonder if wikipedia miss this point here, and only acknowledge the adverse point of view? Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? If we consider that Brexit impacts four nations from the UK, is a due weight given to each of them? or is an undue weight given to England? 77.199.96.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The U.K. is the nation. It cannot contain any nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The referendum was carried out on a UK-wide basis and not as individual nations. 'Undue weight given to England'? It is by far the largest and most cosmopolitan of the UK nations. It also has severe inequalities - via the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question - in its representation by the UK Government. I would suggest that 'undue weight' is perhaps given elsewhere, and it must be remembered that Wales voted to leave the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.161.238 (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I have deleted (again) an opinion-editorial piece from the New York Times as a citation from a section concerning economic studies. We must be very careful in choosing sources in such a contentious subject, and where referring to economic studies should refer only to those studies, not to opinion pieces, in whatever newspaper. They might have a place when describing public or journalistic reactions, but they are not academic studies. Hogweard (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times peices listed here does not appear to be an opinion peice. What do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the NYT source in the lede is not an op-ed. The NYT is a WP:RS and is a perfectly satisfactory source for the notion that a "consensus" exists in an academic field. I suggest you go to the Reliable Source noticeboard with your claim that the NYT is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an opinion piece to me. Regardless of that, using a piece from May 2016 to support a statement that “there IS [my emphasis] a strong consensus...” is clearly not tenable. Suggest this ref is deleted and, if found, replaced by sonething more current. Or change the wording to “There was a ....”

Gravuritas (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if it was an opinion piece, in this context using it to summarize existing research would be fine. Seriously, you guys still going on about this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous proposal. There's nothing to suggest that economists no longer hold these views. If we follow your advice, we would not be able to describe anything as a current consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus on anything to do with Brexit. That's a main feature of it. About one half of the country has one view and the other half roughly the opposite view.

That’s a ridiculous response. You need to demonstrate support for the statement, not ask me to disprove it. We now have nearly two years newer data on the economy of Britain & the EU. I think it is reasonable to use sources from 2017 in support of “there is”, but not so for mid -2016. @Marek- no it’s not existing research. It’s too old.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't cite every article and news story that's ever been published on Brexit - or every radio and TV broadcast that's ever been done on Brexit. It's ridiculous to ask for sources. There is a roughly 50/50 disagreement on Brexit.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The NYT piece linked is not an opinion piece. It is in the "International Business" section and is a straight-news account. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Post-Brexit roaming charges

What's about Post-Brexit roaming charges once the Brexiting state is out of the digital single market, with Brexiters' ″no deal″?

Article fails to deal with this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.216 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As with the many other items on a very long list of loose ends, we have no idea what will happen and Wikipedia policy is that we don't speculate, see WP:CRYSTAL. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It might be a very long list of loose ends for you, but British people have voted on this topic. Is there any reason to deal with The combined EU fishing fleets land about 6 million tonnes of fish per year,[246] of which about 3 million tonnes are from UK waters and not with roaming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.228 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I have tried to translate a summary of this article into Swedish Wikipedia. There is much text here and in sub articles. But there are too much speculation and political statements from various politicians and experts and too little facts to make a decent article of it.--BIL (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Still planned

Autocorrect mangled my reversion note. Brexit is still "planned" so, per wp:crystal, we can't report it as a done deal until it actually is a done deal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note - Brexit isn't planned. It has been decided on. Negotiations are about trade etc. after Brexit takes place.213.205.241.1 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Countdown

What is the correct countdown?

According to [1] and [2] and [3] it remains 320 days and 11 hours before brexit.

According to sky [4] it remains 320 days and 12 hours before brexit.

Which one is right and why?

Is it possible to add such a dynamic information in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Try the {{Countdown}} template!

It gives the same result as sky but a result different from other web sites:

{{countdown |year = 2019 |month = 3 |day = 29 |hour = 23 |minute = 0 |second = 0 |event = |duration = 1 |eventstart = unknown has started |eventend = unknown has ended }} gives:

unknown has ended (refresh)

I assume there is a question of timezone!

Yes, the timezone is documented. It's neither EU nor UK timezone, it's UTC, so:

{{countdown |year = 2019 |month = 3 |day = 29 |hour = 22 |minute = 0 |second = 0 |event = |event = Brexit }} gives:

Brexit has started. (refresh)

It would not be appropriate to add a countdown to the article, per WP:CRYSTAL. Nobody knows whether Brexit will actually go ahead on that date or be postponed. The facts surrounding the date and potential things that happen should be discussed in the article prose, and cited to reliable sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A date and time have been announced, therefore it would be informative to readers to compute the remaining time. A more flexible display option would be {{Time interval}}, yielding for example "−5 years, 2 months and 28 days" (hours, minutes and seconds are superfluous). I have added it. — JFG ^talk 12:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Map colours

I think that the map colours ought to be changed. It is misleading to have blue and yellow used for leave and remain as those colours are liked to political parties (Tories and WigsLiberals). It would be better if colours were chosen that were not associated with any main stream British political party. -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Those were the colours used by most of the media during their coverage of the referendum. It makes sense to leave it as is. --RaviC (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

post-imperial nostalgia

Currently the article states:

Organisations such as CANZUK International have also championed the movement, stating that relationships between the four countries will flourish after Brexit. However, numerous academics have criticised this alternative for EU membership as "post-imperial nostalgia".

References

However although the last sentence is meant to represent a balance the sources do not support it. The quote is a newspaper article title (and so is likely to be the work of a copy-editor), but even if it is not the journalist/author of the opinion piece was Jeremy White-Stanley who is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography article and the Daily Times is published in Pakistan and owned by a politician. It is not a reliable source for the sentence (it does not mention any comparative studies) and the quotation is not one made by an academic paper or an article about the attitudes of academics about this subject: "However, numerous academics have criticised this alternative for EU membership as 'post-imperial nostalgia'.!" (MRDA).-- PBS (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Economic effects of Brexit Vote

User:snogansnoogans, you reverted my change to the claim that a certain piece of primary research 'shows' that specific economic effects resulted from the Brexit vote. Read the research in question: it shows that the economic effects followed the vote, not that they were caused by it.

Incidentally, I am familiar with WP:RS. It says: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." You in your summary said that Academic studies are generally the best sources; but note the title of the paper: "The consequences of the Brexit vote for UK inflation and living standards: First evidence". The paper does not show what the reverted version of the article says it shows. It merely presents evidence.

I am going to reinstate my change. I am happy to discuss the best form of words here, and I think 'is claimed to' is probably not correct, because I'm not aware that that claim has actually been made by anyone. The best thing would be to find a good secondary source that cites this paper. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Read the research in question: it shows that the economic effects followed the vote, not that they were caused by it." This is not accurate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, of course I did read the paper before making my change. Your remark is equivalent to saying "I don't agree", without saying why you don't agree. Please show where the research asserts causation. in their conclusions, the authors do indeed say that their results 'indicate' (not 'show') that the economic consequences result from the vote. But that is not true; perhaps the word 'suggest' would have been more appropriate.

It's hard to see how such research could possibly show causation; it's simply an examination of economic trends before and after the vote. And note the title of the article: "The consequences of the Brexit vote for UK inflation and living standards: First evidence". The paper is a report of some early evidence, but it claims conclusions that are not supported by that evidence. In fact the paper repeatedly assumes its own conclusions - e.g. "By increasing prices without affecting nominal wage growth, the referendum has also reduced real wages, costing the average worker almost one week’s wages (4.4 working days’ wages, to be precise)." This is why secondary sources are preferred: researchers naturally want to big-up the significance of their findings, and Wikipedians are generally not competent to evaluate primary research.

Please self-revert; and let's have a discussion here before making further changes, in accordance with the WP:BRD policy that you have commended to me on my talk page. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't understand the research or how causality is determined in the study. The study clearly says that this is a causal relationship, both in the summary[5] and the study itself[6]. Your desire to mislabel the study as a correlation (something that laymen like to do when studies that they don't understand show things that they don't like) is WP:OR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The authors assume their own conclusions repeatedly in this paper. They fail to show causation; in fact, they don't even try to. They just state baldly that they have shown causation. This is no kind of OR; this is simply reading the source, to see if it sustains the text that is cited to it. It doesn't. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please contact the authors. I'm sure they'll appreciate your corrections and promptly retract the paper. You could even link to the Correlation does not imply causation page, because they must be totally unfamiliar with the concept. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

God I'm sick of dealing with condescending editors like this. I have made a good faith attempt to improve the article; some snarling attack-dog has jumped on me.

The article is relying on a paper with a single citation by anyone other than the authors, to sustain a claim of a £404pa reduction in living standards? Spurious precision, anyone? And the claim is cited to a summary, rather than the original PDF? Well, I've now read the original PDF (which is not linked from the HTML summary - there's no way for an ordinary Wikipedia user to know that the citation is not to the research paper). It says the same as the summary, thankfully; that exchange rate changes following the vote were caused by the vote (no evidence or reasoning); and that inflation following the vote was partly/largely the result of the exchange rate changes (reasoning provided).

I'm certainly not interested in arguing with academics; I have no standing, and your suggestions that I attempt that are insulting. I have already pointed out that the citation is to primary research. It should be to a secondary source that evaluates the primary research; that's why I was interested in who might have cited this paper.

Anyway, I'm done here. I'm not a full-time Wikipedian; I have a life. I use the encyclopaedia, and when I find material that could be improved, I improve it. I'm not interested in fighting with POV article-owners. Life is too short, and there are things I care about more than fixing NPOV issues in Wikipedia articles. HAND. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, Google Scholar shows this paper being cited just four times. And three of those times, the authors are citing their own paper! MrDemeanour (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're demonstrating an unfamiliarity with academia and Google Scholar in particular. How many cites do you expect a six-month old paper to get? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile no less than the Governor of the Bank of England says that every household is already £900 worse off as a result. But what does he know? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not £900 worse off. If the British people were all £900 worse off they'd be screaming and the media would be full of it. It's more remain propaganda from him. He admitted he was wrong last time he said it. Everyone knows it's nonsense. All economic measure are up,some of them at record levels.213.205.241.1 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Prospective

Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/) is the prospective withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU).

The first line. It is not prospective, it is legally signed, article 50 delivered and the Magna Carta which succeeds The EU law by many years. I don't want a civil war, but I will if it starts. Tensions are high, follow law. Follow legal procedure of The UK before commenting. It is too partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.7.85 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

References

I wish an admin would remove the above, utterly unhelpful, comment.Smeat75 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article from the section "Economic effects" is very biased. It's just Remain propaganda. Needs to be corrected.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note Please focus on article content and making concrete suggestions for improvement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? The comment is clear.213.205.241.1 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Needs to be corrected." How? With what text? Using what sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this not being slightly naïve? Clearly a troll wasting our time and soapboxing. Eg, the IP's quotes on the Governor of the Bank of England, etc. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Luxofluxo: Please read WP:AGF and WP:BITE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of both and they don't change my opinion here, but time will tell. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong to accuse people of being "a troll" for no reason. Talk pages are here for people to talk about the main article, including pointing out things wrong and suggesting solutions to that.213.205.241.1 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You probably should make an account if you don't want to confuse people. Your IP is also from Glasgow, you are almost certainly the same user we are talking about. Luxofluxo (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Who is talking about who? I don't know why you have a hang up about me or why you're stalking my isp account. Most of the people on this page are not logged in via an account so why pick on me?213.205.241.1 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Because commenting from another IP address from the other you were editing from originally, without making that clear, whilst supporting your original IP's edits might lead some to the conclusion that you engaging in sock puppetry. No one is stalking your IP. As Wikipedia makes clear to you, if you edit whilst not signed into an account, your IP address is kept as a public record. Luxofluxo (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Lead update: no border dispute with France

Hi Snooganssnoogans. There is no question of a border problem with France in the article body, and hence the lead needs to be updated accordingly. 81.131.172.167 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources still refer to the border as an unresolved dispute, one with great implications[7][8]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-read the lead sentence carefully and you will see why it is wrong. India and Pakistan have a border dispute. Gibraltar and Spain have a border dispute. But France and Britain...? 81.131.172.167 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Revised this to reflect the fact the dispute with France is over border control arrangements, not the border itself. Have left Gibraltar and Spain as a border dispute, as Spain disputes the legitimacy of the border as well as arrangements and negotiation process over the arrangements being more uncertain Dtellett (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Not just Calais. Ditto San Sabastian, Zeebrugge, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Malmö. The dispute over Gib is too detailed for the lead, enough just to mention that border too.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Only slightly better, because no-one has addressed the main problem: that the lead contradicts the article body. The lead says there might be a potential border (management) dispute EU vs UK, but the article body does not mention this (except in the specific case of Northern Ireland). And the French subsection even says the opposite: control arrangements are to remain the same because they are not governed by EU legislation. In other words, you should not make claims in the lead until you have fixed the problem in the article. So this is what you need to do: Step 1. Temporarily confine Snoogans to a chicken coop so he does not panic. Step 2: Explain in the article body what the border problem is and use references, for example those provided by Snoogans. Step 3. Summarise in the lead what the article says. Simple really. 81.131.172.167 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Apart from step 1, I accept that argument and agree. Text anyone? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

David Davis/ Oliver Robbins versus Michel Barnier/ Guy Verhofstadt/ Didier Seeuws

I suggest either (a) removing David Davis from the lead or (b) keeping David Davis but adding his EU counterparts Michel Barnier, Guy Verhofstadt and Didier Seeuws. My preference is for removing David Davis because the lead needs to be concise, and secondly Theresa May has arguably sidelined David Davis by appointing Oliver Robbins as her advisor. I shall BE BOLD and make the deletion. If you wish to revert it, please discuss your reasons and preferences here. 81.131.172.167 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't David Davis still the Secretary of State for Brexit?213.205.241.128 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Formally, yes. But read here what happened in September 2017: Oliver Robbins. By the way, since March 2018 likewise Michel Barnier is being sidelined and ignored by the EU heads of state (commencement of phase 2 talks in March 2018 despite Northern Ireland requirement not being met by the UK), and recently Barnier also seems to be sidelined by the British Government (who have delayed presenting their White Paper until after the EU Council will have met on June 27). Now that the talks are reaching the final phase, seems like the captains on both sides are taking over from their officers. 81.131.172.167 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You may possibly be right but unless you can find a wp: reliable source that says so, then it is your opinion and is therefore precluded by wp:no original research/wp:pov/wp:syn. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Querying redirection for "British Independent Film"

The article header contains this message:

"British independent" redirects here. For the film awards, see British Independent Film Awards.

Is this really necessary? 81.131.172.24 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been a cheeky editor finding a way to add his own political opinion in a subversive manner. Dealt with it. Probably should have been picked up sooner. Luxofluxo (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Uninformative lead term "uncertain"

The lead contains this uninformative statement:

The size of the "divorce bill", the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements, and relations with the Republic of Ireland remain uncertain.

This is a meaningless sentence. The future of Switzerland is uncertain. The Pope's next encyclica is uncertain. Life is uncertain.

I think what the editor is trying to say is that these three EU negotiation demands/red lines (Ireland, euroclearing, divorce bill) have featured prominently in the negotiations. Can we reformulate accordingly? 81.131.171.190 (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It is informative, and suitably concise for the lead: those are all matters of concern in the UK negotiations with the EU that have yet to be resolved, decided, determined and implemented, and at this time the outcome is uncertain. Qexigator (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the size of the divorce bill has not been discussed at all, by either side. Barnier has requested the UK come up with a calculation mechanism (not a sum), and Davis has politely ignored this demand. In other developments, the UK Treasury has pencilled in 37-39 billion pounds for a potential settlement. So I think the word "uncertain" is not only uninformative but potentially misleading. 81.131.171.190 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to add further text in the body to that effect, properly sourced, the single word "uncertain" in the lead would still suffice to cover it. How can it be "potentially misleading" when it is a simple factual description of the state of affairs? Qexigator (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In a narrow sense you are right. The size of the divorce bill is as uncertain as the length of the Pope's nose. However neither the Pope's nose nor the size of the divorce bill have been subject of discussion between the negotiators, as far as I am aware from the Wikipedia article or from published sources. My information is that the negotiations on the divorce bill have become bogged down in technical/legal disagreement, and that the discussion never reached the stage of discussing any "size". That is what I meant when I said the sentence is both meaningless and potentially misleading. How about this alternative: "Three EU demands (regarding Ireland, euroclearing, and a "divorce bill") have featured prominently in the negotiations, without agreement as of June 2018."81.131.171.190 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In the current state of uncertainty, the present wording suffices. Qexigator (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Length of the Pope's nose is not uncertain, first because such nose should not change so much as long as the Pope does not change, and also, because a new Pope might have a new nose with a regular size. It looks quite certain next nose will be between zero and twenty centimeters. And people do not care; do you?

NPOV means various point of view could be provided for certainty vs uncertainty.

• Jeegar Kakkad, chief economist and director of policy at ADS, said he believed a lack of certainty over Brexit "has worried companies and supply chains for the past 12 months".
• Professional services firms also needed an agreement with the EU which featured "mutual recognition of professional qualifications, products and operating licences; the ability of our providers to fly in-fly out to facilitate advice across the EU27 and trade across Europe; mutual recognition of judgments so deals across EU27 countries can proceed with legal certainty; and continued co-operation in areas that facilitate trade - such as data sharing".
• “We have advanced on some separation issues for which European businesses need certainty, such as customs, VAT, Euratom and certificates for goods,” Barnier said in a statement accompanying a joint declaration from Brussels and London.
• Davis rejected such concerns, saying the bill and the powers it will create were designed to ensure legal certainty and that any changes in policy would be carried out through the normal legislative process, during which parliament would have its say.

Source that consider Brexit uncertainty: «The ‘in-out’ nature of the Brexit debate, and the focus on uncertainty about the referendum outcome, obscures another, equally important layer of Brexit uncertainty for business, which is about what a vote to leave the EU would actually mean in practice. There are uncertainties about both the destination – what the future relationship between the UK and the EU would ultimately look like – and the journey to get there. We are unlikely to get clarity about the destination before the referendum as those who want the UK to leave the EU want to avoid this becoming the question. But the alternatives have very different implications for business. There are equally many uncertainties about the journey, in part because the process of leaving the EU is unclear, but also because politics – in the rest of Europe as well as the UK – will trump economics in the negotiation between the UK and the rest of Europe. Most large businesses will want to evaluate the risks created by Brexit uncertainty from a fiduciary, operational, and strategic perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.73 (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

International context of Brexit

Commentators propose a wider context for Brexit, given election results in the USA and in several European countries, notably Poland, Hungary, Austria and Italy, prompting French president Macron in May 2018 to refer to Brexit as an "alarm bell".

Luxufluxo has removed this summary sentence from the lead and is requesting a discussion. The key statement is from President Macron's speech when receiving the Charlemagne Prize in May 2018:[9] I think we need to balance the current UK-only view with a more international view. Comments please. 81.131.171.12 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Opinion polls in the fortnight following the referendum suggested that the immediate reaction in the Netherlands and other European countries was a decline in support for Eurosceptic movements.[147]</ref> Eurosceptic parties were indeed defeated in the Netherlands and in France; however, elections in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy and potentially Slovenia have brought Eurosceptic parties into government. Commentators therefore propose a wider context for Brexit and also for the outcome of the presidential elections in the USA, prompting French president Macron in May 2018 to refer to Brexit as an "alarm bell".[148][149][150]" - The text in question.

I think you are overreaching from what the sources are saying, by interpreting a wider international movement in the manner you are. Brexit, in so far as it was expressing dissatisfaction with the EU, was expressing a uniquely British dissatisfaction, that of intra-EU migration (even if Leave.EU did its best in the last days of the referendum to conflate between it an external migration flows) and British exceptionalism within the context of EU intergration. This is not, and has not ever been to the same extent, a concern on the continent and certainly did not feature in campaigns in Poland, Hungary, Austria or Italy - the ones you cite. Lumping the likes of Douglas Murray, Macron and Behr in as sources referred to here as commentators is also misleading; Macron has a political interest in portraying Brexit as part of a wider movement, as he is trying to gain momentum for his eurozone reforms. Murray is a well known Eurosceptic (or Europhobe) who has long predicted (and encouraged) the downfall of the EU. Behr was if anything, in his piece, cautioning against the wide sweeping generalisations about the context of Brexit. Indeed, latest polls show that 72% of Italians want to stay in the euro - a core project of the EU, yet if you read your paragraph and you had little knowledge of the EU it would seem like there was some wider clambering at the door for EU exit. Luxofluxo (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Good morning Luxofluxo. Your premise is wrong; Euroscepticism in the Wikipedia article is defined thus, and is not necessarily connected to "clambering at the door for EU exit" (or leaving the euro, as JC Juncker has correctly stated in a recent interview):

In a statistical analysis published in April 2016, Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University defined Euroscepticism as the wish to sever or reduce the powers of the EU, and conversely Europhilia as the desire to preserve or increase the powers of the EU. According to this definition, the British Social Attitudes (BSA) surveys show an increase in euroscepticism from 38% (1993) to 65% (2015). Euroscepticism should however not be confused with the wish to leave the EU: the BSA survey for the period July–November 2015 shows that 60% backed the option "continue as an EU member", and only 30% backed the option to "withdraw".[4]

I suggest you add the pro-euro-currency opinion poll to the Italian election paragraph, and that should prevent confusion for the reader. Better still, dig out the Juncker interview (in the past 2 months, he will easily remember) and cite that as the concluding sentence of the Italy paragraph. 81.131.171.222 (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a) I would refrain from telling other editors they are wrong unless you are trying to provoke them and b) I think you are embarking on a tangent from the discussion, providing a quote from John Curtice doesn't add to your argument. I simply don't understand where you are going with that. c) I don't think adding a quote about Italian attitudes to the euro in an article on Brexit is a good idea, rather such a discussion belongs in the Wikipedia article on Euroscepticism, which is also the appropriate place to discuss how Brexit fits in with wider Eurosceptic movements, not here. I would refrain from making any connections between Brexit and nationalist/populist movements in power in Italy, Poland, Hungary and Austria, the latter 3 which have been propelled greatly by the migration crisis, with Brexit pretty much a blip in terms of its salience there. I will be removing that paragraph hence. You've made a great deal of changes to the article, which is fine as per WP:Bold, but I'd appreciate if you don't railroad this through without discussion and time for other editors to add feedback. Luxofluxo (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Luxofluxo, I politely explained why you are wrong when you equate Euroscepticism wirh a desire the leave the EU/euro currency. You are wrong according to the Euroscepticism definition in the Wikipedia article, not necessarily wrong in your own context, so please do not take this criticism personally. None of us is perfect.

The bigger picture is that you wish to "refrain from making any connections between Brexit and nationalist/populist movements in power in Italy, Poland, Hungary and Austria". But the fact is President Macron has heard the "alarm bell" and wishes to reform the EU. That is worth a Wikipedia mention, in order to rebalance the UK-lopsided focus. It is irrelevant if you/I/we agree with Macron's assessment. I encourage you to cite the opinion poll or the Juncker interview as a counterargument, rather than deleting Macron. 81.131.171.222 (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand Macron currently wants to style himself as the leader of Europe, maybe campaigning to become the next EU President, but for God's sake there is no reason whatsoever we should push this into the Brexit article. As to the risk of conflating Euroscepticism with Brexit I agree with you that it exists, although I think editors of this article do seem to understand the difference. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not debating chamber

Thie purpose of this talk page is determine how best to improve the article. It is not to be used for opinion pieces and silly assertions like those above: see WP:NOTFORUM. Any further material in this vein will be deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You cannot be the only arbiter. "Definition of arbiter by Oxford Dictionaries- a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter."195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless it's been removed I can't see anything above that isn't specifically discussing issues with the article.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Economist reference requested by Friedman and Luxofluxo

Friedman and Luxofluxo, this well-written Economist analysis[10] is specifically for you (see your deletion and comments above). I would be grateful if you could resurrect the deleted "international Brexit context" statement, and cite this Economist reference in support. Thank you. 81.131.171.183 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece, an essay, about liberalism and should not be used as a reference in this article.Smeat75 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Dubious coalition

I have tagged this although a cross-party "Remainer" coalition aims to defeat Brexit entirely. as dubious because I have not come across any such coalition and as the Times is paywalled, I can't check the source. Would someone please verify and clarify? Is it an opinion piece or a factual report? [because some commentators regard anything other than "hard" as a defeat. If so, it adds nothing to the first part of the sentence]. Where is this in the body? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As no-one has defended this and it has all the signs of being opinion and does not summarise body content, I am deleting it. [I have also changed the name of this section because template:dubious directs to Talk#Dubious and it may be needed elsewhere at a later date]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I see someone had already done it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

References

I see nothing to support, verbatim or otherwise, 'although a cross-party "Remainer" coalition aims to defeat Brexit entirely' in Matt Ridley's Times article of: Monday, 18 June, 2018.[11] Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

UK employment and foreign investment increase to record levels since Brexit referendum. Request by Luxofluxo

[Since the referendum] Immigration has slowed, foreign investment has increased, and unemployment has fallen to its lowest level since 1975.

Luxofluxo has deleted the above sentence from the lead, and is doubting whether the Guardian source sees a causal effect regarding the Brexit vote and employment.

The causal effect is given in the cited Guardian article as follows: The number of people in work also reached a record high of 32.2 million as 55,000 more people started a job, giving an employment rate of 75.4%. The number of job vacancies remained close to the record high reached in December, hovering at 815,000, amid fears of labour shortages triggered by Brexit.[12]

Pretty straightforward really. This should be reinstated in the lead, otherwise the reader will have the impression that the referendum had only negative economic effects. Over to you, Luxofluxo.81.131.171.246 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there any refs saying that this was due to the referendum? How does that compare to employment growth pre-referendum? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors following the BBC narrative of anything positive that happens is despite of Brexit, whilst anything negative is because of Brexit.

The Brexit content/coverage on Wikipedia is a biased shambles. Sumorsǣte (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Seems like cherry-picking to me. Every reliable authority on economics attributes substantial detriments to Brexit and few benefits other than to those who bet against the pound around the time of the referendum. And incidentally funded Leave. Almost as if they are evil profiteers or something. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The previous commentator's attempt at impartiality disintegrated with his last remarks. The truth is that no-one knows whether Brexit will be economically harmful or not. In the short term, certainly, there will be disruption and difficulty (and doubtless a dip in economic output), but in the longer term Britain might conceivably grow faster than a slow-growing EU, just as Canada, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, the USA and New Zealand are managing to do now. What cannot be disputed, however, is that the abandonment of Brexit would be extremely dangerous and would lead to an absolute loss of trust in the institutions of British democracy with consequences that are hard to predict but which would certainly include political extremism, probably include civil disobedience and mass protest, and possibly include violence and civil war. Anyone who imagines that this would be "highly unlikely" or a "minor inconvenience" is being every bit as complacent as the most starry-eyed Brexiteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

All, please read Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I have crossed out contributions that are opinions about the topic rather than about improving the article through reliable sources. Further contributions that are editorial Ising will be deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

TEU name

Someone please change this in the title summary. It's the Treaty on European Union, not the Treaty on the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.115.141 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit-request

can we add another entry to Brexit in Literature?

The earliest book on the subject is '51st State' by Peter Preston, Editor of The Guardian from 1975 until 1995.

the following taken from WorldCat.org 51st state Author: Peter Preston Publisher: London ; New York : Viking, 1998. Edition/Format: Print book : Fiction : EnglishView all editions and formats Summary: Inspired by the patriotism of his dying father, Rupert Warner uses his position to lead England out of the EC, and almost accidentally into the United States. Even more accidentally, he finds himself running for the Vice-Presidency, and who knows where that might lead.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/51st-state/oclc/39746908?referer=di&ht=edition

--GovernmentBoffin (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 UK gov Brexit policy paper

Please can the publication of the policy be added to the article, see policy section here: https://www.gov.uk/government/brexit John a s (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request - Electoral Commission finds Vote Leave broke electoral law & People's Vote

The article has not been updated to include the latest developments in the Electoral Commission's findings that Vote Leave broke electoral law and its subsequent fine and suggestion of a criminal investigation by the police, with only Leave.EU mentioned in such a regard so far.. . In addition, both of these findings should not be in a section entitled "potential irregulaties." They are certainly not "potential", and are more than irregulaties. The Electoral Commission is the statutory body with the power to interpret where electoral law has been broken, and it has found against them both. This is a pretty major misrepresentation as to how serious these findings are.

In addition, the People's Vote should be added to the terminology section and described in further detail under a new section, 4.3 "People's Vote". 213.205.194.175 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-Protected Edit Request - Unnecessary Comma

Under "Domestic Impact on the United Kingdom"->"Immigration"->"Long Term", the sentence "KPMG, based on a survey of 2,000 EU workers in UK, estimates that about a million EU citizens working in the UK, see their future in Britain as over or hanging in the balance.", should be changed to "KPMG, based on a survey of 2,000 EU workers in UK, estimates that about a million EU citizens working in the UK see their future in Britain as over or hanging in the balance." The comma is unnecessary and incorrect.

 Done ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Brexit Date

The question of when Britain leaves the UK is not determined by an act of the UK parliament but by the EU treaties. It is not an argument about which we need to give both sides. It is a fairly simple fact. Compare:

Earth is the third planet from the Sun.

with

The World (Withdrawal) Act 2018 defines "the Earth" as the third planet from the Sun.

Moreover Article 50 allows two ways for the the date to changed by agreement between the EU and the UK. It is not set in in stone. This is why it's important to say "Absent agreement to the contrary". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The EU Treaties determine what the latest date exit can be - the Act of Parliament determines that exit will take place on that date under UK law. They are different actions. I also think the section should be quoted in full as a legal definition. --Mervyn (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn's comment makes better sense than BHS's straw man, not much improved by edsum "the exit date could be before or after the 30 March - the withdrawal agreement could set a date before March 2019" which will happen only if both parties agree, for which there is no current factual basis. The previous version is clearer and reads better than BHS's[13] Qexigator (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)