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.

Brok and Juncker consider erecting hard border in Ireland

In the negotiation section, can an editor plase add the following remarkable news: "German CDU politician Elmar Brok (EU Brexit committee) and Claude Juncker (EU Commission President) have stated in early 2019 that they favour erecting a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, even at the risk of a civil war in Ireland, rather than compromising the Common Market in the event of a no-deal Brexit."[1]

This is from today's Tagesschau, the main German TV news. Here is the excerpt in German, with Google translation:

Brexit-Experte Brok stellte bereits vergangenen Monat in Straßburg klar, dass die EU - im Fall eines harten Brexit - lieber die Gefahr eines wiederaufflammenden Nordirland-Konfliktes in Kauf nimmt, als die Gefährdung des EU-Binnenmarktes durch eine offene und unkontrollierte EU-Außengrenze auf der irischen Insel. Broks Begründung: "Diese harte Grenze schadet Großbritannien viel mehr als uns." Vor allem würde die harte Grenze Nordirland schaden. Will die EU tatsächlich lieber das Risiko eines neuen Nordirland-Konfliktes eingehen als das Risiko, dass Chlorhühnchen oder Hormonrinder unkontrolliert via Nordirland in die EU kommen? Brok vermag da keine Zwickmühle für die EU erkennen. Für ihn hat die Verteidigung des Wohlstandsgaranten namens EU-Binnenmarkt und seiner Außengrenzen oberste Priorität. Und so sieht es auch Juncker, Mays heutiger Gastgeber in Brüssel.

Brexit expert Brok already made it clear in Strasbourg last month that the EU - in the case of a hard Brexit - would rather risk a resurgent Northern Ireland conflict than compromise the EU's internal market with an open and unregulated EU external border on the island of Ireland. Broks reasoning: "This hard frontier hurts Britain a lot more than us." Above all, the hard border would hurt Northern Ireland. In fact, does the EU want to take the risk of a new Northern Ireland conflict rather than the risk of chlorinated chickens or hormone-treated beef coming into the EU via Northern Ireland in an uncontrolled manner? Brok does not see any dilemma for the EU. For him, the defence of the economic benefits of the EU internal market and its external borders has the highest priority. And this is also the view of Juncker, May's current host in Brussels.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 10:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A hard border is the logical consequence if no other arrangements are made. It's not as if the EU can prevent it. What exactly do you think needs to be added? It seems all that information is already in the article. Regards SoWhy 11:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

::Indeed, you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Any other opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.201.183 (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

But an other arrangement can be made:

• instead of doing a no deal Brexit within five weeks, Theresay May may ask a three month delay to perform a Brexit during June, and each of the 27 partners might accept it[2].
• instead of doing a no deal Brexit within three months weeks, Theresay May may ask a longer delay to perform a Brexit later, and each of the 27 partners might accept it, which would make the UK to contest in the EU elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.215 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Juncker considers "Any decision to ask for more time lies with the UK. If such a request were to be made, no one in Europe would oppose it," "It is like being before the courts or on the high seas; we are in God's hands. And we can never quite be sure when God will take the matter in hand," [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.215 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum. Contributions to this talk page must be limited how best to show to verifiable facts. There are many other places where you can speculate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Article should deal with facts. The fact is that there are three hypothesis: A deal for the 29th march 2019, no deal on 29th march 2019 or a delay. The delay option had never be considered previously, but now that we see there is a risk the UK can not agree in time the deal she negotiated, more and more newspapers present the so called article 50 extension as the only alternative to a failure to conclude the deal on time [4]. That is the factual reason why the article should be extended with this consideration. Making clear the decision on this issue is up to the UK, according to reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.185 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This may well happen but wp:Wikipedia is not a newspaper so does not and should not aim to reflect hour by hour changes in the political wind. More importantly, per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not speculate. When something has actually happened, we report it. As of 10:10 on 26 February 2019 the position in EU law and UK law remains that the UK will exit on 29 March at 23:00 UT. You (and I) may believe that this is minimally probable but our opinion cannot be reported, only verifiable facts. We cannot extend the article with this speculatation, precisely because it is speculation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not speculate." We say exist is on 29 march 2019, when it is just the first agreed time which offer two options: exit at this date or additional delay.

"When something has actually happened, we report it." Theresa May has planned to ask MPs, this month the 14th, if they wants a short and limited extension of the Article 50, in case MPs do not agree on the 12th the deal scenario and do not agree on the 13th the no deal scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.118 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We could report that she has a plan but given all its ifs and ands, I suggest we wait to see what actually happens. To rephrase your statement, IF her deal is not approved on the 12th AND IF "no deal" is not approved on the 13th THEN a vote to approve a short delay will be called - and that might fail too, opening the way to a second referendum? or a General Election? or even a coup d'etat! These votes will all be resolved in two weeks' time so, rather than clutter an over-long article with a complicated explanation of a flow-chart, let's just wait and then document the outcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Might be a tree could help to explain shortly the UK process:

• Theresa May has planned to ask MPs,
  • on march the 12th (D - 17) MPs vote the deal scenario if agreed: Brexit withdrawal agreement might apply
    • else: on the 13th (D - 16) MPs vote the no deal scenario if disagreement agreed Failure of negotiations : «no_deal»
      • else: the 14th (D - 15) , MPs vote for a short and limited extension of the Article 50 if agreed: short and limited extension of the Article 50 Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Procedure (till june 2019 due to the 2019 European Parliament election)
        • else (D - 14) UK has no more many other options than, for instance, to remain in the EU Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Re-entry_or_unilateral_revocation and to be involved into the 2019 European Parliament election

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.54 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Unbalanced and NPOV tags

Over the past 18 months or so, but particularly over the past six months, concerns have been expressed by a number of different editors about the neutrality of the article in certain areas and whether it is appropriately balanced.

On 12 November 2018, JASpencer placed an Unbalanced tag on the article, with the edit summary: "See Talk Page discussion (The Role of Economic forecasts in the lead and NPOV)".

During various talk page discussions last year, different editors expressed concerns. On the NPOV discussion in November 2018, JASpencer wrote: "Clearly the economic case could be in the lead, does it need to be in the lead where only the Remain arguments are allowed in the lead section, however coincidentally?"

T8612 wrote: "It is absurd to detail a process piloted by the British government without actually mentioning their stance. It is not "folly" to present the main argument of the government. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly presentation of the economic consequences of Brexit."

After an attempt was made to address balance in the article, but which was swiftly reverted, JASpencer wrote: "It's very disappointing that we simply saw a knee jerk undoing. Again we've seen another simple reversion to a text that may well reflect the views of the editor, but doesn't meet the requirement of WP:NPOV, without discussion on this talk page – or even an attempt to find common ground." JASpencer added: "There are clearly ownership issues with the page and this page does need to show that it's balance is disputed."

However, within less than five days the "Unbalanced" tag had been removed from the article by another editor and I'm not convinced that the issues of concern expressed by various editors had been resolved or common ground found when the tag was removed. Could I ask the editor who placed the Unbalanced tag, JASpencer, whether you felt the issues had been resolved when another editor removed the tag a few days after it had been put on the article?

The following month, on 6 December 2018, after further concerns about balance and NPOV issues were expressed on the talk page, RichardWeiss placed an NPOV tag on the article, indicating that there had been a dispute over neutrality. However, that tag was also removed by another editor as well. Can I ask the editor who placed the NPOV tag, RichardWeiss, whether you feel the issues concerned about balance and neutrality have been resolved?

Going further back in the article's history, in December 2017, EddieHugh had concerns about NPOV on the article and placed NPOV tags, but within 15 minutes the tags were removed by another editor. EddieHugh placed the NPOV tags again on the article and within less than 10 minutes the tags had been removed. I thought that the convention on Wikipedia is that things are discussed and common ground is found on the talk page to try to resolve issues before the tags are actually removed?

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is not really needed because the article is not unbalanced, but incomplete. One editor thinks that it should only rely on academic studies, which are usually consensual about the fact that Brexit is a terrible mistake. The problem with this approach is that the political background is missing in the article, which does not explain the situation (eg. why do politicians still want to do it despite the experts' unanimous opinion against it?). For examples: Nigel Farage is only mentioned twice in the text, the first mention is about his resignation from UKIP, the second is his portrayal in a film. Boris Johnson is likewise mentioned two times. Jacob Rees-Mogg is not mentioned at all, but the ERG is mentioned once (without any explanation about what "ERG" stands for). Corbyn is only mentioned twice. Etc. These people are very important to the whole process, I dare say more than academic studies about the economy, or foodstuff and the NHS.

Once again, someone coming here to understand why Theresa May still wants to do this Brexit would leave confused and uninformed. T8612 (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I stopped counting the number of editors who had pointed out serious POV problems and who had then given up trying to fix them. The number reached double figures, then I gave up too, believing that it wasn't worth the aggravation of trying to interact with (a small number of) editors who, through their actions, showed that they had no interest in creating a neutral article or in building a consensus. Another editor commented on this a few months ago: "Any casual reader like myself can immediately see in the lead that this article lead is biased. Therefore thee 'biased' lead serves its purpose, like a cancer warning on a cigarette packet"; this is undesirable, but the alternative's been tried. I have no wish to get involved in it all again: anyone can read through the archive if they want details of what's wrong. Finally, T8612: you make very good points about what's missing, but then reach the wrong conclusion. Such omissions (all of which are on one side of the Brexit 'debate', of course) could readily be remedied through the ample RS available, so what you describe is a very good example of a lack of NPOV, which is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and "describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". EddieHugh (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Alas, indeed, everybody gave up attempts at neutrality long ago. I wouldn't know where to begin. This is typical of what happens to articles that evolve by slow-motion accretion of news of the day. Given that most news are gloomy, and academic views are gloomier yet, you get a decidedly negative article, whose readers can't help wonder why 52% of the UK public were so "stupid" or "easily fooled". — JFG ^talk 18:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Knowing how Wikipedia works, by the nature of this subject, I cannot see how this article could ever be perfectly balanced until years after Brexit has been over and done with. As I'm American, I don't claim to be familiar with all of Brexit's subtleties, but I can say I'm suspicious of anyone claiming they know all of them very well, and that there's nothing controversial in the article's coverage in any of them. Unlike most encyclopedias, Wikipedia can cover ongoing events, and that's great, but it will never do so perfectly throughout the event. Not having such tags seems evident POV in itself, and that reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Let's just admit this is bound to happen, tag it, and move on to useful editing. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

How to compute the countdown?

According to daystobrexit.co.uk, there are 21 days 22 hours 41 minutes and 56 seconds till Brexit, while, According to interactive.news.sky.com/2017/brexit-countdown/, there are 21 Days : 23 Hours : 41 Mins : 56 Secs till Brexit. In both cases this makes more than 500 hours right now.

This makes one hour difference. Which is the right method to compute such a time, and which number is the right one, knowing that Brexit comes before EU Summer Time?

I assume that interactive.news.sky might b eright, and daystobrexit might be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.185 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Just had a look, they seem to have the same countdown without a one hour difference? Jopal22 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Might be two different computation methods are used by interactive.news.sky and daystobrexit:

• interactive.news.sky might compute the delay between 1553900400 seconds javascript epoch (that is Sat 30 March 2019 00:00:00), since Date.now() (the local time since January 1, 1970 00:00:00 UTC) adding a 3600 seconds hour and removing it [5]
• daystobrexit.co.uk might compute the delay till "2019/03/29 23:00" [[6]] from now computed since midnight January 1, 1970 UTC [7]

I assume the interactive.news.sky one is the right one, if Brexit occurs at midnight (European time) or 23:00 UTC as planned, but I wonder if those Brexit countdown computation depends upon timezone. The wikipedia one does not seam to be dependant to timezone: unknown has ended (refresh)

Where are the pro-leave arguments?

I'm an American and don't know much about British politics. I looked at this article hoping tp unserstand the Brexit controversy. The article seens to be mostly about votes, polls, negotiations, the practicalities, post-Brexit scenarios, but it doesn't tell me what the underlying issues are. There's more on the harm Brexit would cause, but please add why it passed in the first place.

Here's a relevant column fron today's Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-more-we-learn-about-brexit-the-more-crooked-it-looks/2019/03/08/b011517c-411c-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html deisenbe (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not sure I fancy trying to write an NPOV account of the arguments for and against Brexit, complete with fact and logic checking, but if you want to try, or just want some personal enlightenment, you might like to look at the Washington Post article and https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/01/why-uk-cannot-see-brexit-utterly-utterly-stupid. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately Brexit is a very polarised issue, even on Wikipedia, with many of those wishing to remain seeing an unbiased view of brexit being it is a complete disaster voted for by the naive and mislead. This article from before the vote doesn't do too badly in summarising much of the points covered https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36027205 Jopal22 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The article 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum has some background detail on the arguments put by both sides. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point, Deisenbe. I was surprized to find that this article doesn't seem to mention one potential benefit of Brexit for the UK, yet it goes into great length about the potential harms of Brexit. This is even though plenty of potential benefits have been put forth by those who support Brexit. I'm not saying I agree with all the arguments, I'm simply saying that they should be given in this article for the sake of balance. That's one of the key policies of Wikipedia. However, I'd argue that the lack of pro-Brexit arguments in this article is a breach of that policy, and it should be tagged as having POV issues until that's dealt with. Again, we don't have to agree with the arguments, but we must note them – otherwise we're going against Wikipedia policy and harming its reputation.
Some pro-Brexit arguments can be found here, here, here, here and here. ~Asarlaí 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the process of the UK leaving the EU. Whether people think that is a good or bad idea and what arguments were made to support these stances before the referendum does not belong in this article but the one John mentioned above and the others you mentioned. To put it another way: The process is not affected by whether it was the right choice or the wrong choice, so everything in the article about the process should merely reflect that. So instead of slapping a NPOV-tag on the article, can you elaborate which parts are actually non-neutral (in terms of actual facts, not potential ones)? Regards SoWhy 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm quoting what I wrote above about the main problem of this article:

One editor thinks that it should only rely on academic studies, which are usually consensual about the fact that Brexit is a terrible mistake. The problem with this approach is that the political background is missing in the article, which does not explain the situation (eg. why do politicians still want to do it despite the experts' unanimous opinion against it?). For examples: Nigel Farage is only mentioned twice in the text, the first mention is about his resignation from UKIP, the second is his portrayal in a film. Boris Johnson is likewise mentioned two times. Jacob Rees-Mogg is not mentioned at all, but the ERG is mentioned once (without any explanation about what "ERG" stands for). Corbyn is only mentioned twice. Etc. These people are very important to the whole process, I dare say more than academic studies about the economy, or foodstuff and the NHS. T8612 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: If this article is only about process, so much so that "the process is not affected by whether it was the right choice or the wrong choice, so everything in the article about the process should merely reflect that", why does this article contain so much speculation about the impacts of Brexit? For example, which aspect of process is served by speculations on the possible economic consequences of Brexit (of which there are currently several in the article)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with PaleCloudedWhite. If the article is only about the process of the UK leaving the EU, and not about the potential effects after it leaves, then shouldn't big chunks of it be removed? This would include most of "Domestic impact on the United Kingdom". If it's only about the process, then surely it should only include things that have already happened or almost certainly will happen because of the process – not things that some believe may happen (be they for or against Brexit)?
The facts and speculation here are overwhelmingly about the downsides, with none of the upsides or counter-arguments. The key points made by the pro-Brexit side aren't even noted: that after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees (all of which are facts). That's the issue. Again, there may be lots of downsides to Brexit, but by not giving the other side we're going against Wikipedia's key policies. ~Asarlaí 01:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that this article should only include things that have already happened or almost certainly will happen because of the process – not things that some believe may happen (be they for or against Brexit) per above comment, the article would certainly be improved by text with citable sources to support a description of the issue as after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees (all of which are facts) ? Are there sources such as NPOV reports of publications issued by the UK government, House of Commone or House of Lords? Qexigator (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Citable sources that adequately define for an inquring reader what the "underlying issues are", or why the result of the referendum was that the UK should withdraw from EU, are in short supply. The bulk of the article's speculative forecasts is in sections 8 'Domestic impact on UK', 9 'Impact on bilateral UK relations', and 10 'Consequences on bilateral UK relations'. Those forecasts are rapidly becoming out of date, but some of the information about them may be retained for historical interest for comparison with the actual outcomes. Thus, the lead states "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 had damaged the economy....". Before long that will need to be updated to past tense, and removed from the lead, to be replaced with NPOV information about the current state of affairs after 29 March. Qexigator (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

As per Asarlaí, I agree that sections of the article that speculate on future possibilities should be removed or seriously reworked to present a more balanced overview. It's no wonder that non-UK readers of this article might be baffled as to the referendum result, when speculative information is presented in this way and certain aspects are omitted entirely (for example, there appears to currently be almost nothing on the post-Brexit regaining of UK sovereignty, despite the fact that this was a major factor in the Leave victory). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "regaining of UK sovereignty" exactly and what you expect to see in the article about that? After all, the article does already say that there are "759 international agreements, spanning 168 non-EU countries, that the UK would no longer be a party to upon leaving the EU" as well as outlining all the EU agencies it will no longer belong to. In fact, the who point of withdrawal is that EU law no longer applies. As for impact, facts and verifiable scientific predictions about what will (likely) happen after 29 March is something readers will expect to find. Here, too, I'd invite concrete proposals of what should be added. After all, there are things that are certain to happen, such as the UK losing access to any EU provided services if there is no Withdrawal Agreement. Again, this article should not be about why there is a Brexit, only about what happened and what will likely happen based on reliable sources. In that vein, I suggest those who see NPOV problems to clarify what exactly they want to see added and which sources they have to back this up. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"...scientific predictions about what will (likely) happen after 29 March" are predictions and speculations akin to the arguments given by the Remain side prior to the referendum, yet you stated above that "what arguments were made to support these stances before the referendum does not belong in this article". The problem with engaging in speculation in this way is that, to be balanced, the article will necessarily have to engage with the politics of the whole Remain-Leave argument, which is certainly not aligning with your previous statement that this article is about process. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Someone who was in favor of Brexit can (and sometimes also has) admit that there are negative consequences and someone who was against Brexit can admit that there are positive consequences. So why there is a Brexit can (and imho should) be viewed distinctly from what the predicted consequences are (for example, the article Aftermath of World War II does not contain the same information as Causes of World War II does, yet no one would expect this to be any different). So I ask again, do you have any reliably sourced information about what is likely to happen that aligns with pro-Leave arguments that you think is missing in the article? If so, please tell us and we can discuss changes. Regards SoWhy 13:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The language you use is revealing. Above you wrote "I suggest those who see NPOV problems to clarify what exactly they want to see added" (my emphasis). Want to see added but need to ask permission? Sounds like it. Immediately above you wrote "please tell us and we can discuss changes". Please tell who - the people who are permitted to edit the article? Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (allegedly). Editors don't need to ask permission to make changes. You're not a gatekeeper. I have scanned the recent article history and I get an impression of a recurring theme of certain editors only allowing "scientific" economic forecasts while disallowing political statements. Yet Brexit is as much a political animal as an economic one (if not more so), and to adopt this approach seems like a clever wheeze to ensure the article only presents one side. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to just edit the article and add what you think is missing. But the purpose of this talk page and this very discussion is to identify the alleged shortcomings, so it would be useful if they were actually named. So instead of focusing on whether you are allowed or not to just edit the article (you are), could you tell us, what exactly you want to edit? Regards SoWhy 15:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You've nailed it, @PaleCloudedWhite:. The article is a list of academic studies which completely ignore the political situation. It is almost impossible to find academic studies supporting Brexit because the consensus is that it's going to be bad (and I also think that). However the academic consensus on Brexit is almost irrelevant for this article, the most important is about the process, as @SoWhy: himself said above, and the whole process—apart from the official negotiations with the EU—is blatantly missing.

In a nutshell, Brexit was designed by Cameron to unify the Conservative Party, but it was not supposed to happen. Cameron's plan failed and now Theresa May is facing a stalemate because she cannot find a majority either way (Soft/Deal/Hard Brexit) and also relies on the DUP, which further complicates the process. Added to this the fact that Corbyn is a closet Brexiter, going against the majority of his party. Hence why the whole thing has been going on for three years without a solution. This is what should be detailed in the article, with the arguments for/against either solution to Brexit (Soft/Deal/Hard Brexit), as well the official positions of each political parties, groups or leaders, etc. Then academic studies can be used to contradict politicians' fantasies, but they shouldn't be the basis of the article. T8612 (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the general thrust of what T8612 says above, and would support some restructuring of the article on such lines. In particular, much of the speculation on the impacts of Brexit should be taken out or, alternatively, re-sectioned, trimmed and balanced, as it is a form of re-hashing of arguments given prior to the referendum. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the current version of the article would be improved by such restructuring and trimming, but, apart from anything glaringly out of date or POV, it may be better to leave as is, and to wait until 29 March (18 days:9 hrs, 27 mins, decreasing),[8] when we will know definitely whether "exit day" is an accomplished fact or not, and if not, what the position at that date has become. The current state of affairs is too unstable and shifting from day to day to restructure before then. In the meantime, as said above, the article would certainly be improved by text with citable sources to support a description of the issue as "after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees" (all of which are facts). Qexigator (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that they aren't (facts), this is more speculation. It depends on the withdrawal agreement and trade agreement if any. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case perhaps we should delete the article altogether, as it is not a fact that Brexit is a real thing. The people's vote could get it's way and Brexit could be averted. Jopal22 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

JMF: The issue is, of course, whether or not "after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees" after 29 March: the government is contending that the current proposed "withdrawal agreement" (with the declaration and joint instrument) would satisfy the referendum result in that respect, others contend it would not, and this issue is for further debate in the House of Commons today, Tuesday. Qexigator (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

POV tag bombing of article

I have read through the entire article twice now and I fail to see what specific sections or text is POV. What I do see is basically a repeat of the conflict in the house of commons played out on wikipedia and all the disagreement between various factions involved in Brexit. Can whomever keeps tag bombing the article explain to me which sections are POV so they can get fixed? Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Brexit is a process with which the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union, an institution which many people feel is bureaucratic and has a clear democratic deficit. Each year the UK pays £13bn of contributions to the EU, whilst the EU only spends £4bn in the UK. Leaving the EU could therefore mean £9bn net saving in payments, and the ability for the UK to spend the remaining £4bn in a manner it prefers. Leaving the EU will also mean the UK would leave the Common Agricultural Policy, something that the UK has long wanted to change as it currently pays a subsidy to all farmers based upon land owned (which disproportionately benefits larger countries like France). The UK is looking at replacing it with a system that rewards efficient farming and good environmental practices. The UK will also repatriate a vast number of political ownership over items such as who can fish in British waters, and who should be allowed to gain residency in the UK. Many also see it as an opportunity for the UK to be a more outward looking nation, and develop its own trade policy, rather than have to work as part of the EU which is often criticised for having protectionist practices. The vote to leave the EU was seen as being disproportionately driven by those who are more disadvantaged, and feel ignored by mainstream society and the political class. Many felt their vote to leave the EU was the first time they had the opportunity to have their voice heard, but some people feel that because of their social class that they are depicted as ignorant and racist as a basis to undermine the vote.

You see what I did there. I could find a citation for all of the above, as it is factually correct, and I have used the word "could" to cover myself on items where the outcome is uncertain. Each sentence above is a fair statement, but having the above as the lede to this Brexit article would be completely biased as overall it does not represent the full range of discussions around Brexit. Note that I voted remain, as I see did others arguing for a more balanced article above. This is definitely not about a repeat of the conflict in the house of commons, as I and other people are not arguing for or against Brexit, they are just arguing for a more balanced, concise and informative article, something we should all support Jopal22 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to put the anti- and pro-Brexit arguments into the article if it's done in a NPOV way. Currently, the article features neither pro- nor anti-Brexit political rhetoric. The problem is when the pro-Brexit political rhetoric is used to rebut actual peer-reviewed studies and expert assessments. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE, and it's something that a couple of editors have been trying to add (e.g. "There's a consensus among experts that Y. However, Boris Johnson says Y is false"). Another problem is when the pro-Brexit arguments are solely added to the article while no anti-Brexit arguments are added. That's not WP:NPOV, and it's something that a couple of editors have been trying to add (e.g. solely add whatever Boris Johnson, David Davis and Dominic Raab are saying about Brexit while leaving out what David Lammy, Nick Clegg and James O'Brien are saying). A related problem is to adequately summarize pro- and anti-Brexit arguments - given that there are so many, it's going to be hard and we'd need to rely on high-quality academic sources to summarize the contemporary debate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So one of the arguments for Brexit was that the amount of immigration pushed down wages for low skilled. There is evidence that companies are having to increases wages as a result of Brexit. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-skills-shortage-wages-rise-net-migration-falls-cipd-report-a8489366.html

Another is replacing the Common Agricultural Policy with a much better system, where the objectives have already clearly been set out https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/brexit-leaving-eu-farming-agriculture

We should also outline what taking back sovereignty means, in context of historical examples, something set out well here https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/17-reasons-why-we-should-love-brexit/ Jopal22 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:You cannot summarize a current political debate with academic sources; newspapers ought to be used for this. I am telling it to you once again, but there is no falsebalance in reporting Brexiters' opinions, even if they contradict academic studies. By this logic every stupid thing a politician could say should not be reported on Wikipedia. I think that a section "academic assessments of Brexit" must be included in the article, which would make it clear that the consensus is Brexit is going to be terrible. Brexiters' fantasies should however be featured, as well as Remainers' (I said every party, including the debates within each party). T8612 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"You cannot summarize a current political debate with academic sources". There are countless academic articles and books that have been authored about Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Such as? Give examples of what RS on the political situation are acceptable for you. T8612 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Google "University Press"+"Brexit" and "Professor"+"Brexit". Look up Brexit on Google Scholar. Endless RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There are indeed endless studies on Brexit, but they mostly deal with the economy, or sociology, etc. They do not transcribe the opinions of political leaders, which we should detail in the article about Brexit. Hence why newspapers are the best sources to track their declarations over time. T8612 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Great argumentation. T8612 (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. A few of the numerous academic books that have been published about Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: These articles are not reliable sources proving Brexit's benefits. There is an academic consensus on the consequences of Brexit that cannot be challenged with news articles. What should be added to the article is the opinions and arguments made by politicians, Brexiters and Remainers, in which case news articles are reliable sources. T8612 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(1) That article does not substantiate the claim that a Brexit-induced decline in migration has boosted salaries. (2) That's an op-ed by George Monbiot. (3) That's a random op-ed by a children's author (?). This is not what I had in mind when I said the article could cover both pro- and anti-Brexit arguments. Random op-eds. (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: This article is not covered by WP:MEDRS or any other restriction on the use of sources, other than the standard WP:IRS. WP:V states that "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources" - it does not state anything along the lines of "we'd need to rely on high-quality academic sources to summarize the contemporary debate" (as you do above). It is thus against Wikipedia policy advice to insist that only certain types of reliable sources are allowed to be used. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: Oh please. As a long time Wikipedia user, who has followed with interest this article over its development, this article gets repeatedly POV tag bombed, it goes to mediation and then the tags are removed. Why? Because every time this has happened there have been virtually no serious suggestions of what exactly this bias is, save that the article dares to give prominence to peer reviewed and published research on the consequences of Brexit over political speculation by this or that figure. It's very clear that what is intended to is either remove academic peer reviewed research or present other less reilable sources as false balance, all based on a rather false understanding of the heirachy of sources for social science based claims. Remove the tag and start acting in good faith to make suggestions on the talk page. But again, remove the tag now. As an aside, I've long thought that wiki needs a better way of controlling how these tags are use given their power to convey a message about the quality of content of an article to the average user. It is clear that in this case its being abused. 154.70.139.234 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The article already uses lots of non-academic sources about the potential risks and downsides of Brexit. Many of these warnings are left unchallenged, and some have been left in the article even after they’ve been dealt with (see under Rail for example). The Sport and Culture section is all based on speculation from non-academic sources, but it only notes the potential downsides and ignores the potential upsides mentioned in *those same sources*. That needs added. Also, the British government's website can be used as a source for information for what is likely to happen.
As I said, the article is overwhelmingly about the potential downsides and doesn't say enough about the potential upsides. The key points made by the pro-Brexit side aren't even noted, for example that the UK:

• will have full control over the laws that govern it
• will be free to make its own trade deals
• will no longer pay membership fees and could spend the money saved as it sees fit (noted above by Jopal).
• will have more control over immigration – the article focuses on the potential downsides of there being fewer EU immigrants, but doesn't note the potential upsides of being able to prioritize the immigration it needs and limit the immigration it doesn't need at a given time
• will regain control of fishing rights in its waters – this is vaguely hinted at under Fishing, but it barely notes the potential upsides for the UK and instead focuses on the potential downsides (mostly for the EU, even tho the section is meant to be about the UK).

These points must be noted and any criticism of them must also be noted. Again, there may be lots of downsides to Brexit, but by not giving enough of the other side we're going against Wikipedia's key policies. ~Asarlaí 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Tag

Propose removal of the neutrality tag as the discussion of editors show there is no consensus of obvious POV in the article. What is debated is the choice of sources, which can be discussed, and that some sources are not properly balanced, and these matters can be vigorously discussed on the article talk page without tag bombing the article as the issue is not POV but rather what sources meet WP:RS criteria. Many of the sources are little more than WP:OR and speculation and which probably don't belong in the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal of neutrality tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The choice to only rely on academic sources de facto excludes Brexiters' arguments from the article, hence the NPOV tag. T8612 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If your proposed sources meet WP:RS then they should be included. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems to be a concerted effort to bias this article with the ruse that only "academic studies" are allowed as a reason to reject anything that doesn't match their ideology, including other studies or factual items. Even though that is the premise of the argument, the article is allowed to contain passages like "The decline in EEA immigration is likely to have an adverse impact on the British health sector. According to the New York Times, Brexit "seems certain" to make it harder and costlier for the NHS, which already suffers from chronic understaffing, to recruit nurses, midwives and doctors from the rest of Europe." which goes unchallenged and cannot be classified as a "academic study". Jopal22 (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As long as your sources are not original research and they meet WP:RS then they should be included. Feel free to add them. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Content sourced to RS is perfectly fine. What I opposed was pulling random quotes from politicians from news items or from op-eds to summarize a political debate or to rebut academic studies. The NYT quote furthermore mirrors a Lancet study (which is also cited in the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: as many editors over time have said the article is not neutral, there is a neutrality dispute, and the tag should remain until this is resolved.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As per T8612, Jopal22 and Jack Upland, and because the article is structured in a way that emphasizes criticism of Brexit. The article contains no section on the arguments given by both sides before the referendum, which is a huge omission, yet it goes into considerable and lengthy detail on the "impacts" of Brexit, even though these are necessarily of a speculative nature because Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. The way the article is structured now, combined with the issue over sourcing mentioned above, and with the insistence by at least one editor of presenting estimates as facts, results in the article basically making an analysis on whether Brexit is good or bad - something it should not do - with the emphasis being that it is the latter (bad), as indicated by comments elsewhere that it seems a mystery to readers why anyone would have voted Leave. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Views of Brexit supporters are either ignored or painted as ignorant. That is a far cry from neutrality. — JFG ^talk 08:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Views of Brexit supporters are either ignored or painted as ignorant. In that respect, the style and tone of the article follows that of parliamentary debate and reporting in commercial media and their websites, and other sources such as BBC. If there is a citable source about that, let it be included, briefly in the lead, and expanded in the main body in the usual way. Further, the article is overloaded with detail on the "impacts" of Brexit, even though these are necessarily of a speculative nature because Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. (per PCW above). Qexigator (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal of neutrality tag. NPOV concerns stem from editors' sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The same editors who complain about NPOV have tried to insert random assertions by politicians as rebuttals to studies in the article. The article neither presents pro- nor anti-Brexit arguments, yet there is a desire to solely include pro-Brexit arguments because of a false sense that the contents derived from RS, studies and academic assessments are wrong or somehow biased. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. The article should neutrally present Leave and Remain arguments, attributed to their authors when needed, without stating in wikivoice anything that is not strictly factual. I agree that speculation on future outcomes should be heavily trimmed, or forked out to a dedicated Consequences of Brexit article. — JFG ^talk 12:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support If the editors who keep "bias" tag bombing the article wanted to make serious suggestions of how to improve the article they would have - and could have - drafted paragraphs for their inclusion here on the talk page, even during this discussion. They have not. They have not previously either. Indeed what has come to fore - yet again - is that a certain subsection of editors, in particular PaleCloudedWhite, T8612 and Qexigator have repatedly tried to label academic consensus on the likely affects of the available Brexit scenarios as - and here I'm using their own words - "speculation" which needs to be "balanced" against the views of the proponents of Brexit. Here they are deliberately portraying academic research as being pro-EU or anti-Brexit or attempting to taint it with that brush to dismiss its findings or in order to justify having to "balance" them out. This is plainly presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Not only do I support removal of the tag, but I think tha the new doctrine for this article going forward, since it has been abused so often, is that use of it should be confined to being deployed after a talk page discussion, in which editors discuss actual drafts of substitue text they would like to see to combat these imagined "NPOV" issues. 41.170.83.205 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Can IP users vote in this kind of discussion?

On what you say: Academic research is almost by definition anti-Brexit since Brexiters' arguments are mostly fantasies and unicorn-chasing, but that does not mean we should not include them as well. You and Snooganssnoogans misunderstand what WP:FALSEBALANCE is. It is when minority or fringe views are presented as mainstream. It would be WP:FB if an editor had put Patrick Minford's works as commonly accepted among academia. The situation is different here, we're not saying that Brexiters are right, but that their arguments must be reported. They won the referendum after all, and the current mess is mostly their fault. As I said above and you have conveniently ignored: "Nigel Farage is only mentioned twice in the text, the first mention is about his resignation from UKIP, the second is his portrayal in a film. Boris Johnson is likewise mentioned two times. Jacob Rees-Mogg is not mentioned at all, but the ERG is mentioned once (without any explanation about what "ERG" stands for). Corbyn is only mentioned twice. Etc. These people are very important to the whole process, I dare say more than academic studies about the economy, or foodstuff and the NHS." A section on "academic studies on the consequences of Brexit" debunking Brexiters' claims is needed, but it cannot be the basis for the whole article, which should instead focus on politics. T8612 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is preventing anyone from adding text on the history of the Brexit process, including the important actors, the campaigning and political rhetoric. So far, every attempt to add Brexiteer rhetoric has been to inject them into sections on the impact of Brexit in attempts to rebut academic studies and expert assessments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal of neutrality tag. To complain that " The choice to only rely on academic sources de facto excludes Brexiters' arguments from the article" is silly. WP:RS- When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources....Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available. WP always prefers academic and scholarly sources to others, by policy.Smeat75 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Because of the peer-review process, academic studies will always be late on the news. If Brexit had happened 10 years ago, I would agree to only rely on academic studies. But as you know, Brexit is an ongoing event. The "When available" from WP:RS you quote is important. T8612 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is false. There are countless books and articles, either peer-reviewed or by recognized experts, on Brexit. It took me two minutes to find and link to a dozen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whether one thinks the article is biased or not, we can clearly see from this discussion that the article's neutrality is "disputed" – that's what the NPOV tag says. Its neutrality has been disputed several times by multiple editors. The issue has been made clear, the discussion is ongoing, and there's no consensus that the issue has been dealt with – therefor it shouldn't be removed.
  Also, the article already uses lots of non-academic sources about the potential risks and downsides of Brexit. Many of these warnings are left unchallenged, and some have been left in the article even after they've been dealt with (see under Rail for example). But let's try to keep that discussion in the section above. ~Asarlaí 16:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support - this tag is not a "I don't like the way this article is worded", all-purpose tag. Every politically controversial article has its neutrality questioned. That's what RfCs are for, not silly tags. There will always be some user(s) who will dispute the current version of the article. Due to personal biases, we will never achieve unanimous consensus. But this shouldn't mean political articles should have tags all over. If someone has reliable sources that document pro-Brexit arguments, then great, add the content yourself or start a discussion. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike most encyclopedias, Wikipedia can cover ongoing events, and that's great, but it will never do so perfectly until the event's postmortem has been analyzed by many experts. Especially for a wide and complex subject debating speculative future effects, not having such tags seems evident POV in itself, implying Wikipedia knows what perfectly balanced means when the people involved do not, and that reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Let's just admit this is bound to happen, tag it, and move on to useful editing. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Although I support your overall Oppose position, I think it would be useful that contributors are familiar with the WP:NPOV guidelines. I specifically refer to "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." WP:NPOV should be a temporary measure with a agreement by contributors to address the issues with the aim of removing the tag. Having the article tagged indefinitely because it is an ongoing event should not be for discussion here. Jopal22 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If protagonists wish editors to edit the article to address the NPOV issue, they should cease giving false reasons for reverting good-faith changes. This edit summary illustrates a disingenuous gerrymandering that is occurring here - reverting one word back to another with the summary that 'all these words are fine' is completely illogical, because it is a reason to not revert. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Editors are disagreeing, right here and now, on what "neutral" means. I agree that NPOV tags, as any tag, is supposed to be temporary and addressed quickly. But, for this article, because of the subject's nature, I don't see how anyone could even pretend that is possible in the foreseeable future. I suppose we could come up with a better tag than NPOV that tweaks its definition just for this article, but that's a waste of effort. I'd be suspicious of any editor declaring they fully and completely know what neutral means here; in fact, I'd suspect them of POV-pushing based just on that. Brexit isn't just another political view that gets just another article. It's a bizarre mountain-high dumpster fire of colossal career-ruining mistakes that spans ethics, nationalism, trade, global economies, society, and who knows what else. Let's admit that it's exceptional with no perfect neutral position (yet), and move on. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No. This is not a mere disagreement over a technical issue. The problem of this article is that a few—principally one—editors own the article (WP:OWN) and revert those who do not match their views of how it should be written. I have edited other very controversial articles, such as on the history of Palestine, and it went fine. A quick glance of this particular editor's talk page shows that I am not only one to have a problem with their behaviour. T8612 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article's neutrality is disputed by multiple editors. The discussions on this are ongoing. Why is there a rush to remove the tag before the issues have actually been resolved? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Culture

A lot of the "Cultural References" section is not culture (documentaries) or not about Brexit (Daphne du Maurier).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the part about novels, another editor who is more familiar with what you are referring to can deal with the documentaries section. Mgasparin (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Study estimates

I removed text from the lead (here) because it was too detailed - the lead is supposed to be a summary. I also adjusted the same text where it appears within the main body, because it had previously stated that studies "show" certain economic effects apparent since the referendum, whereas careful reading of the sources reveal that these studies produced estimates of effects, which is not the same as 'showing'. Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit (here) with the summary, "show, found and estimated are all fine ways to phrase the findings of these studies", which of course is nonsense (why did they revert if the words mean the same thing?), and it ignores the different meanings of these words, which is why I reverted back. It is ironic and rather revealing that an editor who, on the one hand, insists on only using academic sources (see thread 'POV tag bombing of articles', above), should then be so sloppy about the choice of words to describe sourced information. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The text clearly belongs in the lede. Your changes did not improve the wording of the findings in those studies. It is perfectly fine to describe findings as "showing" or "finding" something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Speculation about economic outcomes is indeed too detailed for the lead section. The rest of PaleCloudedWhite's changes were also useful, as they placed more emphasis on the attribution of the purported effects, thus being a step towards upholding NPOV. — JFG ^talk 15:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You should familiarize yourself with the actual edits in question rather than repeat the mantra that everything on Brexit is "speculation". There was no "speculation about economic outcomes", there was research into the actual economic outcomes that materialized. This content isn't even about expert forecasts (which is what most people refer to as "speculation"), which makes the comment all the more bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The speculation is not about the reported and measured economic indicators since the 2016 vote; it is about the inference that such economic indicators would have behaved any differently, had the referendum not occurred or had it yielded a Remain result. By definition these alternate universes are impossible to assess. — JFG ^talk 00:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say that they are impossible to assess with absolute certainty. The research studies acknowledge this and utilise methods to try and address this problem, but they still add caveats about their results, and state that they are estimates, likely subject to change. The one looking at output [21] states "It is hard to calculate the current cost of Brexit, because there is no obvious counterfactual" and "We will update our estimates on a regular basis as new data come in". The one about investment [22] states "there could be a Brexit dividend (a relief factor that conditions are not as bad as feared), and some postponed investment could be implemented if the conditions under which the UK trades with the EU warrant it. For this reason, it is essential to continue to monitor the effects of Brexit uncertainty on businesses. The effects could go either way". The research into inflation [23] states "Our estimates imply the Brexit vote increased UK CPI inflation by 1.7 percentage points in the year following the referendum. It would be wise to view the precise magnitude of this effect with some caution, but it is clear that the effect is substantial". I cannot access the research on trade without coughing up cash, but the abstract seems to be referring to future effects rather than realised ones, and it again refers to estimates - "We estimate the uncertainty effects of preferential trade disagreements. [...] We estimate that a persistent doubling of the probability of...". Considering this fogginess, and that the lead already has a sentence that states that the broad consensus of economists is that "the Brexit referendum itself had damaged the economy", it seems overly detailed to refer specifically to these studies in the lead. WP:MOSLEAD states that the lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph [...] As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes User:PaleCloudedWhite, you are 100% right. Part of the push back against people tagging this article for WP:NPOV is that those raising the issue need to advice on a path to create consensus to get the article to have neutrality. It is a bit overwhelming to deal with he whole article, but I think the first thing we should deal with if there is going to be an effort to improve this article is the lede. It is currently far too bloated and focuses on certain aspects in a way that creates bias. I would be happy to propose new lede but I am reticent to do so, as I'd be concerned that there would be kick back and straight rejection from some people that would make my efforts pointless. But to those who want the WP:NPOV tag removed, I think the first step would be for us to agree on the lede. That would be my proposed next step after the rejection of the WP:NPOV removal above. But my question is, would those who voted SUPPORT in the vote above be open the a significantly redrafted lede? Jopal22 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Plan to slash tariffs in event of no-deal Brexit

The government announced it would remove import duties on 87 per cent of goods entering the UK as part of measures aimed at prevent billions of pounds of additional costs being passed on to consumers. But business groups firmly condemned the plans as “cack-handed”, “madness” and "extremely worrying".

— Ben Chapman, The Independent, 13 March 2019

These plans would seem to warrant mention in the article.

Apologies if this has been discussed before. I did perform a quick search of this talk page's archives, but did not find such a discussion. Zazpot (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Throughout the Brexit negotiations process there have been various often-contradictory announcements and proposals of what the UK will do after leaving the EU. I think it best to wait to see whether the UK government actually implements any of those proposals before we mention them in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: thanks, but if a proposal is notable (i.e. covered at length in multiple independent RS, as the plan to cut tariffs is), then surely it would warrant coverage in itself? Zazpot (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC); 14:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The government has now published official documentation setting out the proposal. Zazpot (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be noted in the article. The article is already full of speculation about what might happen after the UK leaves the EU, especially under "Domestic impact on the United Kingdom". If we were to exclude this because it hasn't happened yet, then we should exclude the other things. Also, this isn't a suggestion or speculation but a commitment by the government. ~Asarlaí 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Asarlaí, thanks. Now done. Zazpot (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019

Add in Theatre section, as opening paragraph line:

In August 2015, Theatre503 staged the first theatre piece to explicitly explore Brexit. Screens by playwright Stephen Laughton is about a British-Cypriot family of Turkish Muslim ancestry. In one incident, the mother is abused in the street because she is mistaken for a Syrian refugee and this is explicitly mentioned as an effect of Brexit. Cdannadx (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Does not appear to be notable enough and there is nothing in the source about it being the first. In fact, the article itself only speculates, i.e. As far as London is concerned, it must be the first theatre piece to explicitly mention Brexit.. Plenty of works of art have referenced Brexit directly or indirectly over the last 2.5 years and unless they have had significant impact, they should not be included here. Possibly an article can be created to list all notable such works instead though. Regards SoWhy 09:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing lead for NPOV

In view of discussions above, perhaps we could reach consensus about the content of the current version of the lead's five paragraphs. Here is this contributor's[24] assessment for NPOV, and proposed trimming of detail which, if retained in the article, is better placed in the main body in appropriate sections. Others please add their own assessments:

• Para 1: OK for NPOV, but clarify that there is an ongoing debate about Brexit with a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated and accepted as an international treaty between UK and EU.

• Para 2: Maybe some of previous history before 2015 referendum result could be trimmed, but OK for NPOV.

• Para 3: Maybe some of previous history before 2015 referendum result could be trimmed, but OK for NPOV.

• Para 4: This has become the main purpose of the current article. OK for NPOV but could be trimmed, such as remove sentence beginning "A new government department,..." and sentence beginning "Cabinet agreed to the Chequers plan..."

• Para 5: Here NPOV is dubious, and there is an overload of out of date speculative opinion of economists. It could be trimmed thus:

In respect of economic consequences before the terms of the Withdrawl Agreement, if any, have been agreed, forecasts published in 2016 and 2017 proposed that Brexit couldThe 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 had damaged the economy.. Studies on effects since the referendum show a reduction in GDP, trade and investment, as well as household losses from increased inflation. Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from European Economic Area (EEA) countries to the UK, and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research. As of February 2019, the size of the "divorce bill"—the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements—and relations with Ireland and other EU member states remains uncertain. The precise impact on the UK depends on whether the process will be a "hard" or "soft" Brexit. Analysis by HM Treasury has found that there is no Brexit scenario that is expected to improve the UK economic condition.

Qexigator (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Taking into note the NPOV tag put on this article, I note that at current, the derogatory term "Remoaner" is included as a definition in the article in the terminology section, under "Remainer", yet the derogratory term, "Brextremist" is not. I propose, and would find it hard that the request could be denied given both a multitude of Reliable Sources demonstrating its wide usage and the former's inclusion, that Brextremist is hence included, and the definition for Leavers now read's as follows, also using the anchor "Leaver", which is far more common than "Brexiter":

Leaver

Those supporting Brexit are sometimes referred to as "Leavers".. Alternatively the term "Brexiteers", or "Brexiters" has been used by some media outlets. Likewise, the pejorative term "Brexitemist", a portmanteau of "Brexiter" and "Extremist" has been used by some outlets to describe Leavers of an overzealous, uncompromising disposition. 62.99.53.95 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)