The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A news item involving Brexit was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
"A bitter turf war is raging on the Brexit Wikipedia page". 2019-04-29. While Westminster remains mired in endless Brexit deadlock, over on the Brexit Wikipedia page things are even less amicable. Editors are parrying death threats, doxxing attempts and accusations of bias, as the crowdsourced epic has become the centre of a relentless tug-of-war over who gets to write the history of the UK as it happens.
The too often false and too often one-sided predictions about Brexit evident so many places and reported here at Wikipedia without sufficient balance is now becoming evident. How do we fix the articles about Brexit on Wikipedia. The collapse in sterling, house prices, GDP, employment etc etc forecast by the World Bank, the Bank of England, so many should now be reflected as being wrong! 1GBP = 1.21EUR is the best since well before even the referendum, and above average since 2009. One example. At some point the "everything bad is because of Brexit, everything good despite it" narrative must be changed to be more objective. Until then it's an embarrassment here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but any claim must be sourced to an RS, if they are then that is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but there was pre-Brexit a popular opinion among the WP editing class which reflected the internationalist elitist academic progressive anti-Brexit consensus. Fair enough, perhaps. But today the articles now read incorrectly and no longer reflect what many of the quoted sources now say. Meanwhile what's here becomes embarrassing. I merely nudge the editing class here active that some revisionism is necessary for accuracy's sake. WP should not now be predicting what was perhaps reasonable to predict back then because the predictions, not all but many, now appear much more questionable. We need to say in many cases that '<prediction> was made by <rs>', was not is. We need to speak of Brexit - an ongoing process, yes - as having actually happened already! I'm all for correctly sourced material, of course Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As we now post Brexit I think we can remove the predictions and go instead with the "what happened". Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This must be a general problem when editing currently ongoing events on Wikipedia. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but this one has (in a sense) ended so we no longer need predictions, we can see what the results are. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Predicted" is not accurate
True, but much of the section "impacts" seems to be just that, expectations or potentialities, so it either needs rewording or renaming. So unless it is post-Brexit analysis of actual trends it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did UK's politicians and people pursue "Brexit"?
The lead is in clear POV-pushing state. The motivation given in the lead for Brexit is nothing more than "scepticism". I understand that it is embarassing for many to say that in the 21st century UK proved strongly in favour to curb immigration and the same people will strongly object to how I just phrased things but saying nothing about it is blatant POV-pushing. If anyone wishes to help in mentioning the actual motives and arguments of the Brexit supporters, including the belief that the economy will actually greatly improve because of it, you can help here. Nxavar (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and the lead summarizes what the rest of the article says. If the contents of this article are not being accurately summarized in the lead, please offer your proposed changes here. If the article content itself is in error or not summaring the provided sources accurately, again, please offer your proposed changes.
Wow! Even the Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom article lead doesn't care to explain motives or arguments. The only "extra" is that in the UK "national sovereignty" is relatively more important that the rest of EU member states. It's the worst spin on a subject I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Nxavar (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I you care to provide RS for it, we can discuss adding it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I do not want to run into a consensus wall or fight additions word for word. Unless someone agrees that the current situation is indeed outrageous, I am not a UK citizen and not so keen to fight battles for this. Nxavar (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't sign a "blank cheque" we need to know what exactly you want to say, and how it is sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do have the blank cheque of WP:BOLD, I just was too startled to use it. Nxavar (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make an edit do so. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brexit time point
The article currently states that Brexit took place "... at 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020 (00:00 CET)." - My understanding is that 00:00 CET on 31 January 2020 is 24 hours before 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020. In other words 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020 is the same as 00:00 CET on 1 February 2020. 212.64.228.100 (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
