Talk:Brexit/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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[1] and the study itself[2]. 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)

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)

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)

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[3][4]. 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)

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.

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)

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.[5] Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 25 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:[6] 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[7] 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)

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)

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[8] Qexigator (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Scope for some length reduction

The article is already lengthy, and sections 5-Negotiations and 6-Post-Article 50 British legislation will expand with updates as the current negotiations continue or terminate, whether on 29 March 2019 GMT (or some other time, if so agreed). Some account of the background leading to the 2016 referendum, as in section 2 and in section 3, and of Procedure for leaving as in section 4 is needed to give informative context. But there looks like some scope for avoiding duplication by reducing the details set out in subsection 3.6-Irregularties, given that section 3 opens with a link to United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 as "Main article" (created in November 2016) , and subsection on 3.6 opens with a See also link to Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, created in January 2018, where such details would more suitably be placed. Thus, a shorter version could be:

• In July 2018, Vote Leave was found to have broken electoral law, spending over its limit, by the UK Electoral Commission. Also, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, released an interim report on 'Disinformation and ‘fake news’', stating that the largest donor in the Brexit campaign, Arron Banks, used money from UK sources, and may have been financed by the Russian government.

Current section 3.6 has expanded from Explanations for the referendum outcome, 28 March 2018.[9] Qexigator (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

References

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)

I see this gets a mention under 'Three-option referendum' so thanks! John a s (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal issues

Information from this newspaper article Now the judges agree – the vote for Brexit was clearly tainted ought to be worked into the wikipedia article. It is a judgement from the high court. --VanBuren (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The opinion piece offers a fairly weak argument. What would we add from it? PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

The Express is not a reliable source for pretty much any article on UK politics, never mind about Brexit. If the content is accurate and notable, it will have been covered in other more reliable sources, which should be used on this page instead. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutral balance for the lead section

What will be the full impact of Brexit? I don't know and of course my own view is not important or relevant. But balance is important for the lead section. It is right that in the final paragraph of the lead section the broad consensus in existing economic research is included. There are three sentences in this paragraph about negative economic consequences of Brexit. I feel that to include at least one sentence in the paragraph about what Brexit supporters believe are future advantages of Brexit should be included to provide a balance. So that's what I've done today by adding one sentence to this paragraph with a reference from The Guardian.

On a slightly different note, in the second paragraph of the lead section, it states: "In the 1970s and 1980s, withdrawal from the EC was advocated mainly by Labour Party members and trade union figures." It is true that in the 1970s and early 1980s that the Labour Party was the more Eurosceptic of the two main parties, but that position may have changed by the late 1980s after Neil Kinnock changed Labour Party policy.

In the 1970s, Enoch Powell had supporters on the Conservative right-wing for EC withdrawal, but Labour Party members outnumbered Conservatives arguing for an exit. By the late 1980s, however, as well as a number of MPs from the Conservative Monday Club advocating withdrawal, they were supported by local Conservative members on the right of the party and by supporters of The Freedom Association. Perhaps the wording could be changed to "In the 1970s and early 1980s, withdrawal from the EC was advocated mainly by Labour Party members and trade union figures." (Obviously the bold text would not be used for that sentence in the article). I will at some point try to find an appropriate reference to verify this, before making the change. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Michel Barnier and Brexiteers favour Canada-plus Brexit deal

Please add: The EU Council President Donald Tusk proposed a Canada-plus trade agreement to David Davis in March 2018. "Hard" Brexiteers such as David and Rees-Mogg are favourable to this EU proposal, as is EU chief negotiator Michael Barnier. In contrast, EU leaders rejected Theresa May's "soft" Brexit Chequers plan at a Salzburg summit meeting in September 2018. In the run-up to the Conservative Party conference in October 2018, David Davis is relaunching the Canada-plus option, in which the EU and UK envisage tariff-free trade on goods ("Canada") and ("plus") security co-operation between the EU and the UK.[10][11]

That is an emergency patch to the Brexit article. In the next step, the Brexit article should explain the fine differences between the "ambitious new" Chequers plan and an "off-the shelf" Canada-plus agreement.

On a more general note, it is evident that the registered editors are not coping with keeping the Brexit article up-to-date. The editors' expertise is in overturning the referendum (that aspect of the Brexit article is quite professional and detailed), but little else. Suggest removing the semi-protection to allow a broader range of experts to maintain the article. 81.131.171.199 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is the level of "expertise" we may expect, then you haven't exactly made your case. Right back at the beginning, the Commission told HMG that the options available outside of membershipin decreasing levels of access were European Economic Area ("Norway option" - which the Brexiteers said would be fine, before the referendum), European Free Trade Area, Switzerland–European Union relations, Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (Ukraine), European Union–Turkey Customs Union, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Canada and more-or-less, Japan). So for the article to mention only the last of these would be wildly unreasonable.

But if you feel you can contibute WP:Neutral point of view, reliably sourced material, what is stopping you establishing an account and then go right ahead and edit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, the Canada deal (or indeed any deal) is only on offer if the Irish border question is [re]solved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to agree with your point on the resolution of the Irish border: The EU and the UK have repeatedly insisted that they have the welfare of Ireland at their hearts. France and Germany deny they will push Ireland to drop its competitive corporate tax system after Brexit, and London will not mind banking business migrating to a stable Ireland. The priority of Ireland is so high that the EU and UK have repeatedly adhered to strict deadlines (deadline in Dec 2017, then March 2018, then July 2018, then Oct 2018, now Nov 2018). Ireland is the pre-eminent topic where the EU26 and the UK have a common interest. 81.131.171.199 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Coming back to your original request, the issue with this article is its sheer length. So we have to try to limit additions to what is hard fact not opinion. If DD were still in government, his view would deserve inclusion. But as now he is just another backbencher, it doesn't seem (at least to me, but I'm just another editor and don't make the rules) to be significant enough. If it becomes HMG policy, then it certainly is and will be. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

POV

Because this is a highly political topic, and editors will be highly polarized, I suggest that all editors declare their POV on this talkk page, and we keep a chart. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Overview section

The article seems to need a kind of general overview which talks about the fundamentals of Brexit and the idea of the UK in the European Union. -Inowen (nlfte) 11:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Some basic thoughts:

The UK Brexit comes about in the context of global trade and money exchange, where the issues are political and not just economic. The world money system as built under US direction after WWII is largely democratic based, and the UK being an aristocratic monarchy makes its economic policy largely incompatible with other nations. At the basis of the economic issues are the differences in philosophy of government. The aristocratic group of Europe has always maintained that it has a right to rule by the way of inherited powers, and it has accordingly always claimed great wealth, in spite of two things 1) their nations may be economically hard-hit, and 2) the fact that they are aristocratic means that their nation's form of wealth generation is always retarded by aristocratic economic policy.
The UK's entry into the EU supplied it with the Euro as a transferrable type of currency, but then it also allowed the UK to trade pounds evenly with the US dollar, when in direct trading it is rare that they trade evenly. Because of this loophole allowing direct or near-direct trading with the UK pound, the US has had to limit foreign exchange trading. The aristocratic group has long seen the emerging democratic nations as a threat, and in diplomatic discussions has always insisted on an idea (sometimes called a "principle") of equivalence with democratic nations. In reality aristocratic nations are not politically equivalent with democratic nations because they don't honor basic civic rights such as the right to vote[12], and they are not economically equivalent with democratic nations because all of their basic methods of industry lose wealth rather than generate it. Because aristocrats lose wealth, their modus operandi since the World Wars has been to force democratic nations to give them money, and the Euro was simply a way for the UK to plug into the global money system, which is supported almost entirely by the wealth generation of democratic nations.-Inowen (nlfte) 20:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you're gonna need to put some sources in there, otherwise it looks a bit like random ranting... Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. On a basic level, the statement 'aristocrats lose wealth,' is that something which is true, even though its not printed anywhere? Or to ask it differently, is there censorship of research around the aristocrats group that would retard the ability of researchers to collect data on the subject? -Inowen (nlfte) 21:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Impending

The fourth word of the article is currently "impending," suggesting that Brexit will definitely occur. Given the UK's current political climate and shift in public opinion (to remain), this seems to be an unwise choice. I therefore propose changing it to "prospective." 79.66.207.160 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

At present, it is impending under the EU Treaties and the UK Acts of Parliament, and the current negotiations pursuant thereto. We used to say (November 2016) "prospective"[13]. Qexigator (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Impending" implies that there is zero probability that Brexit will not happen, which is inaccurate whether or not a change in law is necessary to stop it. 79.66.207.160 (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It's hardly a "prospective" event; Brexit will happen unless there is significant upheaval in both of the main the parties AND the law is changed prior to the leave date in March 2019. The idea that we should not use the term "impending" because the political climate is a bit 'unstable' at present (to say the least) is silly and perhaps guided by your personal political views rather than anything else. Alssa1 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Second vote

The references to a "second" referendum should be changed to "third." The first was in 1975 and the second in 2016. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:453F:EACF:1CEE:6AD3 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but almost all sources refer to a second referendum, probably because the first vote was on the European Communities rather than the EU. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Which became the EU. The labelling of a hypothetical referendum as "second" is a political ploy by Brexit supporters. Perhaps "further" would be an acceptable compromise. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:453F:EACF:1CEE:6AD3 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Absolutelypuremilk. Almost all sources refer to a second referendum. The EEC in 1975 was different to the EU 41 years later in 2016. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty renamed the European Economic Community the European Union and this resulted in citizenship of the European Union and freedom of movement within the EU. Freedom of movement and immigration were major issues for millions of UK voters in the 2016 EU referendum. This simply wasn't the case in the 1975 EEC referendum, because EU citizenship was not granted until 1992. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the principle of WP:Commonname should play out here. Alssa1 (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

the WTO question

"Some countries – such as Australia and the United States – wish to challenge the basis for division (i.e., division between the UK and the continuing EU) of the trade schedules previously agreed between them and the EU, because it reduces their flexibility"

But the WTO question is missing some points:

27 WTO members (including the US) have raised questions regarding the Brexit.

And also: "Although pro-Brexit figures have said that leaving the EU will not affect the UK’s trading ability because it can just join the WTO, the global organisation is known for having slow and clunky processes. For example, the EU is still in a negotiation to expand its membership deal to include Croatia, even though the country joined the bloc five years ago." [14]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.96 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No-deal definition

There needs to be a definition of no-deal in the terms section. -Inowen (nlfte) 19:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh really? Who'da thought! If anyone can find a reliable, NPOV source of such, do let us know. Better still, let HMG know. Yes, I know WP:NOTFORUM but still ... --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Some so-called definitions try to describe what a "no deal Brexit" might entail (which is a different matter), but we could perhaps formulate a definition that just explains the expression in more encyclopedic terms, for instance based on this BBC definition:

No deal: Britain leaving the European Union with no formal agreement on the terms of the UK's withdrawal or new trade relations.

Since the reader might not know what formal agreement is being referred to, perhaps we should also mention Article 50, Paragraph 2, which is the provision that requires the Union and the withdrawing state to negotiate an agreement.

--Boson (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

The Beeb definition doesn't include the brexiteers view that a no-deal means that the UK will default on its existing commitments to the EU budget (the so-called "divorce payment" though its more akin to walking away from a flat-share leaving your mates to find the difference to the end of the lease). It also fails to recognise that walking away would make negotiations for a subsequent free trade agreement a great deal more unfriendly. Nor does it explain the impact of trading on the default ("wonderful") WTO baseline terms. SO if we are to cover "no deal" at all, we have to expose the full can of worms. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn't "no deal" the same as "hard brexit" which is already covered? Regards SoWhy 13:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hard Brexit would be Canada-deal (trade agreement only, UK leaves Customs Union and Single Market, but -- I suppose -- would pay the "Exit Bill"). Soft Brexit is Norway-ish deal (UK stays in Customs Union and/or Single Market), No Deal is "hardest Brexit" (WTO tariffs, full border controls, etc.). T8612 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but "no deal" is really just journalese for "no negotiated agreement" ("no deal" is much shorter). The other stuff is prediction/speculation/opinion about what such a situation would entail, not part of its definition. It's pretty obvious what no deal means (in the sense of a definition, as opposed to what it implies, entails, would result in, can be compared with, etc.) when you look at Paragraph 2 of Article 50:

"... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with [the withdrawing state], setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. "[my emphasis]

And that is how the BBC defines it.

Problems with NPOV arise when you include other stuff (i.e. when you use mean to mean something other than a definition). No deal is "covered" in that sense at No deal Brexit, where there is a definition, followed by a discussion of the likelihood, adverse consequences, preparedness, etc.

--Boson (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Role of Economic forecasts in the lead and NPOV

I'm rather worried that there is a sense of WP:OWN for this article - particularly in the lead. The lead is showing one side of the debate - that most economists (1) believe that Brexit will slow the British economy down and (2) that Brexit has slowed the British economy down. This does not reflect the whole debate here. One of the constant themes has been that the pre-referendum forecasts were wrong in predicting a recession if there was a Leave vote.

Some examples:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/08/how-the-economics-profession-got-it-wrong-on-brexit/ https://eutoday.net/news/business-economy/2017/brexit-forecast-economists-admit-they-got-it-wrong https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-davis/all-brexit-economic-forecasts-were-wrong-british-minister-says-idUKKBN1FL4VX https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/30/brexit-minister-says-whitehall-economic-forecasts-are-always-wrong

I'm not saying that the economic forecasts, or the current consensus of the economics profession should not be in the article - it clearly should be. It's just that the lead reads in a very biased way without counterpoints. I am (cynical enough to be) aware that there will be a systemic bias within the Wikipedia editing demographic towards Remain and on a fluid subject like Brexit there should be an acceptance that the bias will be towards an anti-Brexit view. But there does need to be some balance here, and the last paragraph of the lead doesn't show it, and any effort to change this does seem to meet to automatic and almost unthinking reversion.

Hopefully this can be resolved on this talk page rather than going through the notice boards.

JASpencer (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) First source is a working paper which clearly says that it disagrees with most of the existing economic research. (2) EUtoday.net is not a RS. (3-4) Statements by MPs are irrelevant. As for the short-term macroeconomic forecasts, the body goes into great detail why they are unreliable. It would be akin to adding failed weather predictions to an article about climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. See also WP:FALSEBALANCE. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, a big thank you JASpencer for your hard work on this article. There are two solutions to the problem you describe:

• 1. Leave the lead as is, unbalanced. Any casual reader like myself can immediately see in the lead that this article lead is biased. Therefore the "biased" lead serves its purpose, like a cancer warning on a cigarette packet. The drawback of solution 1 is that the image of Wikipedia as a whole is suffering. But Brexit will pass and then the editors will move on to other pet projects, so the reputational damage to Wikipedia is only temporary.
• 2. Alternatively, balance the lead and update the article with the political solutions to Brexit now emerging. However, solution 2 will lead to edit wars, and the only way you can win those edit wars is to recruit help from the general/casual readership by lifting the editing ban on this article. But I do not recommend you spend time on solution 2 because Brexit is imminent anyway, and you are clearly intellectual and have better things to do in the next 5 months than edit warring with a band of enlightened followers against the Other Side. Chronic stress shortens life expectancy, and we would miss you.86.178.194.56 (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, the current state of international affairs and internal politics is too fluid from day to day and uncertain in outcome, and so awash with speculative announcements and unverifiable "forecasts", whether official or otherwise, that it is futile to pretend to the more permanent standard of encyclopedic information that will apply after the determining events have happened and are credibly reported, notably the passing or not of the legislation now pending in the UK parliament, and its coming into force. In the meantime, in the usual way we should avoid letting the article be an outlet for tendentious pov polemics in favour of or against government or opposition policy. Qexigator (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. This article is a continual struggle against WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RECENTISM violations. But the fact remains that no notable economist apart from Professor Patrick Minford is forecasting a favourable outcome. So for the lead to include wp:FRINGE views is simply WP:UNDUE. This is not a political left/right view but simply a reflection of the consensus among economists. To pretend otherwise is to do far greater damage to Wikipedia's credibility. The coverage in the body is no more than it deserves.

As for the "political solutions now emerging", there have been so many false dawns, let's just wait to see an actual written signed agreement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Would notable economist cover "forecasts" by Bank of England or government Treasury before and after the referendum which have not proved well-founded or even better than hit-or-miss guesswork among a self-selected group of garrulous mates chatting in a pub or coffee shop or Westminster bar or tea room, reinforcing their own bias, compared with tossing an unbiased coin or spinning an unbiased roulette wheel? Why treat these any longer as if RS? Wouldn't the article be improved and readers better served if all forecasts were removed? Why single out Minford for disparagement? Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

First, the BoE forecasted correctly the markets reaction to a "leave" result and stopped a rout in its tracks – even so, GBP lost 20% of its value. Second, their other forecasts are for different future Brexit scenarios varying from EEA ("Norway") to no-deal (Mauritania) - none of which have happened yet, so it is impossible to say how close to reality they will turn out to be. I have not disparaged Minford, in fact I described him as notable and gave his honorific. I don't happen to like his Ayn Rand/hard libertarian economics or that it will take 50 years (per Jacob Rees-Mogg) to "come good", but that's irrelevant. The issue is that he is in a very small minority and that is what makes it WP:UNDUE to put his view in the lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The point was not what the forecasts say, the point is that the lead is really not representing the debate, but it is representing part of the debate. The Leave side of the argument is constantly saying that the forecasts have spectacularly failed to model the immediate outcome of the Leave vote. You don't have to like that line of argument (I don't as it happens) but that argument is made.

I personally don't think that the economic forecasts should be in the lead and that would elegantly remove that part of the bias. However if the forecasts are in then there needs to be balance here.

I suspect that debate here is not going to go anywhere as there are clearly ownership issues with the page and that this page does need to show that it's balance is disputed.

JASpencer (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What about presenting the main arguments of both sides? Sth like: Partisans of remaining in the EU (or SM/CU) argue that Brexit will damage the economy (relying on a broad consensus among economists and the Bank of England's forecasts), while supporters of Brexit, including the current Government, say that the UK will benefit from new opportunities (such as new trade agreements with the USA and other countries, deregulate the economy, the possibility of CANZUK union, etc.). T8612 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. It would furthermore be difficult to encapsulate all the different political opinions that exist on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It would not be WP:FALSEBALANCE because Brexiters are not a fringe, or even a small minority. I wouldn't equate Minford with the consensus among economists either, but simply present the main arguments of both sides, which focus on different things. We can also add that there is a wide range of different views among supporters and opponents to Brexit. I do think that arguments for Brexit are completely unrealistic but they exist, and are supported by many, including the current government, which base their policies on them. T8612 (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The assertions made by those politicians about the impact of Brexit are fringe. We wouldn't say on climate change and vaccines that "supporters say one thing and opponents say another thing". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Brexit is quite unlike climate change. Everyone (that matters) agrees that man-made climate change is happening. Hardly anyone thinks that is going to be advantageous for us all. With Brexit, there is a pretty strong case that there's going to be economic damage to the UK; but there are many people who want out anyway. That is: economics is not a trump suit.

Also: climate change is happening. Brexit is an event in the future. Reallky they are not comparable. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is a great tendency here to slip into WP:CRYSTAL.

The purpose of this discussion is to reach a consensus about what should go in the lead. IMO, the material on economics should only reflect the views of qualified economists. The economic opinions of politicians on either side are not notable and it would be undue to include them in the opening paragraph (and in any case, the Brexiteers case for Brexit is primarily political and the economic arguments are incidental). These certainly should be given in the body and indeed they are. Per WP:LEAD, our opening paragraph should be succinct but informative enough for someone who only has time to get the gist of the topic. See also "too long, didn't read: if we bog the lead down with anything but the most essential details, we lose our readers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

JMF says "the Brexiteers case for Brexit is primarily political and the economic arguments are incidental": what reliable source supports that? If none, it is no basis for influencing or contributing to consensus in this discussion. But if there is such support, then why not include in the article? Either way, apart from "safety in numbers" there is no reliable basis for the "forecasts" (and how can we be sure that a "forecast" is not politically influenced or motivated with a bias towards an outcome), especially without comparison with NPOV "forecasts" relating to prospects in respect of continuing in the EU having regard to EU's acsertainable prospects, taking into account such matters as projections by independent experts relating to similar indicators on like with like basis. Qexigator (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's OK to say "in my opinion the Brexiteers' case for Brexit is..." and we shouldn't get too precious about these things on talk pages. That particular case is a reasonable point of view in fact. However this doesn't stop the lead being ubbalanced and there being a rather acute case of WP:OWN on this page. Although 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? Simply put, the case for economic forecasts in the Brexit debate cannot be separated from the perceived failure of pre Brexit economic forecasts to predict the (anaemic) post Brexit economic growth. It may be unfair, but that is how the debate has gone and Wikipedia is only reflecting one side of the debate. The best case would be to remove that last paragraph from the lead. I suspect that this won't be done and that this should go to some form of arbitration. In the meantime I'm putting in a long overdue warning on the page. JASpencer (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty to amend the last paragraph to present both sides of the debate to avoid partisanship. @JASpencer: T8612 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and it's very disappointing that we simply saw a knee jerk undoing. Although I personally think that this paragraph is better omitted entirely I certainly don't think that stopping any attempts at rescuing this paragraph make it any better. I've reinstated the changes and I think that we should carefully edit to smooth out the bias rather than simply deciding to go on an edit war. JASpencer (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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. I'll ask for that editor to restore that page, as this is becoming edit warring. JASpencer (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

We have to deal with the arguments of Brexiters, but since @Snooganssnoogans: refuses to "equate them with expert assessments", we can't. By this logic, we shouldn't include political opinions on any subject, because they are almost never of the same quality as experts'. It is absurd to detail a process piloted by the British government without actually mentioning their stance. If it is still absolutely forbidden to mention both experts' and politicians' views in the same paragraph, then I think that the experts should be removed from the lede as they are not as important as the British government in the whole Brexit thing. T8612 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Remainers and Brexiteers have all kinds of reasons for preferring their POV. It would be folly to try to cover them all or to give privilege to the rhetoric of pro-Brexit politicians. Politician BS at the very least should not be juxtaposed with expert assessments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors' opinions on Brexit are irrelevant. It is not "folly" to present the main argument of the government. It's a bit like making an article on the Iraq War without presenting Bush's rationale, only UN experts. His argumentation was BS, but you have to present it. It's the same with Brexit. I think I was careful enough to show that politicians are going against the consensus of economists. T8612 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not what you did. You kept the text on the economic consensus but inserted arguments by politicians in the next sentence claiming that the forecasts by economists failed to materialise in the same vein as "there is a consensus among climate scientists that humans contribute to climate change and that global temperatures are rising... but politicians have noted that weather forecasts have often been wrong and argued that volcanoes contribute to climate change." Classic WP:FALSEBALANCE, as the text falsely suggested that the medium and long-term forecasts are in any way similar to the macroeconomic short-term forecasts, and that the inaccuracy of the former suggests that the latter forecasts which have drastically different empirical underpinnings should be doubted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think that your current paragraph is representative enough of the argument to be included in the lead? JASpencer (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The text in question reflects the academic literature and consensus on the topic. Representative of the argument? Which argument? And why should we cover arguments in the lede? There are dozens of arguments by anti- and pro-Brexit people. Why on Earth should we cover them? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"Why on Earth should we cover them?" Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly presentation of the economic consequences of Brexit.

You have also already been told that you cannot compare Brexit with climate change. T8612 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have just come in to this talk page after making an edit and having it reverted within 4 minutes by Snooganssnoogans with only a very perfunctory and unsatisfactory reason given for reversion. My edit was replacing this text:

There is a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term.

with this:

There is a broad consensus from economic modelling that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term.

It is obvious to me that you can not 'research' medium and long term effects of a future event while you can model them, as economists do. So it seems a fairly non-contentious edit to me, yet it was quickly reverted. I queried the reversion on Snooganssnoogans' talk page but have not yet received an answer. I have not undone the reversion as I am usually not interested in getting into edit wars (unlike, it seems, the reverter) but I would appreciate some comments from other editors on whether they judge this reversion appropriate. Thank you. Oska (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: I see now that I did receive a reply to my query on Snooganssnoogans' talk page, however it is coming from an ideologically simplistic position and remains an unsatisfactory justification, in my view, for the reversion. Oska (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Collateral damage, I suspect. Your edit is good and should stand - it just got caught up in cross-fire over appropriateness of political content in the lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:01, 13 November 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.[15]

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)

A recent Guardian analysis agrees that The British economy is putting in a resilient performance, led by strong consumer and business activity but Senior economists are, however, warning there is a “lull before the storm”. So as a compromise, we can quite both these aspects. Opinions? 81.131.171.172 (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The BBC has just reported that UK employment has reached a record high of 32.4 million, and wage increases are accelerating at their fastest rate since 2015. This time it is not a "lull before the storm" as above, but a "flash in the pan" due to the unusually hot summer. These assessments by expert economists are revealing and should be included.86.178.192.176 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Post-Brexit: UK "punishing" France and Ireland for intransigence

Now that the withdrawal agreement and declaration on future UK-EU relationships have been finalised (BBC 13 Nov 2018), we need a new section to explain the pincer movement that led to this breakthrough (keywords: Trump's external pressure on Germany, Italian internal pressure on Eurozone), and another new section which explains the forthcoming "educational" response by the UK against Ireland (digital tax announcement by Hammond in most recent budget) and against France (expansion of the Ramsgate-Belgian trade link at the expense of Calais). A starting point is the Financial Times of 11 Nov 2018 and the German "Welt" of today. I cannot implement these changes because the article is closed to the general Wikipedia community. So can a registered Wikipedian (fluent in German and French) please take on this task? 86.178.192.176 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Cannot be "finalised" unless UK Parliament passes ratification, which remains unknown until it happens. In the meantime, Wikipedia does not need to include unsubstantiated polemical comment on a document that remains unpublished. Qexigator (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of terms "Soft" and "Hard" Brexit

I think we should be very careful about using these terms especially unqualified. These terms are almost exclusively used by people who support remain (I voted remain - not that that should matter, just so you don't think I am applying my own bias to an article). For those who support leave a "Soft" Brexit isn't a real Brexit, and they are more likely to use terms like BRINO (Brexit in name only) e.g.

Brino is a version of leaving the European Union that would mean staying in the EU customs union and/or single market, with a very long or indefinite transition period. It is also known as a soft Brexit.(https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1044888/Brexit-news-what-is-BRINO-what-does-BRINO-mean-Brexit-in-name-only)

And for instance, the BBC recognises that Brexiteers don't use the term Hard Brexit e.g.

For those who back a "hard" Brexit - or "clean" Brexit as supporters prefer (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37500140)

For some Soft/Hard Brexit was coined to give the instinctive impression that Hard Brexit is extreme (i.e. pushed by a radical fringe), and Soft Brexit fulfils the Brexit referendum outcome whilst being more reasonable (when Brexiteers think of this as BRINO). Hence these terms are political in nature. I do not think this page adequately reflects this, and so I think alterations to language and explanations should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopal22 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 November 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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Newslinger talk 10:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC

Just spotted this. People's Vote has its own article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

We should distinguish between

1. a "People's Vote" (capitalized by Hansard etc.), which refers to a referendum on the Brexit deal (potentially with 3 alternatives) and probably needs an entry in the terminology section
2. People's Vote (which has a Wikipedia article but no grammatical article), the campaign group that is campaigning for a "People's Vote" and should possibly be mentioned under campaign groups.

--Boson (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Chequers plan / new political declaration

There is a discussion on whether the Chequers plan and the new political declaration should have two separate articles, link here: Talk:The framework for the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union#Second draft - November 2018. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" tag on article

There is a tag sitting at the top of the page which says "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page". There should not be tags like that on articles without a section on the talk page clearly describing what the issues are and discussing how to resolve them. Such tags are not intended as "warnings" to readers but an invitation to outside editors (like me) to join the discussion and resolve the issues. You cannot expect people to read through a long talk page to find out what the problem is, it needs its own section with a current discussion. I am removing that tag.Smeat75 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

There have been a number of concerns expressed by various editors about the balance and neutrality in the lead section. Please see the recent section titled "The Role of Economic forecasts in the lead and NPOV" for one such discussion. There have been other discussions as well. From my own point of view, I feel that one additional sentence or two should be included in the lead section to at least summarise why over a hundred MPs from various parties (Conservative, Labour, DUP) are pro-Brexit and indeed why over 17 million people from the UK voted for Brexit. I've no issue with the long-term economic forecasts, but feel that an additional sentence would be helpful to include. But attempts this year by some editors to include more of a balance in the lead have generally been swiftly removed by one editor as being either "opinion" or "fringe" or "views don't count".

I'm hopeful that we can come up with a consensus for a particular sentence or two which can provide balance and is not deemed as "fringe" if it could adequately summarise why over a hundred MPs and 17 million UK voters are pro-Brexit. This is not to rebutt the broad economic consensus. I'm not trying to suggest that the broad economic consensus is inaccurate, merely that it's vital that the article is deemed by most editors to be balanced. There are two sides to the Brexit debate, either leave or remain. I don't feel that the leave argument is currently represented in the lead section, and one editor in particular believes that views from any politicians, including the government, can't be included along with economic experts. Could I please ask that you read through the various discussions on this and restore the tag for the time being, until a consensus has been obtained that the lead section is indeed balanced and neutral. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No I am not going to put that tag back on. The point is that tags like that should always be accompanied with a section on the talk page explaining why they have been put on the article. They are not supposed to be warnings to readers "somebody thinks this article is no good". You can just go ahead and add "an additional sentence or two ... in the lead section to at least summarise why over a hundred MPs from various parties (Conservative, Labour, DUP) are pro-Brexit and indeed why over 17 million people from the UK voted for Brexit", with a source and see if it meets consensus. Smeat75 (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Neither the leave nor the remain arguments are presented in the lede. And for good reasons, it would be impossible to account for all the pro and anti arguments, and the desire to give Boris Johnson's ramblings a privileged position in the lede and as a rebuttal to the economic consensus is bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, "it would be impossible to account for all the pro and anti arguments" in the lede, but it is perfectly possible to summarise them. There is absolutely no rule saying that all the subject must be covered in the lede. Your argument is ridiculous. Moreover, the fact that Boris Johnson spouts nonsense is not a reason to ignore him, considering the influence/support he has. T8612 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the article does lack a context as to why there was a momentum towards the referendum, in terms of why some people grew increasingly disillusioned with the European Union, rather than just talking about the political pressure from divisions in the Conservative party, and the rise of UKIP (e.g. why did UKIP votes increase). There are also no mention of some obvious things resulting from Brexit which could be deemed as positive, such as the ability for the UK to link farm subsidies to production and environmental measures, rather than based upon land owned (which did nothing to encourage responsible farming). I might make some changes (at some point) and hopefully they will find consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopal22 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jopal22: While I believe it is important to add a bit context to what led to and motivated the Brexit vote, I think such things would 1.) Be better suited for its own WP page 2.) May deal to much in suppositions and opinions as to why Brexit it occurred rather than the facts. Alssa1 (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Context is good. The article is developed, for better or for worse, and it has a sidebar now to link all of the related articles. A history of Brexit or overview of Brexit article would be useful. -Inowen (nlfte) 08:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018

Change "and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research." to "It poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research, as well as opportunities." Opportunities for the education sector are summarised at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/0/will-brexit-impact-british-universities/ and also in a government paper entitled Exiting the EU: challenges and opportunities for higher education available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmeduc/683/683.pdf. Dena.walemy (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Both the Telegraph and the HoC report deal in possibilities, not facts, speculating that there might be opportunities. The sentence in the lead only saves as a short summary and should not reflect all speculation. I added a short half sentence to the appropriate section though. Regards SoWhy 12:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Allowing pro-Brexit politicians (and no anti-Brexit politicians) to speculate wildly

There are a number of editors on this page who repeatedly try to insert wild speculations by pro-Brexit politicians, often to rebut expert assessments and RS reporting. For some reason, these editors never try to insert the wild speculations of anti-Brexit politicians. Not only do the attempts to use rhetoric by politicians to rebut expert assessments and RS reporting violate WP:FALSEBALANCE, but the desire to exclusively insert commentary by pro-Brexit politicians is a clear and blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Most recently, the editor RichardWeiss sought to include random speculations by pro-Brexit politicians to rebut an actual peer-reviewed study with the rationale that these wild speculations are needed for "balance".[16] The editor John Maynard Friedman sought to include the same content with the claim that so long as a RS reported on the wild speculations by politicians, it was totally fine to use these wild speculations ("nonsense", the editor called them) to rebut a peer-reviewed study.[17] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The speculation is by both sides. You want an anti-Brexit piece "Brexit poses the following threats to higher education" with no balanced pro-Brexit piece but we need to be neutral. The Telegraph is a reliable source. I think you are getting this back to front, your removal is what creates a WP:NPOV issue. I didn't add material, I was reverting you who had just removed this material, so don't claim otherwise. I don't see why the piece above the removed piece is any different in quality as you seem to be claiming. My personal opinion is strongly anti-Brexit, Maynard's edit summary seemed to be saying the same and if we as editors who are not pro-brexit but pro-neutrality are saying this it is likely that we have a good point. Your comments give me less faith in the rightnes of your removal of this sourced material than I had before you commented. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"The speculation is by both sides." A peer-reviewed study vs the nonsensical ramblings of a politician. WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the "nonsensical political ramblings" are very important for the article. Most edits adding political points of view were not trying to "rebut" experts' opinions, but to present Brexiters' arguments, which, once again, are important for understanding the whole Brexit mess (it wouldn't be a mess if it was just a scholarly debate). Although it needed some rephrasing, the last edit you reverted clearly said "speculated"; anybody can see that it is not a view supported by experts. In a way, Brexit is a political push for policies dismissed by experts; therefore you can't just present academic studies.

I remind you that you do not own this article. See WP:OWN. T8612 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Political ramblings are indeed important, but they aren't suitable as part of encyclopaedic articles. It might be appropriate to include them - perhaps in their own section, "Claims made as part of political argument", if we find reputable studies that describe them. Hunc (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with a "The politics of Brexit" section where the various views of pro-, anti- and undecided Brexit politicians and pundits are covered in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV and reflective of RS coverage. Exclusively allowing one side of the political spectrum to be covered and to use these politicians to rebut actual RS reporting and peer-reviewed research in a WP:FALSEBALANCE manner is bonkers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, it would be a false comparison if this were an academic subject where peer-reviews have value. It isn't, it is a political hot potato where the views of politicians have as much if not more value than peer-reviewed studies, the whole nature of the subject is political, and because of this the views of brexiters is highly important, as is the view of remainers. I agree with T8612 re academic studies aren't important here, and also that no editor can possibly own this particular article. And at the end of the day both sides are speculating about what might hapen if Brexit does happen. We aren't trying to sway our readers that Brexit should or shouldn't happen. There are few articles where neutrality is more important than here, and this is a blatant attempt to politicise our neutrality so these opinions should stay and the readers can make their own minds up, if they want to. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you seem to be open to having a section on speculations and unfounded claims. RichardWeiss, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not you seem to make a good case for removing all the speculation, but perhaps you'd like to draft a section on the subject? Hunc (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have just reverted Snooganssnoogans again though I am happy to remove the whole lot. What we can't have is one-sided anti-Brexit speculation, per WP:NPOV. We musn't be seen to be reporting either remain or leave, that is the most important thing in this article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem I have with your edit is the "Some public figures" part, which is vague. People or organisations must be named and when the text is speculative, their opinion on Brexit should be stated. In this case, I don't know this Richard Black, but perhaps we could say "The pro-Brexit newspaper Daily Telegraph released an article downplaying the risks faced by the higher education sector etc."

Note: I think there should be a section on newspapers that lists their main opinion on Brexit. The Daily Mail and The Sun have had a lot of influence on the vote and the following push for a hard Brexit; it must be mentioned somewhere. The DM's headline attack against the Supreme Court was extraordinary. T8612 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there any RS to support the proposition that any newspaper (or broadcaster) "had a lot of influence on the vote and the following push for a hard Brexit" one way or the other? Is there any like evidence about the influence of the government's pre-referendum pamphlet delivered to every household, and other official publications, opposing (a so-called "hard") Brexit? The DM's vehement attack on the Supreme Court was startling (but given the DM's then editorial POV, perhaps not altogether surprising), but the course of events was and continues to be actually determined by the court's ruling, the negotiating process determined by the EU, the conduct of negotiations by the previous and current UK prime minister, the degree of candour on the part of the government in and out of the UK Parliament, the general election in the UK called by the present prime minister, and by party-political rivalry in Parliament and the fixed or contingent timing of future parliamentary and assembly elections in UK and EU, as the current debate in Parliament on the proposed Withdrawal Agreement makes manifestly obvious when seen from a neutral POV. Qexigator (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Tons of info on media bias here. T8612 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Bias does not disclose "influence on the vote and the following push for a hard Brexit". What RS does? The biases reported are sufficiently known to most in and outside Parliament and government. This report ... set out to examine ... two key research questions. First, how did the British press cover the EU referendum story? Second, what were the main stories and issues deployed on each side of the argument?... Qexigator (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep this limited to one question - should the content about universities possibly benefiting from Brexit be included in the page? My opinion is no, because the article should summarise the sources, and this view is clearly a fringe one. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It should not be included in an unbalanced way and has been removed given the continuous removal of the balancing piece below it. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not need balance between reputable academic studies and fringe journalism. If you can generate a consensus here to remove the academic study or to insert the fringe journalism, I won't argue any further. Until then, it is inappropriate to do either.

By the way, can you show us any examples of pro-Europe fringe speculation in this article? I'll hope to be at the head of the queue to remove them. Hunc (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Not an academic article, is purely academic speculation. I'll add the NPOV tag till this is sorted, your only interest seems to be promoting an anti-Brexit article. You need to address both the lack of neutrality and the lack of consensus for your POV. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

In the section right above, an editor not only cited the Telegraph but also this House of Commons Education Committee report which contains an "Opportunities" section with what looks to the untrained eye several academic sources as citations. Maybe this can be integrated instead? Regards SoWhy 11:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better. The Telegraph article was not written by someone notable enough to feature alone in the WP article. T8612 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The House of Commons Education Committee report is indeed a more credible source. I've just read it. The most important quotation would probably be from paragraph 74: "Some of our witnesses disagreed these were opportunities, but rather in Professor John Latham’s words “a way of mitigating [Brexit]”, or in Professor Stephanie Haywood’s words “new drivers”. Nevertheless they accepted that the situation demanded a new approach. Professor Latham concluded that it gave universities the opportunity to “go more global more quickly”. Professor Haywood said that although “these opportunities largely exist anyway, many of them”, they could be extended—including existing frameworks such as the Newton Fund, which provides funding for international research collaboration that helps developing countries with economic development, social welfare, and sustainable growth." The Opportunities section, pages 30-31, indeed seems to consist almost entirely of suggestions about possible ways of limiting damage. I can't find any actual new opportunities as a result of Brexit. And, per WP:RECENT I cannot see that any of this is useful in an encyclopaedic article. As for a section on political speculation, WP:RECENT does rather suggest that we shouldn't produce one. To quote John Crace "Give me a load of chimps killing one another any day. It would up the IQ levels by several points." Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect use of name of country

2A02:8084:26E1:4080:29BB:19DC:5A10:F788 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)The official name for the Republic of Ireland is just that, the Republic of Ireland. In this article the word 'Eire" is used erroneously which no longer has any official usage in Ireland or Britain. The word "Éire" is Irish for Ireland. The historical use of "Eire"(without accent over E) in place of Republic of Ireland or Ireland was partly because British Law forbade the use of Ireland in official documents up until 1981 post Irish independence. This is largely down to post colonial hang ups from the British civil service and a general avoidance of the word "Ireland". Its simply factually incorrect to refer to Republic of Ireland as Eire and it is offensive. For example when speaking of Spain in the English language one does not use the word Espagne, that would be considered strange. Source wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire

Thank you for that. As a result of your comment, I am now slightly less ignorant. MrDemeanour (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Espagne is French for Spain, surely you mean España? Not convinced your comment re "hang ups from the British civil service" is other than blatant POV but I don't object to not using the word Eire, which was indeed more popular 40 yrs ago than today, where it isn't used at all and don't doubt what you say re it being prohibited in the UK till 1981. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

2A02:8084:26E1:4080:29F3:C194:94BC:ECAB (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)I'm absolutely scarlet for using French for Spain ! Thank you for noting my point.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

The Scotland Continuity Bill did not gain Royal Ascent as it was declared "not law" by the Supreme Court which ruled that section 17 of the Bill to be outwith the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, due to the passage and enactment of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 while the Bill was under review, and that the bill as far as that section is concerned is therefore 'not law'.[1] The Governments of Scotland and of the United Kingdom differed sharply on the outcome. 2A02:C7D:1BC:5A00:8518:AC45:4D01:EAEC (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Martha Gill piece

I have removed from the lead-section a recently-added paragraph quoting from an op-ed published in the New York Times by Martha Gill, a political journalist living in London. The new paragraph incorrectly asserted that the text was from the NYT itself and offered "an independent view" — but this was an op-ed, not an editorial from the paper.

In any case, this is undue weight from the lead. There are thousands of op-eds relating to Brexit; there is no reason to prize this one above others. And the article has thus far done a good job by excluding op-eds from the lead. We ought not to open the floodgates now. Neutrality^talk 17:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Neutrality and Richard Keatinge: Firstly, thanks Neutrality for a clear explanation of your objections. Agreed I wrongly attributed it to the paper but Martha Gill is quite a well known political journalist writing for the Telegraph andthe Guardian as well as the NYT. The reason for including an opinion piece is the convergence of views from WP:RS right at the end of 2018 that HMG is unprepared and the country is heading for a disaster; I note en passant that Raab didn't understand supply issues and Johnson and Mogg postulate "technology" solution to Northern Ireland. It may be the new sentence needs to go elsewhere -possibly a new section such as "Position at the end of 2018"

In December 2018, Martha Gill, writing in The New York Times described Brexit as a "cliffhanger" with a tone of "desperate urgency" and "mind numbing" details where "nothing ever changes." She said that Brexit had poisoned British politics leaving journalists to merely report the decline of the patient and noted that "they're all telling the same story".

3 other stories from the Telegraph, Times and Guardian respectively.

Political turmoil in Westminster tipped UK-exposed stocks into a bear market last week ...the Brexit stalemate has sent stocks generating the bulk of their earnings in the UK sliding further ..The Institute of Directors said businesses are “tearing their hair out” at the “constant can-kicking and internal domestic political strife”.

Brexit is paralysing the nation, say MPs

Netherlands PM uses Britain's Brexit 'chaos' as cautionary tale

Regards JRPG (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Despite all of that and no matter how well regarded she is, User:Neutrality's more fundamental point still stands. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the most important points of the body. It is therefore inappropriate to include in it journalistic or political opinions, it must give only the facts without comment. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I still think that it would be a good idea to have at least one (preferably two, if anyone can source a reputable pro-Brexit) summary of external views of the process. I'll drop the idea unless a consensus seems to be emerging. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge and John Maynard Friedman: Richard and John, mea culpa, I should not have put sentence in a lead which I agree is already too long. I did expect it to be repositioned but didn't know where was best. The Telegraph is about as pro-Brexit as it gets and even it is in despair at the totally predictable chaos. The Telegraph link I supplied said "The Institute of Directors said businesses are “tearing their hair out” at the “constant can-kicking and internal domestic political strife” and that's without addressing the even more vexatious NI border issue -an area where I have some professional expertise. Is there any objection to a short "End of 2018" paragraph showing the rare consensus amongst Telegraph, Times and Guardian? FWIW, I have every sympathy for May or anyone taking over from Cameron. Regards JRPG (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it would have to go in the week-by-week reports. The lead is way too long as it is (as is the article!) and I still say journalists' or politicians' views should not go there. This is now a quote from the IoD, so it does have more merit but I still feel that it is not so absolutely critical that it go in the lead. Maybe we need a guideline that for each new sentence that goes in the lead, two old ones have to come out! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to John Maynard Friedman, all these points sound very sensible. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018

Add additional context onto this existing opening sentence.

'It follows the referendum of 23 June 2016 when 51.9 per cent of those who voted supported withdrawal'

To something like the following.

'It follows the referendum of 23 June 2016 when 51.9 per cent of those who voted supported withdrawal, which consisted of %37.4 of the eligible voters'

A majority of those who voted in the referendum did vote to leave the EU; but, a minority of the voters in the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. I feel the addition of this statistic portrays the result of the referendum more fully.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Petition_for_a_new_referendum

46,500,001 Voters for the 2016 referendum.

17,410,742 Voted to leave the EU.

29,089,259 Did not vote to leave the EU.
IntoTheAbyssOfTheUnknown (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

Mascot Continued division between "leave" and "remain" campaigners has sowed discord amongst the British population, however there are some who are trying to embrace the exceptional circumstances of Brexit by creating a positive mascot - a "Brexit Bear". A completely neutral mascot, the Brexit Bear looks to make light of the complexities of Brexit whilst encouraging a positive national dialogue that says no matter the circumstances, the UK will be united and will continue to thrive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia Karpoff (talk • contribs)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Add the following text under Brexit | Cultural References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia Karpoff (talk • contribs)

Note, preceding comment was made after the decline, and moved here by me. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Oddly promotional and not really WP:NPOV. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Should we create a separate article with new referendum polls?

The tables with the polls on a new referendum are very long and considerably lengthen the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Post-referendum_opinion_polling). A solution would be to do as with other articles on elections and create a separate article with only the tables. T8612 (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would improve the Brexit article and the presentaion of the poll table information in the proposed new main article for that topic. Qexigator (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please keep at least the right/wrong table. I find it useful to track how people are swayed (or even more interestingly, are NOT swayed) by words and deeds reported in the media. We can however dispense with the "second referendum" tables - that is a narrower and currently hypothetical topic which does not sit well in a general Brexit article. If a second referendum does become likely, we can then return those second referendum tables to the article. 86.139.51.243 (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact there is no need to create a new article as the tables are already here: Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. I'll just remove them from the article and add a further:link. T8612 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The removal of a sentence in the lead section intended for balance

I have today reinstated the removal of a short sentence with a reference "Supporters of Brexit have suggested that ending net contributions to the EU would allow for some cuts to taxes or increase in government spending" – until consensus is gained whether this should be included or removed. A similar sentence is currently included in the lead section of the Economic effects of Brexit article, which provides a balance. I don't think anybody is disputing that there is a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to have negative economic consequences, but that's not the issue here. In the interest of balance, and as per WP:LEAD, I feel that one sentence should at least be included to explain what supporters of Brexit have put forward. This sentence doesn't necessarily have to come after the negative economic consequences of Brexit are explained, because the issue is not to dispute that research, merely to provide a balance between the issues which have divided the country over Brexit. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this. This is, as far as I can see, the only op-ed in the lead section, and it's given undue prominence. If every MP who wrote an op-ed were included in the lead, it would clutter it unduly. Moreover, the lead section is intended to be a summary of the article, and this particular article is not cited elsewhere. Neutrality^talk 02:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I take your point that the sentence removed was not in the main body of the article. I have instead today placed a shortened version of a sourced sentence in the lead from the former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King, which is already included in the article elsewhere in the "Long-term economic analyses" section of the article. This, in my view, helps to provide a balanced lead section as per WP:LEAD. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The view of one economist should not be juxtaposed with those of the overwhelming majority within the field per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. We must not slip into the sloppy behaviour of the BBC who feel obliged to "balance" the strong consensus of scientists on anthropogenic climate change or vaccination with those of a tiny minority. Yes, the view of "economists for brexit" should be included but "equal time" is wildly disproportionate to their numbers. If we are to include King and Minford in the lede then to maintain proportionality we have also to include a hundred economists who say it is insane. We can't do that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Economists who say it is 'insane' are not admissible; they are not psychiatrists. OTOH King is a highly-respected expert on the UK economy. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As I am sure you were aware, the term "insane" is my paraphrasing of "economic self-harm". The Government's own calculations show the economic cost varying from -1.6% for an EEA deal to -7.7% in some WTO fallback. But, per WP:NOTFORUM, I had better stop at that point. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I had no way of knowing what you meant by 'insane', since you didn't cite any of these economists. Perhaps you should try to avoid over-dramatic hyperbole. FWIW I agree that economic harm is likely to result from brexit; but I think it has to be done anyway, because the EU is undemocratic, and as a result corrupt (i.e. in the hands of lobbyists). MrDemeanour (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM means that I can't use this space to explain why your "undemocratic and corrupt[ed]" EU is a UKIP chimera rather than the actual association of sovereign independent states. Wikipedia has a series of detailed articles that will explain the boring facts, warts and all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Point taken re. NOTAFORUM. Sorry. I have struck the remark. Please consider striking your 'insane' remark, for the same reason. And please note that I am not a UKIP supporter; and I have considered the EU to be undemocratic and corrupt since long before UKIP was founded. Thanks for the link to chimera; two or more animals glued together (I didn't bother to check what the link says). Not clear what that has to do with the present topic. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this article is controlled by pro EU editors. How do we get a pro Brexit editor on the team who can give balance? And to whom should I complain about the pro EU bias of the editors? Skydog1974 (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We are expected to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith] on the part of other editors; accusing them of bias is not acceptable, even if you don't name them. Instead, you can describe an edit as being biased.

Having said that, I am a brexiteer (but I think not your stereotypical brexiteer), and I have this article on my watchlist; but I am very reluctant to make substantial edits to this article, for fear of anything from aggressive revert summaries to getting dragged into some admin forum. I know that the subject is extremely divisive. Instead I mostly restrict myself to copy-editing. I take the view that this is a hot topic, that one day it will cool down, and the article might then acquire a more balanced flavour.

The same kind of problem arises in any article that deals with hot political topics, such as Trump. It also arises in many articles dealing with Islam and in articles about the Greek/Turkish disagreements over Cyprus, even though these are mostly not concerned with recent events; I still mainly stay away from substantive editing, except to revert obvious vandalism. Call me chicken if you like. I'd just say that life is too short. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Brexit has already created 630 new banking jobs on the Continent (status Sep 2018)

Over a million people are employed in the UK's financial service sector (from mortgages to investment banking), and predictions vary widely that between 10,000 and 200,000 of these jobs are at risk of moving to the Continent due to Brexit. The Irish Times have now published a survey to demonstrate that the risk is not hypothetical: As of September, 630 jobs have already been created in the banking sector on the Continent that might have been created in the UK were it not for Brexit. Can this Irish Times article please be cited accordingly: 81.131.171.172 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

But if they are not actually doing anything useful, being that they are in the financial services sector, then what's the problem? -Inowen (nlfte) 03:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Bias

Just a politically unaligned chap dropping by to remind you all of your leftist confirmation bias. There are plenty of economists who claim that Brexit will result in long-term, favorable changes for England's economy; however, of course, those assertions not "credible." And where the hell did you get this "near unanimous" negative opinion thing from? Did you go door-to-door interviewing everybody with a BA? Ridiculous. I hope you understand that your bias reduces your credibility.

The standards for neutrality on here actually verge on comical. Like I've said, most people see through it, so it's not much of a threat. I'm just trying to help. A little introspection regarding your motives might improve the website -- even regain some of the public's trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C001:98BF:C57E:B4AC:1150:7D0C (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's generally advised that comments should concern themselves with the content, not the editors. Accusing people of bias just gets their backs up; instead try to focus on ensuring the content is fair and balanced. And questioning the motives of other editors is a violation of WP:AGF.

Incidentally, nobody that thinks about politics can be 'politically unaligned'. And as soon as you accuse others of 'leftist confirmation bias' you are explicitly positioning yourself to the right of those you are calling 'leftists'. MrDemeanour (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have some sources that meet WP's standards, then by all means make the necessary amendments. However if you don't have the necessary sources, don't make complaints and ludicrous assertions of political bias. Oh, before you round on me, I'm neither left-wing nor a supporter of Remaining in the EU. Alssa1 (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you. The whole page is both bias and incorrect. It would take hours to correct this prejudice and unfair work. How have they got away with this? And by the way the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined the EEC not the EC, missing out Economic the whole reason the UK thought it was joining the rest of Europe. Also it was both left wing and right wing politicians who wanted to stop us joining the EEC, Enoch Powell and Tony Benn to name two. And Nigel Farage doesn't even get a mention. I can understand it is hard not to take sides when writing about politics like religion, so care should be taken and it unquestionably has not. (Darmech (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC))

There is clearly heavy pro EU bias on this arty. It should have a warning to that effect like other suspect articles do. The Brexit article is nothing but pro EU propaganda. Skydog1974 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

All claims, there could be "long-term, favourable changes for England's economy" are based on the assumption that Britain could achieve more favourable trade conditions outside of the European Union. It is highly implausible, how they could be achieved. 2A02:8109:88C0:9BC:D8D2:A41B:E86A:476F (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

2003:E0:672C:A2B1:8594:D498:CD92:A625 (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

2003:E0:672C:A2B1:8594:D498:CD92:A625 (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Internal politics

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.

---

Some notes on the internal politics:

At basis for the Brexit is the incompatibilty of the British monarchy with a heavily democratic European and Western World. The Brexit is the British public's vote of acceptance that the world finds Britain unfavorable as far as economic policy goes, accepting that Britain then will strive to live independently as a monarchist society, or fall into troubles due to civil unrest from austerity, and warmaking by the anti-democratic government.

The alternative to the British leaving the Euro would be for Britain to abolish its monarchy and accept democratic government. But given that that is unlikely to happen, there is a kind of skepticism of the Brexit, a sense that Brexit would be bad for the common British person, and an idea that there can be something short of a Brexit which will allow Britain to stay connected to the European money machine, while still appealing to Brexit supporters who won a majority vote.

Because the Brexit was voted for and is yet to be enacted, calls for a renegation of the vote promise to wipe out years of political progress that made the Brexit vote possible in the first place. Its possible to think of Brexit then as a large move on behalf of the British public in the direction of Republicanism, and then Brexit is the beginning of a large internal fight between the aristocratic government which claims legitimacy and clings to power, and a public who voted for the Brexit and are also trying to get another referendum on Scottish Independence.

-Inowen (nlfte) 09:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm sure there are people that would be interested in discussing your debating points, but this is not the place. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

These are notes on some basic facts about Brexit. They are straightforward. The monarchy has always been a cheesecake factory, and its important that we don't let either servile nation members or operatives of an autocratic government water down articles about their country or elements within. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removal_of_talk_page_comments for discussion. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Inowen, I think you have strayed into WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPTIVE]]. Please note that article talk pages are for discussing improvements to an article; not just for 'discussing an article'. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox.

Look, who knows, perhaps I might even agree with your observations. But I can't discuss them with you here; that's not what this page is for.

Please don't be dragging me off to some damn Village Pump or whatever. That just makes it harder to follow what's happening. And if you're going to accuse other editors of political censorship, you'd better damn well name them - at first I thought you were accusing me of deleting your comment. MrDemeanour (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My "observations" are for how to approach the article, and explain what Brexit is all about in way where rubber meets road. There is the basic fact that Britain is aristocratic that needs to be mentioned in the article, as well as the basic idea of how aristocratic monetary policy is different from democratic (what people think) monetary policy, and how the difference between these two things is at the base of everything. The word "aristocratic" is not even mentioned in the article. The word "monarchy," meaning the very form of the British government, is not even mentioned. Inowen (nlfte) 05:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the closing of this thread. The vehm that it engendered on the part of British editors comes about because Britain is a monarchy not a democracy (Brexit and the Scotland referendum can be rejected), and they sometimes lack the temperance of those who live in democracies to approach issues with civility and candor. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: Because the issue is confusing, there has to be a logical way to graph the politics, even when they are paradoxical. For example the aristocracy doesn't want Brexit, but many Tories do, and they are not opposed to each other, its just the Tories have a different sense of what the Brexit means for Britain, the aristocrats though do see it as a loss of access to Western capital. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Inowen You are editing disruptively. Your rants about whether the UK is democratic or not belong on your blog, not here. In the same way, my opinions about money and racial gerrymandering in US politics would belong on my blog (if I had one). Please stop. MrDemeanour (talk) 03:47, 29 October 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.

Please revert -- edit request

Would someone please revert this highly partisan edit which removed an entire well-sourced, factual section representing mainstream economic opinion from the lede and buried it without even an edit summary? Clearly the editor was aiming for some WP:FALSEBALANCE by removing the paragraph altogether simply because they disagree with it (and also performing some WP:ADVOCACY, I suspect). In any case such a change would require talk-page consensus. I can not revert it myself as the article is protected. Thank you. 121.212.179.61 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the article is overlong, and needs no further loading with speculative opinion from any source, which oncoming events will soon enough reveal as true or false. There may be enough accumulated opinion from before and after the referendum to be the topic of a stand alone article, which could possibly be notable from the historic perspective. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Speculative opinion" = expert assessments. And nope, the lede should summarize the body per WP:LEDE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• DO OVER. The shifting looks good because the lead is overlong and that part was kept intact at the new location. However, there is a general norm that significant edits to lead should be discussed first (in order to avoid lead wars), and there is a general norm that long-standing content should be respected as a consensus. So - I have reverted per procedural points, but will support shifting it in discussion as a flawed and biased part of an overlong lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(In view of the above) The npov move of a paragraph from lead to "Preamble"[18] would improve the article, and need not have been undone. Qexigator (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit request claimed "highly partisan" which itself is POV. Irrespective of that, the article would be editorially improved if the mv was redone. Qexigator (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)