Talk:Brexit/Archive 4

History section bias against French president
The history section makes it sound as if the French president Charles de Gaulle was solely responsible for rejecting Britain's repeated pleas to join the European Community in the 1960s. However, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was also strongly against Britain joining. Here is Der Spiegel from 1962. There are lots of fascinating details in here, but let me offer just one boring strategic passage (google translation, which is impressively accurate - I have modified it only slightly):

Konrad Adenauer ist gegen Englands Europa-Beitritt, weil er weiß und fürchtet, daß damit sein eigenes Konzept einer politischen Integration Europas - von de Gaulle ohnehin schon durchlöchert - vollends unmöglich wird; England wird nie völlig auf seine Souveränität verzichten.

"Konrad Adenauer is against Britain's accession to Europe [to the EEC] because he knows and fears that his own concept of political integration in Europe - already shot to pieces by de Gaulle - will become completely impossible; England will never totally renounce its sovereignty."

The reason given in the Spiegel-article is that Adenauer disliked the British because in 1945 in the British occupied zone of Germany he was initially mayor of Cologne but was quickly sacked by the British authorities for incompetence. Are any of you Wikipedians sufficiently expert in history and can advise whether de Gaulle and Adenauer should both be mentioned as culprits for Britain's exclusion from the EEC? 81.131.173.36 (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the Spiegel is to read " 1919 befahl ein britischer Offizier dem damaligen Kölner Oberbürgermeister Konrad Adenauer, deutsche Zivilisten sollten künftig ihre Hüte ziehen, wenn sie in den Gassen der Stadt englischen Offizieren begegneten. Und 1945 jagte ein britischer Besatzer-Brigadier den Kölner Oberbürgermeister Konrad Adenauer wegen "Unfähigkeit" aus dem Amt. Adenauers schmerzhafte Englisch-Lektionen waren damit nicht beendet: Jahrelang (1950 bis 1954) erlebte er als Bonner Kanzler, wie London gegen sein Lieblingsprojekt einer Europäischen Verteidigungsgemeinschaft intrigierte. Er macht noch heute für den Tod des ungeborenen Europa-Säuglings in Paris die Briten verantwortlich, weil sie sich weigerten, der EVG beizutreten, und Frankreich damit allen Mut genommen hätten. Außerdem verübelt Konrad Adenauer den Engländern ihren weichen Kurs gegenüber Moskau. Als Pelzmützen-Premier Macmillan im Februar 1959 auf eigene Faust nach Moskau reiste, um sich als Unterhändler im Ost-West-Konflikt anzubieten, hatte der Bonner Kanzler sich eine so gefestigte Position in der Weltpolitik erkämpft, daß er glaubte, von nun an seinen Zorn über die Briten nicht mehr still in sich hineinschlucken zu müssen."
 * The Köln events are named "painful expierence" nothing more, not named "reason". After it there are named the European Defence Community, UK was against it. Adenauer made UK responsible for the end of it in Paris. So this is a reason noch speculation of the writer of this old article. (After the Brexit it will possibly made.) The next named is that Adenauer disliked the soft course against Moskau, because a travel of Premier Macmillan without to ask others.
 * So these reasons are clear changeable, not strongly but de Gaulles position was completly against an attempt with the UK to form a new Europe: http://www.zeit.de/2013/06/Grossbritannien-EU-Beitritt-Geschichte/seite-2 and there: http://www.bpb.de/internationales/europa/brexit/229985/zeitleiste After de Gaulle was gone 1969 it was possible ... before not. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But you are only repeating what my cited Spiegel article says. My question was, should we mention German Chancellor Adenauer's opposition to accept Britain as an EEC member, alongside French president De Gaulle's veto? At the moment, the Wikipedia article places all the blame on the French president. That is possibly not fair if Adenauer was equally guilty of shunning Britain. 81.131.173.36 (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brexit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160913032647/http://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/treaties_en to https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/treaties_en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160528104051/http://www.conservatives.in/ to http://www.conservatives.in/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/Cm6172.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion in Europe
Should we not also cover positive responses to Brexit in Europe? Some streams of thought, especially French, see this as a positive because it reduces the possibility of Anglo-Saxon meddling (whether British or American Imperialist) in European affairs. There are strains of this both on the left (ie - against neoliberalism) and on the right (in a Gaullist sense). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean 'positive' (=anti-EU) as by Le Pen and Geert Wilders? They were more vocal at the time of the referendum. But in their national elections, that positivism was not used (anti-EU was not a campaign item). -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I mean positive in the sense that some people feel the British should never have been invited in the first place and the European Union will now be able to be more effective without them acting as an American/neoliberal fifth column within the gate. Which was the view of De Gaulle in the first place and most Communist Parties in Europe. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Claiomh Solais. Franco-British relationships have not been very good since AD 1066, and Napoleon and Pétain did not really help. And now this:

The former Liberal Democrat Minister Jeremy Browne reported that French authorities are pressing for a "disruptive" Brexit, intending to undermine the City of London.
 * It is not possible to understand Brexit without this background information in Wikipedia. On a political level, to stop the rot, what we need is a European Peace Conference, where the French promise to stop eating frogs and the British solemnly renounce warm beer. But I am getting slightly carried away. 86.170.122.240 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) re Claíomh Solais: Sure those opinions (or sentiments) exist and could have/have had big influence. Note that we now have political parties, institutions (banks, civil rights organisations), scolars (universities), newspapers (in their editorials and news) that weigh in. Very hard to describe these opinions & their weight in an encyclopedic way I think, but probably can be done. Then, can these voices be called 'popular'? Probably the only real popular opinion is expressed in demonstrations and elections, not in Le Monde and FAZ? -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

2000: Brexit as a mean for NAFTA FTA.
I suggest to add that in the article as it looks obvious that this helps to understand the rationale of the Brexit.

In august 2000, the United States International Trade Commission published The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Arrangement With the United States, Canada, and Mexico which consider Brexit as one mean to allow United-Kindgdom participation in NAFTA,.

This publication answers a Senate Finance Committee request to the U.S. International Trade Commission on 18 november 1999. In that mind, one scenario considered is UK access to ALENA with Brexit. It considers such a thning might lead to an USA GDP increase by USD 90 millions, with limited effect on UK and EU but this conclusion is considered as uncertain because there have never been any previous member state withdraw from the EU.

In year 2000, Brexit ideology is yet supported by two opposite philosophies: the Gramm one and the Black one.


 * I would add that additional sources are available, for instance:
 * «Seven countries led by the US, including Canada, Argentina, Brazil and New Zealand signed a letter to the EU objecting to a plan to split agricultural tariff rate quotas, or TRQs.»
 * «“We cannot accept such an agreement,” the letter stated. The seven countries are displeased that they had not been consulted on the negotiations.»
 * «There is now a general consensus between UK and EU that TRQs should be divided based on historical imports and consumption.»
 * «Mrs May, (...) presented the deal as a breakthrough for a successful Brexit, particularly as US President Donald Trump was an advocate of Britain leaving the EU.»
 * According to the letter, the TRQs are based on global today's trade architecture, and no calculation of Britain’s tariff-rate quotas could be agreed at the WTO without the agreement of the seven.
 * UK plans to ask that “technical rectification” method be used to establish its new agricultural quotas schedule, to secure approval from other WTO members.
 * The seven disagree on this last point as according to their letter, “The modification of these TRQ access arrangements cannot credibly be achieved through a technical rectification”
 * or, according to the FT:
 * Trumps would like a “beautiful trade deal” with the UK after it leaves the EU, with a hard bargain..
 * This might induce a risk for the UK to accept opening up beforeany deal.
 * The discussion will occur in the week of October 16 (agriculture week) in Geneva .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * According to Reuters, the plan will be sent to WTO next week.
 * Three main issues:
 * the division of agricultural import quotas
 * farm subsidy rights
 * for Britain, continued membership of the WTO’s government procurement agreement, which it is not a member of in its own right.
 * And according to the BBC, “It's also interesting to note which countries have raised the objection in the WTO. They include three that have been identified as leading candidates for free-trade deals with the UK post-Brexit: the US, Canada and New Zealand.”.

A range of issues pose a serious threat to the future of the EU, including the Brexit process
According to the National Intelligence Council, «A range of issues pose a serious threat to the future of the EU, including the Brexit process and its fallout elsewhere in Eu rope».

I wonder if such a threat might be introduced in this wikipedia article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotection of article
I went ahead and requested that this be temporarily semiprotected because of all the recent IP-driven vandalism. Yes, I know what that would do to me as also an IP, but I think I'm done editing this for a while anyway. 103.208.85.43 (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Is 'Brexit' [sic] an expression of English nationalism?
The English voted Leave, not the British as a whole, still less the UK. There should be some coverage of English nationalism in the article as that seems to be the almost unspoken driver. Fergananim (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How "the English" voted is unknown, but we do know how people registered in England voted. As always, though, if you think these things are important and have good sources that say something of value, then add them. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, while I have a few (http://www.ricorso.net/rx/library/criticism/revue/OToole_F/OToole_F20.htm, http://podbay.fm/show/794389685/e/1497610209?autostart=1, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/brexits-irish-question/), they are few in number. Plus I'd like some input and discussion from other editors. Fergananim (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/10/05/english-nationalism-drove-brexit-and-now-supercharges-the-tories-what-about-the-uk/, https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/tory-talk-of-union-hides-soft-underbelly-of-english-nationalism-1.3025164, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/britain-ireland-brexit-leo-varadkar.html?mcubz=0, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-scottish-referendum-english-nationalism-damaged-union-for-good-a7635796.html, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/18/english-nationalism-rising-hard-brexit-not-way-assuage, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/12/election-britain-brexit-english-nationalism-scotland, http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the-problem-with-the-english-england-doesn-t-want-to-be-just-another-member-of-a-team-1-4851882, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-04/brexit-is-an-english-nationalism-thing, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2041905816666124?journalCode=plia, https://www.britac.ac.uk/brexit-and-union, http://pascalobservatory.org/pascalnow/pascal-activities/events/brexit-reframed-english-nationalism-euroscepticism-and-anglospher, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/22/make-england-great-again-brexit-eu-david-cameron/,

http://www.rotaryclubcentralmelbourne.org.au/Speakers/de1fa3b3-47e8-4028-80f9-135349a15e78, http://politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au/events/brexit-reframed-english-nationalism-euroscepticism-and-the-anglosphere


 * Your proposal makes little sense to me. The Welsh are clearly not English nationalists yet they voted for Brexit. Same is true for Scottish nationalist voters who turned out the highest pro-Brexit vote in Scotland. What we need to cite is a proper survey which explores the reasons for Brexit. I dimly remember that the principal reason for Brexit was immigration concerns (I think this was identified as a major factor by the British Social Attitudes Survey, cited somewhere in a Wikipedia article in the context of how the younger generation voted). My impression is that the "English nationalism" claim is made by commentators such as Fintan OToole who are unhappy with Brexit, due to the scary effects Brexit could have on Ireland if no agreement with the EU is reached, and are thus not unbiased. So I suggest it is better for us to rely on scientific surveys rather than on commentators. I would encourage you to read the BSA and come up with a draft paragraph here on the Talk page for further discussion. 86.170.121.244 (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where BSA might mean British Social Attitudes Survey.
 * I assume the text to read, is the one which states that «national identity and cultural outlook were significantly associated with vote choice.».
 * It is not impossible that Thatcher played quite a key role in setting the mindset for both topics: British exit and British nationalism; extracts of Les années Thatcher en Écosse : l'Union remise en question (Gilles Leydier):
 * «la rhétorique anti-bruxelloise mise en avant par M Thatcher au nom de la souveraineté «nationale» été perçue en Écosse comme le rejet d'une solidarité européenne en même temps que l'expression d'un isolationnisme typiquement anglais contraire la tradition continentale notamment pré-unioniste avec l' Auld Alliance, de l’Écosse»
 * «M Thatcher a d'ailleurs revendiqué à titre personnel et à plusieurs reprises son identité de «nationaliste anglaise» » — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an erreur in your French. What is "contraire la tradition" supposed to mean? Perhaps "contre la tradition"? Please correct. 86.170.122.241 (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It should read "contraire à". --Boson (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In original version which bing can found, they write as you write: «contraire à»; see http://www.cairn.info/article_p.php?ID_ARTICLE=RFSP_446_1034

Brexit & the ECJ (European Court of Justice (that is the one of the EU))
I would like to know if you feel that this article is clear enough on the relationship which might exist between Brexit and the ECJ addressing some topics such as:
 * any role any British dislike of the ECJ might have had on the process which led to the Brexit decision (notifying article 50).
 * any role any British dislike of the ECJ would have on the process of deciding Brexit to be or not to be a no deal
 * any plan to manage dispute resolution if any, after Brexit (for instance without the ECJ)

I assume that to understand the dislike of a dispute resolution organization, it makes sense to compare it to another dislike of an other dispute resolution organization. It looks like such other dislike of dispute resolution organization exists in some other places such as for instance:
 * dislike of the NAFTA dispute resolution organization, by the administration of Mr Brexit++
 * dislike of the WTO dispute resolution organization, by the administration of Mr Brexit++
 * dislike of the Spanish constitutional court by some catalans, and by any Brexiters.

I did not read such thing in the wikipedia article. Where can we find references on such comparison? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi IP 77.193.104.227. I suggest you are confusing the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights. It is the latter (only indirectly an EU institution) which regularly made negative headlines in the British newspapers in the years before the Brexit referendum 2016, protecting suspected Islamic terrorists from deportation etc. There is a useful and balanced article here in The Guardian newspaper. Good luck with your further research. 81.131.171.205 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is another issue concernin if an agreed deal might be subject to ECJ judicial review, causing delay/rendering it invalid etc. Not yet mentionedLessogg (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ( @ User talk:81.131.171.205 ) : No, “One of the most contentious issues in Britain’s exit from the EU is the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) during and after Brexit. This is because Brexit is ultimately a question of sovereign authority. Who decides the rules of the game when things go awry: a UK judge, or their EU counterpart?”and “We are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — that’s not going to happen,” Mrs May said to her party’s·
 * After a few search and some fast reading, it looks like there are some similarities and some disimilarities:
 * Some criticism of the WTO DSS are:
 * “law made by a court is not subject to review by the legislature.”
 * “creation of laws that would have never been accepted by the parties in negotiations?”
 * “the extent to which the Members give it (sovereignty) up is actually unknown precisely”
 * “The question of the common law”
 * “over-interpretation contrary to the legal text.”
 * “lack  of   WTO   rules   concerning   private counsel,”
 * “non-governmental persons who are not bound by any WTO code of ethics to gain access to privileged government trade secrets”.
 * “lack of DSU provisions prescribing qualifications for appeals to the Appellate Body.”
 * “what extent compliance with the panel and Appellate Body rulings and recommendations can be enforced.”
 * Some criticism of NAFTA’s settlement of investor-state investment disputes
 * NAFTA’s Chapter  11: “there is provision for the settlement of investor-state investment disputes  (...)   it   has   simply   followed   the   already   well-established model for investor-state dispute resolution.”.
 * “host nation’s sovereignty is  diminished  by  affording  foreign  investors  added  power  in  asserting investment claims in binding arbitrations”
 * “Chapter 11  (...)  lacks  the  procedural safeguards  to  protect  common  constitutional  guarantees.”
 * “unclear definitions in the Article’s text  affect  the  manner  in  which  it  is  applied”
 * “A permanent tribunal would "develop a consistent jurisprudence" more easily than ad hoc panels.”
 * “the secrecy of the proceedings”
 * “effectiveness of sanctions in the form of retaliatory measures”
 * In regard to post brexit EC, some concerns are:
 * “is there a ‘third judge’”
 * “how is it decided which side has a majority on the panel?”
 * “the ECJ adopts a flexible approach which allows it to depart from the wording of the EU Treaties or legislation in favour of a teleological, i.e. purposive, interpretation even where the wording of the relevant provision is neither obscure nor ambiguous.”.
 * “the scope of EU law is incrementally expanding”
 * For the CCJ :
 * “If the region hopes to benefit from the soon-to-be-FTAA, it must work quickly to remove the jurisdiction that the CCJ currently has as a court of final appeal for the Anglophone Caribbean” . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * “If the region hopes to benefit from the soon-to-be-FTAA, it must work quickly to remove the jurisdiction that the CCJ currently has as a court of final appeal for the Anglophone Caribbean” . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Haldane does have publications
Doesn't change the edits themselves, but part of one edit summary was incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, although it doesn't matter if he's published something, has a PhD, etc. This is an encyclopedia article that covers (should cover) the broad range of viewpoints on its subject matter. Removing bits because they don't fit criteria for inclusion in an academic economics journal, or because the author hasn't been given a doctorate in the exact niche that is being described, is going too far. Similarly, rejecting a Capital Economics report because its authors aren't listed or it wasn't peer reviewed is over the top. Lots of organisations don't list authors – are we to exclude them all? And it wasn't peer reviewed – again, there's no reason for this to be essential. The Sampson publication you added is from a journal that isn't refereed: it "attempts to fill part of the gap between refereed economics research journals and the popular press" ... "Articles appearing in the journal are primarily solicited by the editors and associate editors". That's fine, because this isn't an economics symposium in which experts aim to build a consensus on particular forecasts; it's an encyclopedia article for the general reader, who expects to see more than a purely academic perspective presented. EddieHugh (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What we're getting at is one of the common problems on Wikipedia: the conflating of science with random political rhetoric. In 'impact' or 'effects' sections in articles, there should only be high-quality scientific research and/or assessments by actual experts. Political rhetoric belongs in 'the politics of X' sub-sections. The two should never be mixed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * JEP is a prestigious journal of the AEA. Whether it does blind reviews is irrelevant. Statements made in the publication about the state of research on a given topic are authoritative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a report published by Capital Economics is RS, especially when contrasted to research published by actual economists and when CE's findings conflict with those of actual experts. Just read the report, it's not a scientific study in the slightest. It reads like an extended op-ed and just makes random ill-informed claim. And it's authored by who knows? If it's not authored by trade economists, why should it be seen as RS in its declarations on trade? It also appears to have been funded by a euroskeptic hedge fund manager and the organization appears to be run by euroskeptic financial people, but diving in on the background of the organization is besides the point, given that there is nothing presented that should make anything accept CE's statements about the effects of Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a major irony in arguing for presenting only the analysis/opinions of economics experts in an article and on a topic that exists in part because of a referendum in which following exclusively the opinions of said experts was rejected! The CE report was commissioned and then made public by Woodford Investment Management, headed by Neil Woodford, who is one of the UK's best-known and most successful fund (not hedge fund) managers. So, one company makes money (since 1999) selling economic research and the other aims to make money in part by having/making accurate economic forecasts. Neither has any control over economic reality, but, just as with economists in academia, they make forecasts in the hope of being correct. They are all experts, but with different audiences, different reasons for being and different publication/acceptance rituals. Which view on Brexit & the economy we take or accept isn't what we should present in the article; we should present the different opinions/analyses that exist, in proportion, so that the reader is informed, not told what to think. Presenting the views of (economics) experts of different types and opinions is a step towards that. EddieHugh (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, how ironic! Shall we next head over to the 'climate change' article and add some ill-informed nonsense from non-experts and fringe figures? After all, how can there be a consensus among climate scientists on climate change if the US public elected someone who rejects climate change? Everyone is equally right, right? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And no, an op-ed (read the damn report, it's not a study in the slightest) by unknown figures funded by a euroskeptic is not RS. And no, there is nothing to indicate that the goal behind the report is to make the most accurate assessment, because the "report" makes no assessment in any scientific sense (presumably because no actual experts on trade were involved in writing it). The motivations may as well have been to produce whatever outcome that funder wanted or get media coverage for the firm. Who knows? There's no point debating the unknown motivations of the firm, given that the report is not credible, which is the chief reason to dismiss it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @Snooganssnoogans. Your points would have more force if there existed the “high-quality scientific research and/or assessments by actual experts” which you are wishing for.  Scientific research of even moderate quality shows that there are no experts in the field of economic forecasting.  High quality scientific research on economic forecasts?  Are you not aware of the crap record these clowns have?  Are you not even aware that the assumptions underlying e.g the Treasury forecasts were tendentious?  Have you not seen the apology that IMF produced?  Get real.  Nearly all the forecasts are produced with political agendas, with the possible exception of some commercial forecasts.  So please don’t conflate economic forecasts with science.Gravuritas (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Short-term forecasts ("what will happen months after a referendum?") which you are talking about are not considered credible by most economists. You would know this if you'd actually know anything about the field of economics (or if you could be arsed to actually read the Wikipedia article in question and the sources in it). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My comments were not restricted to short-term forecasts. Your implication seems to be that longer-term forecasts ‘’are’’ considered ‘credible by most economists’.  But, given the predictive record of ‘most economists’, who cares?   So, to demonstrate this high quality science and utter credibility, please point to some successful predictions made by experts which were considered credible by most economists when they were made.  If, of course, you can be arsed.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right: I can't be arsed to tell some stranger on the internet how science works. I have better things to do with my time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I already know how science works: it works by making successful predictions on the outcome of an experiment, and if it can’t do that, it ain’t science. Your touching faith in ‘experts’ and the oxymoronic ‘scientific economic forecasts’ belongs in the field of theology.   Anyone who is really an expert in economic forecasting would be a multi-billionaire after a couple of decades of successful forecasts.  Know many of those?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your knowledge of science matches your knowledge of economics - you haven't a clue. Other than to verify another scientist's results, scientists have no interest whatever in doing an experiment where they know what the outcome will be. Please read Scientific method. Likewise, economists have no interest in gambling on the markets - that's not how economics works either. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * From your chosen wikilink: “The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis”. Didn’t read very far, did you?  The point about science is that it makes falsifiable predictions, and if the predictions are generally about as accurate as flipping a coin, then it ain’t science.  And if an economist’s predictions are as expert and scientific as Snoo believes them to be, it wouldn’t be ‘gambling’ on the markets- it would be picking up their expertly identified, scientifically guaranteed winnings.  So, returning to the proper topic, in the field of economic predictions applied to e.g the future economics of the UK post-Brexit, Snoo’s naive search for authority fails because the experts ain’t expert and the science isn’t science.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "If smoking increases the probability of cancer, shouldn't physicians be able to pinpoint the precise date in which a smoker gets cancer? If they can't, then medicine isn't science and we don't know that smoking is truly bad for you." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * False premise. Desperation showing.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone protect this?
Can someone protect this highly volatile page, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E80:4100:A41D:C5C3:EE94:78BD (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Whelmed? Not much
Use of emotive adjectives such as ‘overwhelming’ consensus is generally inappropriate in a WP article. Use of the term for a survey in which 71% felt one way, and 16% were undecided, is even less appropriate. Given that ‘consensus’ can’t be used for a bare majority, I’d suggest that in these circs, you need about two-thirds to even begin to use ‘consensus’. At some point beyond that, ‘strong consensus’ may be appropriate. But ‘overwhelming’ at 71% only suggests that the writer is too easily whelmed.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:WIKILAWYER. This is fine.  Volunteer Marek   21:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No attempt to justify the word? Poor show.  And parroting yet another WP rule does not make your case.  Try engaging with a fact or two, or evidence, or something, to justify 'overwhelming'.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Overwhelmingly" is in The Guardian article. I find it peculiar, however, that some editors insist on academic sources and content for some things, then seemingly insist on non-academic information from a newspaper for other things, even when an academic source and description is available. Why not just give the percentages (reported in all sources) and then the reader can judge? EddieHugh (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes it's a very alarmist article, we don't have to repeat every word it uses. Personally I don't have any issues with the sources being used, just the wording. Don't know about other editors. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think simply using the percentages is appropriate here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There's clearly something wrong with having the sentence There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][excessive citations] in the article. I wouldn't describe as supporting "overwhelming", and even  is somewhat concerning. 97% of scientists supporting global warming may be overwhelming, I would call 88% merely "a consensus among economists". power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Snoogansnoogans
Your recent edits, deleting a dissenting economic view and using e.g ‘overwhelming’ amount to POV pushing. I suggest you revert them and take a more balanced view. Gravuritas (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Overwhelming" is reliably and abundantly sourced. The self-published Capital Economics op-ed is not a RS, as explained before. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans has been asked repeatedly to remove a clear NPOV violation and sourcing problem that he (I'm assuming gender; correct if wrong) introduced to this article. He still hasn't done it. Yet, three weeks after failing to gain consensus to remove accurately sourced and relevant material, he returns and removes it again! I echo Gravuritas' request: please make the changes and restore what there is no consensus for removing. EddieHugh (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That there is overwhelming agreement among economists that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per-capita income is abundantly and reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A self-published op-ed authored by unknown individuals at a firm is not a RS. Was the Capital Economics text "accurately sourced"? Yes. "Relevant"? Yes. Reliably sourced? No. Due weight? No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We've been through the CE arguments already and you've added nothing new, just repeated your opinion without reference to policy. In summary: you haven't given valid reasons (just opinions) for removing material giving one point of view, and you've added material supporting another point of view (some of it legitimate and it should be included, but some irrelevant, some not in the source, some of your wording ascribes certainty that is unwarranted, and your latest positioning of information in the lead gives undue prominence). This is an obvious pattern of systematically pushing a POV. Your refusal to address obvious errors which you introduced, or to pay any attention to consensus (or a lack of one), also point towards the same conclusion. This is my last request to you to address these POV matters. EddieHugh (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @SnSn again. If you have any economic understanding, re-read your edits- if not, phone a friend.  For instance, you want to use a figure from an article which refers to a reduction in real,income due to the pound’s immediate devaluation on the Brexit vote.  Devaluation has several effects, on different timescales, and as the article only covers the short-term effect on inflation and ignores all other effects, the appropriate descriptions for it include ‘half-assed’ and ‘propagandistic’, especially as it then calculates an effect on household real incomes, which by ignoring all other effects, is really piss-poor.  But you swallow this garbage and seek to regurgitate a morsel of it into the WP article.  You also continuein your naive belief that if a majority (whether overwhelming or not) of economists predict something about the future, then the predicted outcome is guaranteed.  Look at the record.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR.  Volunteer Marek   06:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

This is most certainly NOT a reliable source.  Volunteer Marek  06:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some reasons? There are also other sources that comment on the report published. EddieHugh (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's not a source with "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". It's just a fund management company, hence the things they write are likely to be intended to bolster whatever investment advice they give rather than have any basis in... well, facts and accuracy. Just in general, the personal opinions of fund managers are not reliable except for those opinions themselves. It's basically a WP:SPS. I can keep going, but that should be enough. You can always ask at WP:RSN.  Volunteer Marek   23:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But it's not self-published. It was written by Capital Economics (which the Treasury includes in its list of economic forecasters for its monthly reports) and published by Neil Woodford's investment company. They are different organisations. Your suggestion that one of the best-known and most successful fund managers in the UK doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking is incongruous. And they don't give investment advice. And Woodford's stance was that his investments have little to do with the trajectory of the UK economy, so would not be much affected by remain or leave prevailing. Everyone, including academics, has their spin and bias; it's a matter of how much it impinges on what they present. Simply noting who the authors and publishers are has been the norm for this article (while applying the usual principles). Here's some third-party coverage of the research (by Citywire). I await more comments, but am likely to reinsert it, with the Citywire ref. EddieHugh (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The report was written by CE for Woodford, so yeah, it's pretty much self published. The background of CE doesn't inspire confidence either. And yes, technically they don't provide investment advice. They still provide analysis which is practically equivalent. They also invest for their clients and pick stocks which creates an obvious conflict of interest with regard to the opinions they publish. And as has been pointed out already, this isn't peer-reviewed stuff.  Volunteer Marek   21:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I mentioned this in an earlier discussion: lots of academic articles are commissioned and "reviewed" by the people who commissioned them. This is the same process that you describe for the CE research. Just as with those (and with books, newspaper articles, etc.), we can be confident that the CE report was read before being published; if it had been regarded as inadequate, it wouldn't have been published. I addressed the COI point above. EddieHugh (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The economic effects sub-section is one of the largest sub-sections in the article: in fact, it's the largest sub-section with the exception of two sub-sections that provide a historical narrative of Brexit. To claim it's "one small, largely speculative, sub-section of the article" is just dishonest. It's just a pathetic attempt by editors who are hostile towards academia to keep academic content from readers. The study on the impact of the referendum is the only study on the actual post-referendum effects. As such, it's notable enough for the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you're being abusive. Look at the long list of sections and sub-sections; lots are not in the lead; perhaps a short summary to the effect of 'Brexit topics commonly discussed and analysed include: the nature of the future UK-EU relationship; the UK's post-Brexit economy; the nature of borders with other countries...' could be agreed. No one is keeping academic content from readers: you added it; it's still there; no one has removed it. I haven't checked any of it yet, although I note that the original source of the inflation study was internally published by the LSE (but it's still worth including). EddieHugh (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize the content of the body. No, that doesn't mean we list the names of sub-sections (that's what the table of contents is for). If you want to summarize more sub-sections, we could do: "There is overwhelming agreement among economists and a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to reduce UK's real per-capita income. Research on effects that have already materialized since the referendum show that the rise in inflation (as a result of the referendum results) amount to annual losses of £404 for the average British household. Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from EEA countries to the UK, and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research. The future of Scottish secession, Britain's international agreements, relations with the Republic of Ireland, and the borders with France and between Gibraltar and Spain are uncertain. The precise impact on the UK depends on a "hard" Brexit (whereby the UK leaves the EU and does not join EFTA or the EEA) or a "soft" Brexit (whereby the UK joins EFTA, the EEA or enters into a special agreement with the EU that retains significant access to the Single Market)". There's no excuse for not summarizing the largest non-history sub-section in the article (note that the history sub-sections are already summarized in the lede). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a list, with lots of detail on one part. What about something like: The nature of trading relationships, effects on the UK and EU economies, the future of Scottish secession, Britain's international agreements, relations with the Republic of Ireland, and the borders with France and between Gibraltar and Spain are commonly discussed and analysed but remain uncertain. EddieHugh (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) That's not consistent with the body of the text. There is overwhelming agreement on what the effect on the UK economy is and the lede should reflect that. This "commonly discussed and analysed but remain uncertain" is just bullshit when it comes to the economic impact. (2) The economic impact sub-section is the largest, so it should obviously be given more text in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's uncertain – they're forecasts. The effects remain uncertain, even if economists come up with similar forecasts. As with the other matters – borders, trade agreements, immigration, etc., etc. – we'll find out in due course and be able to reduce the speculation/forecasting. Lots of things are getting at least as much attention in sources (the actual "relative emphasis" criterion) as economic forecasts – 'divorce bill', in or out of court systems, Irish border, etc. – and lots more will come (particularly a trade deal, if it gets that far), so a simple summary statement is more representative and neutral. EddieHugh (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I look forward to you going to the 'climate change' article, removing the language on a consensus among climate scientists and changing the language to "the future of the climate is commonly discussed and analysed but remains uncertain". After all, expert forecasts of what will happen under conditions XYZ are just a silly debate and the guy who predicts an annual -10 °C cooling is just as right as the consensus of climate scientists, right? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to add that the other things (you suddenly now want to list those in the lede) are "uncertain", go ahead and add those. Just don't distort the content of the economic impact subsection to misrepresent the overwhelming agreement among economists about what will likely happen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of the stuff Snsn is defending consists of predictions. That’s speculative automatically. And the predictive record in economics of anybody, including that of ‘overwhelming majorities’ whenthey emerge, is poor. So highly speculative is justified. And I’ll take the ‘hostile to academia’ as a barb in my direction, caused by his/her lack of understanding of academia’s position in world economics. I’ll explain the error. If you have a megabrain and wish to spend your life learning & communicating about the Akkadians, you do it in academia because no-one else will pay for it. If you have a similar sized brain and wish to work in economics, a number of very well-funded organisations, including governments and corporations, will pay you to do so. So SnSn’s fetishistic worship of academia as the sole source of information is, in the field of economics, unwarranted. And- a challenge for the n’th time- if he wishes to worship at the feet of some economist or group of them, for their insights on future econ9mic effects then there is no reason for WP to join him unless he produces evidence that the economic predictions of this group correlate well with the outcomes. Gravuritas (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between WP editors' own predictions (which falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL) and reporting properly the recorded analyses made by WP:reliable sources. Gove may not value the analyis of experts but Wikipedia does and they should be recorded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Gravuritas, thanks for sharing your opinions. Now read WP:OR and WP:NOTAFORUM. Also WP:NPA  Volunteer Marek   23:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which bit is OR? It doesn't matter, though, because this is just the talk page. The Short-term economic analyses section of the article is now dominated by a defence of economics, which would be appropriate over at Economic forecasting, but is given too much attention on this one: it's (supposed to be) about Brexit, not problems with economic forecasting. A trim is in order. EddieHugh (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your entire comment at 12:21, 22 November 2017. WP:NOTAFORUM applies to talk pages. Regardless, since you're making disruptive edits to the article based on the OR-rants you're posting to the talk page, yes, it does matter.  Volunteer Marek   21:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Response to Volunteer Marek and John Maynard Friedman. There is a persistent and biased belief that there are experts in this field; that these experts are clustered in academia; and that their expertise constitutes WP:RS.  Unfortunately, as ‘this field’ is economic forecasting, none of 5he above is true.  Despite my repeated requests, no-one has supported the claim to expertise of these so-called WP:RS sources with any reference to a successful record of forecasts in the past.  And it is revealing that the only time I’ve ever seen short-term effects put second after long-term effects is in this article now.  Presumably somebody wanted to minimise the facts that the clowns provably got the short-term forecasts wrong.  As the article stands, and despite some good edits reducing the amount of nonsense in it, the article is POV- pushing.  It’s notable that the only means by which they are trying to demonstrate economic damage is via reduced real earnings via inflation due to devaluation, and none of them predicted that.   The fact that most academic economists are expressing this POV does not mean that WP needs to follow them down that rabbit-hole.
 * So yes, I have a POV- that economic forecasts are generally rubbish; that economic forecasts made by a majority, or even an overwhelming majority, of economists, are equally rubbish; and that stuffing this article with only the prevailing academic forecasts because it accords with some editor’s world view is unbalanced. Bringing an undue respect for academia, which is appropriate in many other circumstances and fields, into economic forecasting, is plain daft.  Can you all not see that?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't really care what your opinion of economics or economists is. Academic research is considered reliable on Wikipedia. Indeed, it is generally seen as the "reliablest of the reliable". On the other hand, talk page rantings by random Wikipedia editors are not. Please stop it with the WP:SOAPBOXing. There's plenty of other forums out there on the internets for that kind of stuff.  Volunteer Marek   21:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it. While academic perspectives should be included, the balance of academic sources versus others has been lost in the economy section of the article. The robustness of academic claims is also exaggerated. And there is an out-of-place broad defence of economists (will there also be a Gravuritas-inspired attack on forecasters' widely-reported incompetence? I don't advocate it, as that too is not for the Brexit article). So: reduce the 'Academic X, professor of Y at Uni of Z, says...' stuff; include other perspectives; describe and qualify appropriately (e.g. "88% in one survey", "indicates", "suggests"... instead of "near-unanimous", "are", "shows"...); and get rid of most of the stuff that is academics/economists defending academic/economic forecasting. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines which talks about some need to "balance" academic sources with non-academic sources. Given that this is suppose to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid op ed page, that'd be sort of ridiculous. We only include "other perspectives" (sic) to the extent they're based on reliable sources.  Volunteer Marek   21:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We're arguing for the same thing. There's nothing in policy that requires something to be academic or gives any privilege to academic sources. Nothing from tabloids has been added to the economy section. But cutting sources without good reason and pushing a POV is definitely against policy. We need to allow some balance. EddieHugh (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "There's nothing in policy that requires something to be academic or gives any privilege to academic sources." - I did't say "requires". But reliable source policy does privilege academic sources: [If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources].  Volunteer Marek   22:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't privilege academic sources; it observes that academic (and other peer-reviewed) things are "usually the most reliable". That's not the same as prioritising them. EddieHugh (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? You gonna try to Wikilawyer this too? Look, it says right there "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". You can try to pretend it doesn't, but... it does.  Volunteer Marek   22:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what post from Capital Economics is supposed to be relevant, and can't find it on this talk page or the recent edit history. The Citywire link is a pre-Brexit argument to vote leave, and generally discounts economic arguments entirely; I wouldn't call it an economic argument at all. I don't see any other references suggested by, please tell me if I have missed one. Overall, I think the suggestion to reduce the 'Academic X, professor of Y at Uni of Z, says...' stuff; include other perspectives is infeasible and this discussion can come to an end. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an unjustified conclusion. Citywire at no point presents a leave argument, nor does the CE report. The bit you highlight – the economy is/was unlikely to be affected by Brexit or non-Brexit – is the very point that needs to be included in this article! It doesn't discount economic arguments; it presents the argument that (non-)Brexit would not make much difference to the economy. Surely that's an important perspective. (You may have been led astray by the self-published claims above; the report was not published by CE; it's here, not on the CE site.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Other sources that present a different perspective (either on the CE report or discussing others): Business Insider, CNBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Forbes, Independent. Do you want none of these perspectives in the article? EddieHugh (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra links. Some of them are mostly focused on a political argument rather than economics specifically; I'll keep them in mind when proposing any specific wording for that section. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Pause and discuss
Could we pause the major reverting of the economics section and discuss changes? Tags are being deleted, valid concerns removed, edits being made without adequate summaries.... I suggest starting with the first sentence/paragraph and working down. EddieHugh (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. I've added a NPOV tag to highlight the problems that have been reintroduced following the latest revert. There may be problems with the previous version, too, but reverting without discussion doesn't help. Please discuss... EddieHugh (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this attempt to calm things. I would be happy to,slow things down and take edits/ proposed edits one at a time.  Can we start with a simple one?   For both the immigration and the economic effects sections, the sub-sections cover long-term effects first, and short-term second.  This seems both illogical and contrary to normal usage.  Does anyone object to short-term going before long-term, and if so, why?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The long term effects are covered first because 1) these are more substantial and 2) it's actually easier to make long term predictions than short term ones.  Volunteer Marek   03:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Confusion between predictions and outcomes is making a mess of both the article and your response above. Short-term outcomes are becoming known: that’s more important than speculation/ prediction of the future.  Provided the article follows the obvious timeline of short-term preceding long-term, then outcomes can progressively be introduced as they become known, and predictions can be correspondingly relegated to minor mentions as to their accuracy.    The most important thing determin8ng the structure of the article, particularly one of this length, is ease of reading and understanding, I would suggest, and time reversals militate against ease of understanding.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an "obvious timeline"; in fact the timeline may be that the long-term predictions were issued before Brexit, while the short-term results are largely based on economic data from after the Brexit vote. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What do we know first: short-term or long-term? The very short-term effects/outcomes are known or very soon to be known. Predictions were made for 2016 and 2017. Sequencing based on chronology of effects/outcomes is helpful to the reader, for the simple reason that these, not the predictions or how easy it is to make them, are of main interest and relevance. The length of each sub-section doesn't matter when there's a chronology. EddieHugh (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we need two separate sections for "short-term" and "long-term" at all. They are ill-defined terms to begin with, particularly given that the process of Brexit has barely actually begun. We should combine them into one section on predicted economic impacts. But if there is insistence in this somewhat arbitrary split, the most important effects will be those in the long term — because those are the effects which will have the largest and longest lasting impact. Writing from an encyclopedic perspective looking back, what has happened in the last year is relatively unimportant compared to what will happen over the next 25 years. It's hard to say that Brexit has done anything when it hasn't actually happened yet in any meaningful economic sense because Britain is still part of the EU (trade regulations still the same, transnational workers still in place, etc.) As the cited sources discuss, such short-term predictions relied entirely on attempting to predict market and consumer behavioral reactions to increased future uncertainty, which is not the same as attempting to predict the economic results of X million fewer workers in the UK or Y trade barriers erected between the UK and EU when and if Brexit actually becomes reality in a day-to-day legal and economic sense. tl;dr: Focusing on so-called "short-term economic predictions" is misguided because the key economic impact of Brexit won't happen for another 15 months. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One aspect that there appears to be confusion about is between the effects of the Brexit vote and of Brexit (which hasn't happened) itself. The stuff about the short term in there right now is just about the effects of the vote, not of Brexit.  Volunteer Marek   15:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Economics and Brexit will be important, but not that much can be said about them right now, since economics is as much art as science. Adding "overwhelming evidence" and such throughout really does seem pushing POVs, as does separating long and short term to get the "correct" message out, and then by ordering them for "importance".  I suggest turning the section into a typical WP "opinions on good and bad stuff" point-counterpoint prose, specifically trying to avoid any hint of promoting anything.  (And maybe reduce the whole section by 50% or more; details on opinions aren't generally noteworthy.)  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  18:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One more time. Your personal opinions about economics as a discipline are completely, utterly, and wholly IRRELEVANT to this article. All that matters if the sources are considered reliable, and they are.  Volunteer Marek   15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also in favour of combining the two sub-sections in Economics, especially as the separation is recent anyway (and I support the other things A D Monroe III proposes). EddieHugh (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't ignore Wikipedia policy just because you feel like it.  Volunteer Marek   15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What policy? I started this section to try to gain Consensus (a policy). Shouting at people that their opinions are irrelevant doesn't aid that. There's a lot more than 'is something a reliable source' to consider, as others (dare I say a consensus?) have pointed out. EddieHugh (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR and WP:RS.  Volunteer Marek   18:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with ADM& EH on combining and shortening. Disagree with VM: sources being WP:RS is a necessary condition for inclusion, but is not a sufficient condition.  Articles would clearly be unreadable if all RS were included: editing must include a selection process, and, for instance not give undue weight.  Considerable chunks of the economics section should be pruned.  Like EH, I am puzzled by VM’s reference to an (unstated) WP policy.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, first, this seems to be a proposal to remove under the pretext of "combining". Second, if there are RS you wish to include please let us know. Third, the sufficient condition for inclusion also isn't "does Gravuritas like it". Fourth, there's no undue weight here as the economic questions are central to analysis of Brexit.  Volunteer Marek   18:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is presenting OR? Giving an opinion on the talk page is not OR. And what exactly about RS is being ignored? The two things – combine sections and trim – are separate; there's no pretext; just an argument being presented for each. No one (I think) is arguing that economic matters should be removed or downplayed, but there are legitimate concerns over structure, quantity, wording and relevance in some parts. These have now been expressed by several editors and need to be addressed. EddieHugh (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The nature of these "concerns" has been pretty much "I don't like what economists have said about this topic". That's too bad and that's not a "legitimate concern".  Volunteer Marek   20:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We've moved on (all of us, I hope) from the 'I don't like it' line. There is a consensus to combine the two parts. Again: several editors have expressed concern that the economics section is too long, has problems with wording (especially over-stating certainty) and has problems with the relevance of some of the contents. These are specific, unaddressed problems and none is 'I don't like it'. EddieHugh (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There really is no such consensus. How about you make a proposal as to HOW you wish to combine the two sections and then we can actually discuss something concrete.  Volunteer Marek   02:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not difficult: back to the same structure that existed before the contentious changes and split. I think this was the last point before the change. It was only a week ago. EddieHugh (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"science" and xenophobia section
Is this section, based on a story in The Independent really relevant? Isn't this debate more or less covered by the immigration section? It was presented as if it was a "scientific" view and turns out the story actually comes from some dodgy pseudo-scientific psychology department in London ( ). Very hippie-dippie Green Party stuff). Not exactly hard science. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's great you feel that way. But it doesn't have to be "hard science" to be a reliable source. You can always ask at WP:RSN.  Volunteer Marek   13:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is undue weight for a minor study.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it relevant (the first question to consider, before 'is it a RS?')? Not to this article. Some interpretation of the referendum result is relevant, because it's been taken into consideration in the subsequent UK negotiation positions (e.g. control of immigration is taken to be important). But a psychological analysis of voters is not relevant to the Brexit article. The IP's two other insertions (on lorries queueing and on the WTO) don't have relevance or context established either, so can safely be removed.
 * (As an aside, the article appeared because someone paid the 'academic journal' to publish it. See how much they charge. I make it US$2490.) EddieHugh (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What? Of course the reasons why people voted for Brexit are relevant to this article? WTH?  Volunteer Marek   15:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote that some interpretation of reasons is relevant, but that psychological analysis is not (e.g. it has little or no effect on anything). If you think that including an attempted psychoanalysis is relevant to the article named Brexit, then explain why. EddieHugh (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not?  Volunteer Marek   05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Try WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So: why include it? EddieHugh (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't justify WP:ONUS. Anyone can come to the talk page and obstruct and then claim "no consensus". But unless you give policy based reasons (not meta-policy, like ONUS) for exclusion, then your comments and objections are irrelevant towards forming consensus.  Volunteer Marek   14:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant. This article is about Brexit, which is the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the process of that happening. A psychoanalysis of voters in the referendum might be relevant at the referendum article, but it's not relevant to this one. Claíomh Solais did make this point in the very first sentence. And a policy has been given, as you requested! (What is a "meta-policy"? Onus is part of Verifiability, which is a "policy"). EddieHugh (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, first this is not "a psychoanalysis of voters" so stop misrepresenting the source or portraying it falsely. It's a fairly standard analysis of voter behavior that is quite common in social sciences. Please stop pretending it's something weird (or as the guy above claimed "hippie-dippie"). It's not. Second Frontiers in Psychology is a regular peer-reviewed journal with, afaict, a good impact factor. Finally, it's completely false to say that "someone paid the 'academic journal' to publish it". That comment just betrays a total and complete ignorance about how the publication process works. You submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal, you pay a submission fee which covers the costs for the journal. You also have the option of making your article, if published "open access" - meaning anyone can download it. For a fee. That's not "paying someone to publish it". It's pretty standard for almost ALL published work.
 * I'm still trying to decide whether these comments are motivated by dishonesty (the BLP violations and name calling aimed at the author) or ignorance (this "paid to publish" comment, the false portrayal of the study as "psychoanalysis"), or both. As Wittgeinstein said, if you don't know what you're talking about then you shouldn't open your mouth.  Volunteer Marek   17:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the issue (relevance). EddieHugh (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hard to address "the issue" when so far all that's been presented is a completely false picture of the source.  Volunteer Marek   18:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect accusation of a ‘gripe’
@Snoogansnoogans. Not for the first time, you have accused me of a ‘gripe against academia’ or equivalent, in two edit comments, and further claimed that this is the reason for my edits, ignoring the reasons that I stated. By contrast, what I have actually said with regard to academia and Brexit is: 1. Economic talent is not confined to academia 2. Academic economic forecasts, like most economic forecasts, are poor. So please desist from these personal attacks, read the reason I have given for an edit, and assume good faith. I am not the only editor who believes that the section has shortcomings. Gravuritas (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @Snoogansnoogans. You’ve just reverted my edit with a description of ‘bizarre weasel attempt’.  Why so insulting?  The subsection was headed ‘Long-term economic analyses’ in the ‘economic effects’ section.  I deleted ‘economic analyses’ and stated the reason- these are not analyses, they are self-described as surveys.   What do you know, that the authors do not, that allows you to call these surveys, analyses?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you get "surveys" from, but these are actually part of the series, described as "Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists".  Volunteer Marek   02:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your quote is regarding the publication, not the individual article, so it provides no support for distinguishing between analysis and commentary, or just any other thing the publication finds interesting. The second source in that section is called ‘Brexit survey’.  The third is Brexit survey 2.  The fifth source is an article about a poll.  That’s a synonym for a survey.   Etc.  The surveys have it.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this or to something else?  Volunteer Marek   05:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. You cherry picked two or three sources out of a dozen to justify your unjustified change in wording. Sorry, no.  Volunteer Marek   05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No: I don’t need to cherrypick- I am not trying to label the whole subsection as surveys, I’m arguing that ‘analyses’ is not appropriate. I’ve demonstrated above that a number of the cites are surveys, not analyses.  In order to justify the current heading, you need to show that a sufficiently large number of the cites are indeed analysis.  So which cites are you claiming to be such?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is straight up WP:WEASEL. The series is described as analysis. A survey CAN BE an analysis. A few - not even a majority - of the relevant pieces use the word "survey". So what?  Volunteer Marek   14:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it’s weasel to describe these as analyses.  Which ‘series’ is described as analysis?  Do you mean the byline of the publication from which a few of the cites are made?  Of their many articles, how are you selecting which are analysis and which, commentary?   Without a detailed cite for ‘analysis’ applying to a significant number of these cites, then it’s WP:OR.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, this is dumb. What's the difference between a "survey" and a "analysis"? If anything this source is a "survey of analysis...es.s", whatever. "Analysis" is a perfectly accurate description of the source.  Volunteer Marek   17:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is dumb, but not on my part. Try a dictionary for the difference between analysis and a a survey.  My proposed edit was to change, under ‘economic effects’, ‘Long term economic analyses’ to ‘Long term’.  The shorter title avoids the spurious description of ‘analysis’ which in this context is a weasel term trying to convey extra authority to the cites.  And academic stuff not described as analysis should not be reported as such in WP, as you no doubt know.  I don’t know for what reason you and your companion in arms are opposed to the change, but please stop throwing accusations around and stop ducking questions.  Start from ‘Which series is described as analysis?’
 * Gravuritas (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All of them. As already pointed out above.  Volunteer Marek   18:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So that’s a fail then. No detail, no quote, no page or para references, and the reason for rejection of this blanket assertion has already been given.  You’re not trying very hard to engage substantively with this discussion, are you?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just not interested in playing your little games. It's already been pointed out that the collection of sources here comes under an explicit heading "analysis". There's several studies in the paragraph which are obviously "analysis" not "surveys". You're insisting that every single source being used in the section must scream to the world "we are an Analysis, not a Survey" or you get to do what you want. That's not how this works. Enough.  Volunteer Marek   20:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Second sentence is a misquote, unlikely to be accidental. Your quotation earlier referred to “....analysis and commentary...”, not an ‘explicit heading “analysis” ‘. Third sentence: which studies are you claiming are analyses, to justify the overall heading that you are defending?  As mentioned above, if they don’t claim to an analysis then it’s your OR to claim that they are.  4th sentence: a straw man, miles away from what I’ve actually said.  It’s hard to believe that this concatenation can be generated honestly.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, a study doesn't have to proclaim "I am THA ANALYSISSSSSS!!!!" for it to be analysis. This is a waste of time.  Volunteer Marek   22:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So, no acknowledgement of your misquote; no identification of which studies you claim to be analysis; no apology for your strawman distortion of my views. Just an upper case shout.  No substance, again.  Please address the points.
 * Looking at the number of fights raging across this talk page in which you are involved, with a large number of your comments in these other disagreements also imho displaying non-engagement with the salient points, please consider whether you might be engaged in non- constructive editing. Can’t you just kick the dog instead of us?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Snoogans once again. A repetition of your false accusation “Gravuritas has made his hostility towards academia and economics clear in the discussions above.”  Please withdraw it. Gravuritas (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Scottish "secession" bluff more important than Irish border?
In the third paragraph and indeed the "impact on the United Kingdom" section, Scottish secession is probably too high up the list and the issue of the nominal border with the Irish Free State too low down. The Scots bottled it when they had an opportunity to vote for independence in 2014 and since that time the SNP has actually lost ground massively (they dropped 21 seats in the UK elections this year to unionist parties; this may be because Sturgeon's personality is less charismatic than Alex Salmond, but still it occurred). The Scottish thing is realistically a non-issue, while the Irish border has proven to be far more weighty and problematic during the Brexit process. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The border with Ireland has become more prominent/important. When the article settles down, we could look at restructuring some bits: the Ireland bit isn't really just "Impact on the United Kingdom", so "UK-international borders" or something fuller could be a better section to put the Ireland, France and Gibraltar sub-sections into (I suppose that Scotland could stay in the Impact section, as that's UK-internal). Other suggestions are welcome. EddieHugh (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ireland is much less important than Germany and France, or Spain, Italy and Poland. Before we mention Ireland at all, we should at least have a brief statement from the German, Polish, French etc perspectives. The German position is they want to prevent the EU from slipping through their fingers, the French position is they want the London banking business, the Polish position is they want protection against the Russkis, the Irish position is they want to hang on to their successful low-tax-regime, and the Brussels leaders want to expand their control and uphold migration in a desire to become a European USA, etc etc. Instead of explaining this, all we get is British navel-gazing in the Wikipedia article. But I have news for you: Germany, not Britain, is writing the rulebook. 95.121.128.107 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is becoming increasingly obvious to any neutral observer that certain users should outright stop contributing to this article. User:95.121.128.107 for example has given a ludicrous assessment of EU politics that boils down to crude, reductionist, and frankly hilarious assessments of EU member states' motives and is trying to justify his editorial preferences on this. Elsewhere on this talk page we have users attempting to argue for academic consensus, in some cases quite significant consensus, on economic arguments, for example, to be given equal weighting with sceptics. It has become clear that this article has become a rallying cry for eurosceptics or if we are to use the pejorative, Europhobes, but I'm surprised that editors like User:EddieHugh are not intervening against these. 129.67.116.130 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to discourage reverting and encourage discussion. Part of that involves me minimising reverting and inviting further discussion. Greater coverage of what Brexit means for other countries is a good idea, although I wouldn't word it in the way 95.121... did. Contributing to the article is different from contributing to the talk page, and constructive changes to either are welcome, but especially to the talk page at the moment. EddieHugh (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Righty-ho. Ireland is in the Franco-German firing-line for its low corporate taxes, and Dublin could have become a dangerous competitor for Paris with regards to banks relocating from London (Dublin being English-speaking, closer timezone to NY, and susceptible to economic pressure from the UK). Hence Irish "concerns" on the border are right now being politely pushed aside by the UK and the EU26 and trade talks will go ahead regardless in December (also because everyone else has lost patience with the sluggish formation of a functioning German coalition). See the Coveney interview on the BBC today. And that is what needs improving in the EU: small fry like Ireland must have the same weight as the bigger fish, otherwise the EU is in danger of disintegrating. 95.121.128.107 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)