Talk:Brexit/Archive 7

A Brexit for Brexit?
At 200k, should this article itself be split?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We should at least wait until the outcome of the pending HoC Withdrawal debate, and the procedure to follow it is known. Then, maybe, retain sections 1-7, and move 8-13 to one or more separate articles, while carrying on in the main article with actual determining events, such as any new legislation that affects Brexit date or transition period arrangements. Qexigator (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the the Brexit article is copying the shambolic and drawn-out Brexit process. Art imitates life.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia attempts npov reporting of events, avoiding comment such as "shambolic" as no better than artfully opinionated polemic, instead of plain, simple, neutral reporting of the facts, circumstances and situation. It could be said that public and political affairs on many topics, in UK, Ireland, countries of continental Europe, and practically everywhere else are usually "shambolic" until major issues are resolved and become past history. Given the circumstances, the course of Brexit in UK could be seen as that country's way of making progress to settle an ongoing major issue. Meantime, the EU as a treaty organisation, and its 27 other participating states, are similarly attempting to resolve major issues of their own. Qexigator (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NPOV does not apply to talk pages, Mr Bureaucrat. I was merely pointing out that this article is overly long.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course not Mr ?. My comment is about the standard of editing required for this article, which may be well enough known to its regular editors. Now, what do you feel, editing-wise, about my first comment above responding to yours? Qexigator (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea. I just wonder whether a decision on a split is going to be postponed indefinitely. The article looks like it needs severe copy-editing because a lot of it seems out of date.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we could make a start by nominating the bits that could be trimmed away as already out of date or past history, while retaining enough to be acceptable as an historical account of the facts in, say 12 months from now.
 * It seems we must retain Terminology and etymology section, while these phrases are part of the current debate, until they are overtaken by events one way or the other.
 * We may surmise that there will still be many visitors to the page who will not have sufficient understanding of the historic "Background" to make sense of the current state of informed political opinion.
 * It looks to me that there is too much detail in the "Referendum of 2016" section, given that for each subsection there is another main article. My own view would be that subsections such as "Demographic analysis of voters", "Resignations, contests, and appointments", and "Irregularities" are better placed somewhere else, retaining little more than links.
 * Much of "Developments since the referendum of 2016" and "Domestic impact on the United Kingdom" is becoming stale, and is unlikely to be of sufficient historic interest to retain indefinitely. For one example, do we need to retain in this article the paragraph about Andy Haldane's remarks in January 2017?
 * Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the Referendum section is overblown, particularly as it has its own article. I have never seen an article with a Terminology section (a glossary) and I'm not sure it's really necessary. I don't think we need the opinion poll table. Opinion polls are news when they come out, but they are not particularly notable years later. I think all that's needed is a summary of the trends.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, except retain Terminology until 29 March, and then possibly relegate to a section at end, as an historic curiosity. Qexigator (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Terminology doesn't really belong here. I've never seen an article that has it. Explanation of terms could be incorporated into the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the current state of affairs, it is helpful in this case, but with the lapse of time let it be trimmed and relegated, as above said. Note that the article "documents an ongoing political event..." Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

proposed "Timeline" or Current Status section
As this event is listed as ongoing, it would be nice if there was a heading section we could quickly access, maybe just under the lead, of Current Developments or the like, which would be followed by the history and all the political wrangling about potential effects etc. Many of us would like to be able to keep up with the actual developments. Thanks 184.69.174.194 (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia policies Wikipedia is not a newspaper and "recentism". As it is, the article suffers from a surfeit of blow by blow accounts rather than the detached analysis that we aim to have but only a distance of time will enable. Since the scene is changing by the hour, you really need to look elsewhere for the latest twist and turn. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with IP184. It needs manpower though, so we need to have the courage to open up the article to all Editors, including us lowly IPs. The current "elite" Editors are not representative of normal Wikipedia users and the Chosen Few evidently do not have the resources to write an informative and convincing article.86.178.194.7 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For month by month narrative from June 2017 to January 2019 see Brexit negotiations. That article is linked in this one's lead. Qexigator (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello
My niece works in the British parliament. If I want to update the page to show nnewer information before it is released into the press is that allowed? Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Loveland 1970 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeff Loveland 1970 This is a highly volatile political event, with information constantly changing and becoming obsolete almost as soon as it is released. If you want to provide information that has yet to be released, be sure you can at least cite it somehow,(although if the information has yet to be released you may not even be able to cite it all).  My opinion is go ahead, but use discretion.  However, I am sure other Wikipedians will feel strongly different from me. Mgasparin (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! Anything reported in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. Unpublished stuff has no place in the encyclopedia. — JFG talk 11:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR and fringe nonsense
An editor keeps edit-warring original research into the article about economic growth in the UK to suggest that expert assessments about the impact of Brexit are wrong. The editor has already been warned about the edit-warring. The text is of course fringe nonsense that doesn't belong here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of tags in 'Date and time of Brexit' section
After failing to understand what this section was attempting to describe (see subject directly above), I decided to add specific templated tags to three of what I see as problem areas in the current content (a 'cn', an 'or' and a 'context needed'). I used separate edits for each to allow the edit summary to be used to help make each one clear. Less than 20 minutes after I added them, they were all removed in one edit with an edit summary asking for them to be justified on the talkpage, so I will now try to do that - in the order I added them... The 'cn' was added to an unsourced paragraph which made two assertions: The 'or' was added to a sentence which draws a conclusion from an analysis of the content of an internal EU document, referencing only the primary source. That, I think, is original research per WP:OR/WP:PSTS and needs a secondary source to support the interpretation. The 'context needed' was added to a huge framed quote, attributed to the "General Secretariat of the Council", and referenced to a primary source, which is not referred to or even mentioned in the section prose, and the reason for which is unclear. That, I think, does indeed need some context adding (and probably a secondary source using it in that context). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) "Both parties to the withdrawal negotiation are bound by Article 50 (3)," - that, I think, needs a secondary RS per WP:UNSOURCED.
 * 2) "which states explicitly that the EU treaties will cease to apply "from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after" the withdrawal notification unless the EU Council and UK agree to extend the two-year period." - that, I think also needs a secondary RS per WP:VER.
 * After failing to understand what this section was attempting to describe, I ... &mdash; says it all. The section title is "Date and time of Brexit". So what do you expect? Please allow me to me get cynical here, after you spend a dozen or more edits on this recently. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the content (at the time I joined the discussion) did not match the heading, which was why I joined the discussion. I tried to get to the bottom of it but was deterred by vast tranches or irrelevant text and, frankly, apparently irrational responses. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read this. At the moment, I do not have time nor patience nor intention to reply. (I planned earlier on to make a substantion long, complete statement, time unspecified. Sure, your replies here deserve scrutiny. For example, an easy one: include/exclude "CET"). -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DeFacto: Thank you for your response, giving your reasons for the tags. I note that you say that you failed to understand what the section was attempting to describe, and that your first comment above (18:30, 13 February) was directed to DePiep, whose first edit to this section was 17:20, 12 February,  and many others followed, before my addition of an explanatory footnote about the UK definition.. In my view, the section was acceptable, but not beyond improvement. There was, as you know, much discussion on this page, and more edits, including mine at 01:34, 14 February and yours at  19:12, 15 February. As I write this comment, the current version is mine of 22:53, 15 February. In my view, that is an improvement on all previous versions, but like any other it is not beyond further improvement. Before responding to your comments on the tags, it would help me to consider the adequacy of the current version if you would say whether you came to the article without prior knowledge of it at the time of your first comment above, and whether you have considered the content of the article as a whole. To me, if I am mistaken in supposing that the current version is sufficiently intelligible to a first-time visitor who has understood the content of the article as a whole, then I would like to see some amendment, but I am not sure what that should be.
 * Now, responding about the tags.
 * The 'cn' was added to an unsourced paragraph which made two assertions:
 * 1. "Both parties to the withdrawal negotiation are bound by Article 50 (3),"
 * 2."which states explicitly that the EU treaties will cease to apply "from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after" the withdrawal notification unless the EU Council and UK agree to extend the two-year period."
 * 'or' was added to a sentence which draws a conclusion from an analysis of the content of an internal EU document, referencing only the primary source.
 * I look again at the section, and read the text without the Wikisource panel or the quotebox. I am unable to see why there is a need to add any further "secondary" source when those statements are obviously verifiable by direct reference to the linked primary sources, and I do not believe that the policy guidelines are intended to require that.
 * "'context needed' was added to a huge framed quote, attributed to the "General Secretariat of the Council", and referenced to a primary source, which is not referred to or even mentioned in the section prose, and the reason for which is unclear." Yes, there is s deficiency here, and I will be making that good, I hope in less than 24 hours.
 * Qexigator (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it looks okay now without the boxed quote and as there is no need to quote the law verbatim in the prose, especially as it is quoted in the cite. And I have (carefully) paraphrased it for clarity and formatted the date and time per MOS:DATE to make it accessible and understandable to readers in all timezones. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * what is the rationale for your insistence on a verbatim quote from the primary source? The reader can consult the references for this, as for all other article content if they need reassurance. The standard practice for prose covering something as simple and straightforward as that is to describe it in MOS-compliant Wiki prose. "23:00 on 29 March 2019 GMT (UTC+0)" is absolutely synonymous with "29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m", and the former is MOS-compliant, whereas the latter is not. We need a good reason to deviate from this. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

After elections in March 2018, the Italian president appointed a eurosceptic Italian government on 1 June 2018,[185] a development expected to affect the Brexit outcome.[186]
What on earth is this sentence doing in the article; let alone the "History" section?

This is wild speculation, the quote supporting it is weak, and it is not even a widely held belief. Please remove this sentence from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:771C:4B00:906E:D599:60FA:12A9 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed that looks off-topic. ✅ — JFG talk 10:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Moment of brexit
I have put some effort in the "Date & time of Brexit" section. I wanted to make clear that there is one moment of Brexit (not a rolling happening like New Year's Eve first in Sydney then Moskow then New York over a day). Found sources in both EU and UK legislation.

It appears that the EU has defined the moment (following Article 50 rule), and that UK has restated it. Now actually, Brexit happens in London at 23:00 h in the evening, not midnight (so not "when Big Ben chimes midnight on the evening of March 29, 2019" ❌). -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that already correctly stated in the article, in the lead and in that section you've changed? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO indirectly, if at all. Also, the decision was by EU, UK followed (restated) it; of course UK could not take a (different, autonomous) decision re this. IIRC, both links were dead or not having the right quote. -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the body it said "On the British side, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, section 20(1) defines "exit day" as "29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m."" and in the lead "The UK is due to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 at 11 pm UK time,". What was wrong there? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "On the British [UK] side, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, section 20(1) defines "exit day" as "29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. ... The UK is due to leave ["will leave", weasel wording] the EU on 29 March 2019 at 11 pm UK time [time spelling changed] [EU-defined time missing, while that is the defining party/law], [option to 'extend this period' was missing], [source present has wrong information 'Big Ben'". -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Date and time of Brexit per is an elaborate version of what was stated in fewer words at  (later corrected from "British" to "UK"). The longer version could be seen as UNDUE, but it should enable doubters to be satisfied on the point, and why the UK Act expressly states the hour, which is unusual and almost unique in UK legislation, but in this case is required to ensure that the moment when the two year negotiating period expires will be the same for both parties according to UK law and EU law. Qexigator (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * + The point is the time for exit is stated expressly in the UK legislation for particular reasons of UK legislative drafting and interpretation, not as  BST or UTC etc. but in the knowledge that the UK Interpretation Act 1978  s.4 prescribes that  "An Act or provision of an Act comes into force- (a) where provision is made for it to come into force on a particular day, at the beginning of that day;" Qexigator (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this the 29th march 2019 or the 30th march 2019? Wikisource says: "ARTICLE 185 — Entry into force and application This Agreement shall enter into force on 30 March 2019" Is wikisource false?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.248 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is 11:00 pm on the 29 March 2019 UK time (GMT = UTC±00:00) which, because they're in a different timezone, exactly the same time as 00:00 am at the start of 30th March Brussels time (CET = UTC+01:00). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to be over-explained in the article now. Where before it was concise and obvious, now it sounds like we're introducing or imagining complexity and confusion which never existed so we can give a more complicated explanation. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DeFacto: Yes, it now seems over-explained, but stilll may leave a reader baffled, such as above. The shorter simpler version will probably be better for most readers, who will be baffled by the current longer version. Perhaps we should revert to the shorter version and add the explanation in a parenthesis or footnote:
 * (The UK legislation states the day and hour in that way in the knowledge that the UK Interpretation Act 1978 s.4 (a) prescribes that "An Act or provision of an Act comes into force where provision is made for it to come into force on a particular day, at the beginning of that day".)
 * Qexigator (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not "over-explained". It was un-explained. And undersourced. And dubious re original decision (as if the UK had taken a separate decision). The fact that it is "11.00 p.m." London time is clarified at last (and as I noted in my OP here: the Mirror, a source already in there, had it plain wrong saying "when Big Ben chimes midnight"). I claim once more that it is relevant that the article states that there is one single moment of Brexit (not just a "day" of Brexit) per source. Also, the EU quote points to the option of " extension to extend this period", which even today is relevant. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC) (refined text -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC))
 * What makes it difficult is that we are trying to have two different paragraphs to give the same information. Perhaps it would help if we said that departure is scheduled for 23:00 UTC+00:00 on 29 March, which equates to 11pm GMT in London and midnight CET in Brussels. Would that be sufficiently clear and concise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But since it was not clear and singular, we could agree that current text (and text-intention) is OK. I tried to get both legislations in: that is two sources (two gov legislations). What I did was: show that both are about the same thing, and end up being the same moment in time. Your text proposal still requires extensive sourcing from both EU and UK gov sources (those I used, I guess). I'd like to learn what exactly is wrong with the current text? -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, writing "23:00 UTC+00:00 on 29 March" is sort of nonsense: mixing up two time notations. It is either "UTC time hh:mm" or "'hh:mm [local time, being:] UTC+xh". -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are labouring a point. It is simple, the EU legislation gives the time in the CET timezone, which is converted to GMT for UK legislation. There is nothing more that needs to be said, and unless there are RSs raising concerns over the hidden meaning of each using their own timezone, then we should not be trying to read anything further into it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph in the previous version was clear, correct, concise and properly referenced to the Directive. The explanation for the UK Act stating the same time in different words is in the current footnote. Qexigator (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, in version ref [135]  was a dead link. UK gov reference was absent completely. I changed that. So: not properly referenced, twice.
 * Also, that article version had another one more variant of time notation. I made it to use: (a) EU source text ("Brussels time"), (b) UK source text ("11.00 p.m."), and (c) univeral time ("23:00 UTC"). Two literal quotes (from gov RS), plus one universal notation (per WP:CALC). There is no need to create any other notation/descrtiption, three is a lot already. Any other extra date-time notation would not be "clear" nor "concise". -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the link had become dead, but OK in current version. Qexigator (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (not to win-a-point, but to make a safe note for all of us: So we can agree that current EU-gov and UK-gov sources are OK enough then? Apart from how we use them). -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * (ec) An open question and in GF: could you illustrate the meaning of  footnote [138]? -DePiep (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A note from me. Why did the EU literally wrote "Bussels time" not "Central European Time" (CET)? Might be a jab. Why did the EU not use a more universally recognised and well-defined term like "CET"? Why did the EU prefer to an undefined wording with the word "Brussels" in it? Anyway, glad we do quote. -DePiep (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may be OK to let this discussion be resolved by quoting the Directive's use of "Brussels time" instead of citing CET, but it would not be acceptable to add an editor's unsourced inferences about that. We may assume that EU version is written in their way so as to suit their legislative "house style", while the UK legislation is written in the UK style for the simple reason that the UK Act must be interpreted in UK Courts. We may also surmise that both parties are intent on avoiding ambiguity on this point. So far as I am aware European time zones are not within the EU powers to determine, but "Brussels time" is unlikely to be in doubt, because in practice, Brussels uses CET and is likely to be using CET when the time of exit day comes. Qexigator (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * + My comment above mentioned that stating the hour "is unusual and almost unique in UK legislation". It may actually be unique. Words previously used, in His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, to override the normal interpretation of "commencement" in an act of parliament, were "Immediately upon the Royal Assent being signified to this Act...", in other words at the moment of royal assent and not at the beginning of that day, but only the day was endorsed on the Act, not the hour.  The time published in The Times, No. 47,556, Royal Edition, London Saturday December 12 1936, p. 17: "Court Circular - BUCKINGHAM PALACE, Dec. 11, was 1.52 p.m. .Qexigator (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * re not using CET and "editor's unsourced inferences": I'm not proposing to add that to the article. It just occurred to me as odd. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless the time choices are raised by notable commentators in reliable sources, then I think we should avoid original research/personal synthesis and just state the bald times, and support them with secondary sources if possible. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what the text now does: it quotes literally, spelling included, the two government sources stating their date and time of exit. Of course, sources are added. Also, per WP:CALC the generic universal time notation (UTC) is added. Where do you see OR? -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the quotes, they (especially the one from the EU) are now given undue weight and add nothing. It would I believe, suffice to say (supported by a secondary RS): "Brexit is planned to occur on 29 March 2019 at 23:00 GMT (UTC±00:00) which corresponds with 30 March 2019 at 00:00 CET." -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right above you advocated to "state the bald times" (plural), and not do OR, SYNTH. And that is what it does. While in your next post you propose rewriting. The EU quote also has the extension option mentioned, which is just as relevant. Rephrasing into own text introduces errors and misunderstandings. Example in case: your proposal "state the bald times" is needlessly incorrect and deviating; it will occur (by law). Your time notation here is incorrect. Again I explain: two time zones are involved (Brussels and London), two different times are mentioned (both in different, localised form), and it is perfectly OK to convert these to a universal notation as added. As for "undue": some time ago I came here to actually read what the Brexit moment is, not just an "exit day" something around March 29 or so&mdash;it was missing (and no sources). I think this article should mention that moment, sourced & quoted & localised. -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "moment" needs to be given and reliably sourced (as Indeed it was), but I'm not sure why you think we need all this discussion about the time to be in the article. By "the bald times" I mean just the time it is currently due to happen in both the UK and Brussels timezones. Why do you think we need all the long-winded quotes from the legislation if the times are reliably sourced? And what do you think is wrong with my sentence? And nothing, even if it is law, is definite until it happens, so we cannot say "will" in Wikipedia's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "long-winded" is more like an opinion that being an neutral observation. Anyway, its length relates to the issues described in it. My point is that we should include the article text because first it describes (defines) the moment of brexit, in understandable language and as decided by the defining authority. Also, especially since it is in the same directive section (or whatever that text part is named), the process for changing of that fixed moment. This nicely provideds the escape route from the "UK will leave the EU then, except when a change is decided in this way", or the "will, unless" fact. The quote is written in understandable English (no legaleese or other jargon). This all makes it useful being in there. Then, if one would rephrase it to shorten it (reduce being "long-winded"), not much length would be gained and we would inevitable end up looking for other wordings for things that are already worded OK. Unless one wants to remove some complete info from the section (say, the escape option), there is no use or gain in shortening the writing. -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Covered by my reply below here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
To clarify, let me put it another way. It is not "planned" it is predetermined as stated in this and other articles. It is not UNDUE to present the undisputed information so as to show, as in the current version, why the very same point in time is stated in different words, which, unless so explained, is not necessarily self-evident to readers or editors. Neither the EU Directive nor the UK Act make reference to CET or any time zone, but rely on their own systems of law to apply as stated. Let us settle for the current version, including the footnote. The actual time is not a trivial point for either party or any person or business or commentator or writer who needs to be sure about the why and wherefore, and free from the possibility that Wikipedia is inexpertly making stuff up. Qexigator (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote is completely unnecessary as we can easily use a secondary RS to support what we write, without the lengthy primary source being quoted, and the date/time can be given in the usual MOS compliant way. That Brussels is in the CET timezone is not controversial so using that is not a problem. Similarly that the UK uses GMT and is one-hour behind is not controversial either it is a known fact. Let's see if any other editors have an opinion on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That reply is no answer to the following points:
 * It is not "planned" it is predetermined as stated in this and other articles.
 * It is not UNDUE to present the undisputed information so as to show, as in the current version, why the very same point in time is stated in different words, which, unless so explained, is not necessarily self-evident to readers or editors.
 * Neither the EU Directive nor the UK Act make reference to CET or any time zone, but rely on their own systems of law to apply as stated.
 * The actual time is not a trivial point for either party or any person or business or commentator or writer who needs to be sure about the why and wherefore, and free from the possibility that Wikipedia is inexpertly making stuff up.
 * Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try and be more explicit then - in the same order:
 * "Planned to", "due to", "expected to", "legislated to", or whatever; but not "will", as nothing is definite until it has happened.
 * We do not need to prove or illustrate where the dates and times come from in the primary sources, indeed that is the archetypal "original research" explicitly ruled against in Wikipedia's "No original research" policy (quotes: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.", "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."). All we need to do is state the dates and times (in UK and Brussels timezones as both geographies are involved) and support them with a reliable secondary source.
 * That doesn't matter, once we have the time from a reliable secondary source we can present it in the appropriate timezones' formats per MOS:TIMEZONE
 * The time is a straight fact that can be asserted and reliably sourced. The reader can satisfy themselves as to the validity of the data by verifying the facts from the supporting source(s).
 * -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding point by point.
 * "due to". The current date will inexorably apply due to operation of Article 50 of the treaty. It is self-evident that a future event fixed by law could be changed (or "frustrated" in legal parlance), say, as a result of some drastic emergency or calamity due to natural causes or outbreak of war or anarchy, but in the case of brexit, the law is fixed until the UK and EU decide otherwise. The current version of the article makes no assertion about possible frustrating events, one way or the other.
 * "We do not need..." etc. Given that the basic purpose of Wikipedia is to present the information correctly and NPOV, and that WP editing guideines are intended to be applied for that purpose and not as an end in themselves; and that the current text is referenced to the published and undisputed sources for the undisputed facts, and indisputably reliable as such, why would it be an improvement to add superfluous mention of time zones, which would be adding editorial SYN and/or OR, which a number of previous edits have shown have been erroneous, such mention of BST? Certainly, if there is RS stating that the EU wording and the UK wording identify the same moment of time, let it be cited.
 * "The reader can satisfy themselves..." Why intrude some other construct into the text in order that the reader should do that, when we are able to make the matter clear and unambiguous as in the current version?
 * Qexigator (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see that anything you are saying wouldn't be adequately covered by replacing that entire second paragraph with something like this: "As things stand, the UK is due to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 at 23:00 GMT (UTC+00:00) - which for Brussels is 30 March 2019 at 00:00 as they use CET (UTC+1)."this source or any of the multitude of secondary sources giving the same information. It is concise and precise, and reliably sourced to a secondary source. I'll leave it at that for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) First response: these UTC notations are nonsense and inconsistent. You mix up stuff. Why do you use them, what do you want to say? As I explained before, UTC notation is:
 * or "'hh:mm [local time, being:] UTC+xh": to denote a time zone (eg, "CET = UTC+1")
 * or "UTC time hh:mm": a timezone-independent time moment (aka Zulu time).
 * Please reply, you made an error. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * no error, see MOS:TIMEZONE. Time in the UK is stated as, for example, 22:36 GMT (UTC+0). That can then be interpreted into the time in any timezone. For Brussels that equates to 23:36 CET (UTC+1). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * More important: What do you want to say? -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (What you actually do is combine both UTC notations, and do so twice. That is: Brussels time + BRU time zone, then UK time + UK time zone. Why would that be an improvement?) -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (... and still you have not mentioned Zulu time). -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * want to say? You said my notations were nonsense and inconsistent, I showed you the MOS page that supports them. Do you accept now that they are MOS compliant, and correct? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "What do you want to say" as in: what do you want to say in the article? -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

as I said above, replace that entire second paragraph with one sentence, something like this: "As things stand, the UK is due to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 at 23:00 GMT (UTC+00:00) - which for Brussels is 30 March 2019 at 00:00 as they use CET (UTC+1)." -- DeFacto (talk). 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Current section #Date and time of Brexit has three time notations once: BRU, LON, UTC. Nice. Your proposal has four, and Zulu missing so it would make five. Five is "long-winding" (your complaint) and also needlessly complicating. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * sigh. Your sentence suggests that London decided, and Brussels had to follow. Of course it is the other way around. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

there are two timezones in my sentence GMT and CET, and UTC (which is what you call zulutime?) per the MOS. And no, my wording is neutral, it doesn't suggest that either party decided or followed, because neither did, the leave date followed automatically (by two years) from the date the UK invoked Article 50. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ... which for Brussels is, you proposed. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Brussels, as for most of the rest of Western Europe, is in the CET timezone. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is what I added to the article, and you want to remove. Stating the obvious to me this way, you know you sound like talking down on me, right? -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe what I've proposed isn't clear to you, or you haven't read it, but I included that Brussels time is CET in it. And why did you ask that if you already knew the answer? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DeFacto: Very often there is a multitude of ways for composing, rewriting, or paraphrasing any given text about any topic, and selecting the extent and depth of detail suited to the context. For this article, given the importance of the time in question for the two parties and everyone depending on it, and the need to assure readers about the fact and reason for the apparent discrepancy between the way the two negotiating parties have chosen to define the moment, then, of the two versions under discussion here, the one you propose would not be an improvement, for the reasons stated in comments above. That is not to say that in some other context it would not suffice, and could be the more suitable of the two. A  person looking for the information shown plainly and simply in the current version should not be expected to rely on the BBC source to which you link which is a sprawling article with a mass of other information, and the paragraph headed "When is the UK due to leave the EU?" is not as concise or informative as the version in the article we are here discussing. The current version cites Reuters, which has a usefully informative timeline including "March 29 - At midnight in Brussels, 2300 GMT or 11 p.m. in London, Britain’s membership of the European Union will lapse, two years to the day since it formally filed notice to quit." By journalistic standards that can be seen as doing an acceptable job well enough, but the term "lapse" is inexact in a way that the current version of our article avoids. Qexigator (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ... or any of the multitude of secondary sources giving the same information. And the time wasn't negotiated, and there is no apparent discrepancy. The date of leaving was predetermined by the date that Article 50 was invoked. The real time (UTC) is the same in both places, the local times differ because the two bureaucracies work in different time zones. There is no mystery and it can all be referenced to secondary sources. So we should not try to explain it with our own OR, sourced to primary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not aware anyone here was claiming the time was negotiated. There is currently some political agitation in UK for the exit date to be cancelled or postponed.  "Apparent discrepancy": one states midnight, the other says 11p.m. therefore this needs an explanation (you are proposing intruding UTC). This article's scope  extends to the treaties and UK legislation and political events relevant to Brexit, and we may surmise that many readers visiting the article are likely to find references to UTC a fussy interruption of the text. Maybe a better place would be the Infobox? Why not pursue that as a useful contribution to improving the article? Your mention of "two bureaucracies work in different time zones" is an irrelevant personal inference, in pejorative and misleading terms, possibly of the sort of OR/SYN that is normally discouraged in articles, and does not help to answer any of the comments above, and could be seen as a failure to take a NPOV stance concerning the wide range of readers who are looking to be given hard, reliable factual information as found in the legal texts determining the course of events, not the imperfect takes on it in opinion-based secondary sources which are daily becoming outdated. It is entirely clear, uncontested and indisputable that the time was fixed by operation of the two year period in the Treaty, upon service, by UK on EU, of what Reuters calls "notice to quit". UTC is not, as you propose, "real time": it is a mental construct, outside the scope of this article, meaning Coordinated Universal Time, and "is within about 1 second of mean solar time at 0° longitude... In some countries where English is spoken, the term Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) is often used as a synonym for UTC."  GMT "is the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, reckoned from midnight." "Solar time is a calculation of the passage of time based on the position of the Sun in the sky."  It is related to the International date line, but "No international organization, nor any treaty between nations, has fixed the IDL drawn by cartographers: the 1884 International Meridian Conference explicitly refused to propose or agree to any time zones, stating that they were outside its purview. The conference resolved that the Universal Day, midnight-to-midnight Greenwich Mean Time (now known as Coordinated Universal Time, or UTC), which it did agree to, "shall not interfere with the use of local or standard time where desirable". As above stated "The actual time is not a trivial point for either party or any person or business or commentator or writer who needs to be sure about the why and wherefore, and free from the possibility that Wikipedia is inexpertly making stuff up" and "WP editing guidelines are intended to be applied for that purpose and not as an end in themselves." and "Why intrude some other construct into the text ...when we are able to make the matter clear and unambiguous as in the current version?". Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (2)
You have spoiled the section completely. Days ago, you already broke the text (secretly). Just now, you left the text in chaos. Didn't you read yourself that the date and time of Brexit was absent from the section called "Date and time of Brexit" ?

I have restored some pre-chaos text (of course I did; it was removed illegally), and rewritten it to keep the section acceptable.

I still do not agree with the one-sided edits you made, clearly without consensus. Stop this arrogance, we are at Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Once more: a mess you made
You made a mess of this section. And a towering faulty one. It now appears as if London decided. You are misrepresenting the process. In case you don't get it: this is a Bussels' (EU) deciscion, and of course exactly the last EU-one to be effective per Brexit intention. It is not London who got to decide on the Leave moment. This wikipedia fails. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ref [135] leads to a fail. I will repair it. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the reference you broke. I have added substantial texts and clarifications. (paragraphs 2 and 3 might need a review, but I prefer not to touch them no).
 * -DePiep (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was the UK that decided to leave. The date was an automatic result of when article 50 was invoked, Brussels had not influence on that. I have restored the good version. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . If repetition bothers you, then remove paragraph 2 and 3. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it wasn't just the repetition that was the problem, so that won't solve it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DePiep: For your information, BBC News, 31 Jan 2019, stated "Theresa May triggered this process [by letter dated 29 March 2017] on 29 March, 2017, meaning the UK is scheduled to leave at 11pm UK time on Friday, 29 March 2019"., and the letter was delivered by hand on the same day. The current version, per DeFacto, is not incorrect in that respect. Qexigator (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That letter decided the day, not the time. So not even the day of partition was decided ''by that Withdrawal law. Then Brussels decided the time. London followed. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The time was an automatic consequence of the date the letter was delivered. At that point, Brussels had no say in that. Or do you have reliable sources saying otherwise? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Haven't you reread the resulting text after a day or so? It is illegible. It does not even state claerly the fact it's sectiontitle promises. It does not mention the option to change the date. Somehow you think it is more important to circumscribe half of the background (the lesser relevant half even), instead of simply quoting it. You are focussing on the wrong aspects. A disservice to our readers. -DePiep (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DePiep: In connection with your concern about attributing to either of the two parties priority for the time defined for exit/withdrawal, it could be relevant to recall that Article 50 was drafted by a UK diplomat when secretary-general of the European Convention, John Kerr, from 2004 Baron Kerr of Kinlochard. The Independent stated (18 November 2016) that Peter Lilley, MP, had considered reporting him to the police for hate speech and being racially abusive of the British people. Qexigator (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I assume that interactive.news.sky might b eright, and daystobrexit might be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.185 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just had a look, they seem to have the same countdown without a one hour difference? Jopal22 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be two different computation methods are used by interactive.news.sky and daystobrexit:
 * interactive.news.sky might compute the delay between 1553900400 seconds javascript epoch (that is Sat 30 March 2019 00:00:00), since Date.now (the local time since January 1, 1970 00:00:00 UTC) adding a 3600 seconds hour and removing it
 * daystobrexit.co.uk might compute the delay till "2019/03/29 23:00" [] from now computed since midnight January 1, 1970 UTC
 * I assume the interactive.news.sky one is the right one, if Brexit occurs at midnight (European time) or 23:00 UTC as planned, but I wonder if those Brexit countdown computation depends upon timezone. The wikipedia one does not seam to be dependant to timezone:

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

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

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

"Brexit expert Brok already made it clear in Strasbourg last month that the EU - in the case of a hard Brexit - would rather risk a resurgent Northern Ireland conflict than compromise the EU's internal market with an open and unregulated EU external border on the island of Ireland. Broks reasoning: "This hard frontier hurts Britain a lot more than us." Above all, the hard border would hurt Northern Ireland. In fact, does the EU want to take the risk of a new Northern Ireland conflict rather than the risk of chlorinated chickens or hormone-treated beef coming into the EU via Northern Ireland in an uncontrolled manner? Brok does not see any dilemma for the EU. For him, the defence of the economic benefits of the EU internal market and its external borders has the highest priority. And this is also the view of Juncker, May's current host in Brussels." — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 10:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Any other opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.201.183 (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But an other arrangement can be made:
 * instead of doing a no deal Brexit within five weeks, Theresay May may ask a three month delay to perform a Brexit during June, and each of the 27 partners might accept it.
 * instead of doing a no deal Brexit within three months weeks, Theresay May may ask a longer delay to perform a Brexit later, and each of the 27 partners might accept it, which would make the UK to contest in the EU elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.215 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Juncker considers "Any decision to ask for more time lies with the UK. If such a request were to be made, no one in Europe would oppose it," "It is like being before the courts or on the high seas; we are in God's hands. And we can never quite be sure when God will take the matter in hand,"   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.215 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum. Contributions to this talk page must be limited how best to show to verifiable facts. There are many other places where you can speculate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Article should deal with facts. The fact is that there are three hypothesis: A deal for the 29th march 2019, no deal on 29th march 2019 or a delay. The delay option had never be considered previously, but now that we see there is a risk the UK can not agree in time the deal she negotiated, more and more newspapers present the so called article 50 extension as the only alternative to a failure to conclude the deal on time . That is the factual reason why the article should be extended with this consideration. Making clear the decision on this issue is up to the UK, according to reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.185 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This may well happen but wp:Wikipedia is not a newspaper so does not and should not aim to reflect hour by hour changes in the political wind. More importantly, per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not speculate. When something has actually happened, we report it.  the position in EU law and UK law remains that the UK will exit on 29 March at 23:00 UT. You (and I) may believe that this is minimally probable but our opinion cannot be reported, only verifiable facts. We cannot extend the article with this speculatation, precisely because it is speculation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not speculate." We say exist is on 29 march 2019, when it is just the first agreed time which offer two options: exit at this date or additional delay.
 * "When something has actually happened, we report it." Theresa May has planned to ask MPs, this month the 14th, if they wants a short and limited extension of the Article 50, in case MPs do not agree on the 12th the deal scenario and do not agree on the 13th the no deal scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.118 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We could report that she has a plan but given all its ifs and ands, I suggest we wait to see what actually happens. To rephrase your statement, IF her deal is not approved on the 12th AND IF "no deal" is not approved on the 13th THEN a vote to approve a short delay will be called - and that might fail too, opening the way to a second referendum? or a General Election? or even a coup d'etat! These votes will all be resolved in two weeks' time so, rather than clutter an over-long article with a complicated explanation of a flow-chart, let's just wait and then document the outcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be a tree could help to explain shortly the UK process:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.54 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Theresa May has planned to ask MPs,
 * [[Image:Crowned Portcullis.svg|19px]] on march the 12th (D - 17) MPs vote the deal scenario [[Image:Ideology Icon.png|19px]] if agreed: Brexit withdrawal agreement might apply
 * else: [[Image:Crowned Portcullis.svg|19px]] on the 13th (D - 16) MPs vote the no deal scenario [[Image:Ideology Icon.png|19px]] if disagreement agreed Failure of negotiations : «no_deal»
 * else: [[Image:Crowned Portcullis.svg|19px]] the 14th (D - 15), MPs vote for a short and limited extension of the Article 50 [[Image:Ideology Icon.png|19px]] if agreed: short and limited extension of the Article 50 Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union (till june 2019 due to the 2019 European Parliament election)
 * else (D - 14) UK has no more many other options than, for instance, to remain in the EU Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union and to be involved into the 2019 European Parliament election

Culture
A lot of the "Cultural References" section is not culture (documentaries) or not about Brexit (Daphne du Maurier).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the part about novels, another editor who is more familiar with what you are referring to can deal with the documentaries section. Mgasparin (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019
Add in Theatre section, as opening paragraph line:

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


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

Plan to slash tariffs in event of no-deal Brexit
"The government announced it would remove import duties on 87 per cent of goods entering the UK as part of measures aimed at prevent billions of pounds of additional costs being passed on to consumers. But business groups firmly condemned the plans as “cack-handed”, “madness” and "extremely worrying"."

These plans would seem to warrant mention in the article.

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


 * Throughout the Brexit negotiations process there have been various often-contradictory announcements and proposals of what the UK will do after leaving the EU. I think it best to wait to see whether the UK government actually implements any of those proposals before we mention them in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks, but if a proposal is notable (i.e. covered at length in multiple independent RS, as the plan to cut tariffs is     ), then surely it would warrant coverage in itself? Zazpot (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC); 14:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The government has now published official documentation setting out the proposal. Zazpot (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be noted in the article. The article is already full of speculation about what might happen after the UK leaves the EU, especially under "Domestic impact on the United Kingdom". If we were to exclude this because it hasn't happened yet, then we should exclude the other things. Also, this isn't a suggestion or speculation but a commitment by the government. ~Asarlaí 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Asarlaí, thanks. Now done. Zazpot (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Study estimates
I removed text from the lead (here) because it was too detailed - the lead is supposed to be a summary. I also adjusted the same text where it appears within the main body, because it had previously stated that studies "show" certain economic effects apparent since the referendum, whereas careful reading of the sources reveal that these studies produced estimates of effects, which is not the same as 'showing'. reverted my edit (here) with the summary, "show, found and estimated are all fine ways to phrase the findings of these studies", which of course is nonsense (why did they revert if the words mean the same thing?), and it ignores the different meanings of these words, which is why I reverted back. It is ironic and rather revealing that an editor who, on the one hand, insists on only using academic sources (see thread 'POV tag bombing of articles', above), should then be so sloppy about the choice of words to describe sourced information. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The text clearly belongs in the lede. Your changes did not improve the wording of the findings in those studies. It is perfectly fine to describe findings as "showing" or "finding" something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speculation about economic outcomes is indeed too detailed for the lead section. The rest of 's changes were also useful, as they placed more emphasis on the attribution of the purported effects, thus being a step towards upholding NPOV. — JFG talk 15:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You should familiarize yourself with the actual edits in question rather than repeat the mantra that everything on Brexit is "speculation". There was no "speculation about economic outcomes", there was research into the actual economic outcomes that materialized. This content isn't even about expert forecasts (which is what most people refer to as "speculation"), which makes the comment all the more bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The speculation is not about the reported and measured economic indicators since the 2016 vote; it is about the inference that such economic indicators would have behaved any differently, had the referendum not occurred or had it yielded a Remain result. By definition these alternate universes are impossible to assess. — JFG talk 00:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that they are impossible to assess with absolute certainty. The research studies acknowledge this and utilise methods to try and address this problem, but they still add caveats about their results, and state that they are estimates, likely subject to change. The one looking at output states "It is hard to calculate the current cost of Brexit, because there is no obvious counterfactual" and "We will update our estimates on a regular basis as new data come in". The one about investment  states "there could be a Brexit dividend (a relief factor that conditions are not as bad as feared), and some postponed investment could be implemented if the conditions under which the UK trades with the EU warrant it. For this reason, it is essential to continue to monitor the effects of Brexit uncertainty on businesses. The effects could go either way". The research into inflation  states "Our estimates imply the Brexit vote increased UK CPI inflation by 1.7 percentage points in the year following the referendum. It would be wise to view the precise magnitude of this effect with some caution, but it is clear that the effect is substantial". I cannot access the research on trade without coughing up cash, but the abstract seems to be referring to future effects rather than realised ones, and it again refers to estimates - "We estimate the uncertainty effects of preferential trade disagreements. [...] We estimate that a persistent doubling of the probability of...".  Considering this fogginess, and that the lead already has a sentence that states that the broad consensus of economists is that "the Brexit referendum itself had damaged the economy", it seems overly detailed to refer specifically to these studies in the lead. WP:MOSLEAD states that the lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph [...] As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes User:PaleCloudedWhite, you are 100% right. Part of the push back against people tagging this article for WP:NPOV is that those raising the issue need to advice on a path to create consensus to get the article to have neutrality. It is a bit overwhelming to deal with he whole article, but I think the first thing we should deal with if there is going to be an effort to improve this article is the lede. It is currently far too bloated and focuses on certain aspects in a way that creates bias. I would be happy to propose new lede but I am reticent to do so, as I'd be concerned that there would be kick back and straight rejection from some people that would make my efforts pointless. But to those who want the WP:NPOV tag removed, I think the first step would be for us to agree on the lede. That would be my proposed next step after the rejection of the WP:NPOV removal above. But my question is, would those who voted SUPPORT in the vote above be open the a significantly redrafted lede? Jopal22 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding text on the history of the Brexit process (including political rhetoric on both sides)
Multiple editors have complained that the article fails to cover pro- and anti-Brexit political rhetoric, as well as the history of the Brexit process (e.g. the role of UKIP, Farage, Corbyn). This is an accurate complaint, as the article ought cover pro- and anti-Brexit political rhetoric, as well as the history of the Brexit process. However, other editors who dispute the research on Brexit then conflate the lack of political rhetoric with the article's well-developed sections on the impacts of Brexit, which is unhelpful and confusing. Here's a thread where editors can suggest and work out text to add to the History sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally accepting this. I want to make it clear that I don't challenge the validity of academic studies.
 * There is a lot to say on political developments of Brexit, but it is necessary to first rework the structure of the article, as it is already 90k characters of readable prose and there are significant repetitions throughout the article. Section 6 "Developments since the referendum of 2016" should go after section 2 "Referendum of 2016", and be merged with parts of section 4 "Negotiations" and section 10 "Public opinion and comment". T8612  (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Thank you for finally accepting this." I just want to respond to this snide remark: There has never ever been a point in time where I have argued against including RS content on the history of the Brexit process. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The NPOV tag is not really needed because the article is not unbalanced, but incomplete. One editor thinks that it should only rely on academic studies, which are usually consensual about the fact that Brexit is a terrible mistake. The problem with this approach is that the political background is missing in the article, which does not explain the situation (eg. why do politicians still want to do it despite the experts' unanimous opinion against it?). For examples: Nigel Farage is only mentioned twice in the text, the first mention is about his resignation from UKIP, the second is his portrayal in a film. Boris Johnson is likewise mentioned two times. Jacob Rees-Mogg is not mentioned at all, but the ERG is mentioned once (without any explanation about what "ERG" stands for). Corbyn is only mentioned twice. Etc. These people are very important to the whole process, I dare say more than academic studies about the economy, or foodstuff and the NHS.
 * Once again, someone coming here to understand why Theresa May still wants to do this Brexit would leave confused and uninformed. T8612  (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I stopped counting the number of editors who had pointed out serious POV problems and who had then given up trying to fix them. The number reached double figures, then I gave up too, believing that it wasn't worth the aggravation of trying to interact with (a small number of) editors who, through their actions, showed that they had no interest in creating a neutral article or in building a consensus. Another editor commented on this a few months ago: "Any casual reader like myself can immediately see in the lead that this article lead is biased. Therefore thee 'biased' lead serves its purpose, like a cancer warning on a cigarette packet"; this is undesirable, but the alternative's been tried. I have no wish to get involved in it all again: anyone can read through the archive if they want details of what's wrong. Finally, T8612: you make very good points about what's missing, but then reach the wrong conclusion. Such omissions (all of which are on one side of the Brexit 'debate', of course) could readily be remedied through the ample RS available, so what you describe is a very good example of a lack of NPOV, which is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and "describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". EddieHugh (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alas, indeed, everybody gave up attempts at neutrality long ago. I wouldn't know where to begin. This is typical of what happens to articles that evolve by slow-motion accretion of news of the day. Given that most news are gloomy, and academic views are gloomier yet, you get a decidedly negative article, whose readers can't help wonder why 52% of the UK public were so "stupid" or "easily fooled". — JFG talk 18:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Knowing how Wikipedia works, by the nature of this subject, I cannot see how this article could ever be perfectly balanced until years after Brexit has been over and done with. As I'm American, I don't claim to be familiar with all of Brexit's subtleties, but I can say I'm suspicious of anyone claiming they know all of them very well, and that there's nothing controversial in the article's coverage in any of them.  Unlike most encyclopedias, Wikipedia can cover ongoing events, and that's great, but it will never do so perfectly throughout the event.  Not having such tags seems evident POV in itself, and that reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole.  Let's just admit this is bound to happen, tag it, and move on to useful editing.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  18:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is biased in favour of remain, as you would expect of the Wikipedia website. The claims about economic indicators and situation is well out of date, as well as being full of bias and outright lies.86.187.161.112 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

POV tag bombing of article
I have read through the entire article twice now and I fail to see what specific sections or text is POV. What I do see is basically a repeat of the conflict in the house of commons played out on wikipedia and all the disagreement between various factions involved in Brexit. Can whomever keeps tag bombing the article explain to me which sections are POV so they can get fixed? Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Brexit is a process with which the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union, an institution which many people feel is bureaucratic and has a clear democratic deficit. Each year the UK pays £13bn of contributions to the EU, whilst the EU only spends £4bn in the UK. Leaving the EU could therefore mean £9bn net saving in payments, and the ability for the UK to spend the remaining £4bn in a manner it prefers. Leaving the EU will also mean the UK would leave the Common Agricultural Policy, something that the UK has long wanted to change as it currently pays a subsidy to all farmers based upon land owned (which disproportionately benefits larger countries like France). The UK is looking at replacing it with a system that rewards efficient farming and good environmental practices. The UK will also repatriate a vast number of political ownership over items such as who can fish in British waters, and who should be allowed to gain residency in the UK. Many also see it as an opportunity for the UK to be a more outward looking nation, and develop its own trade policy, rather than have to work as part of the EU which is often criticised for having protectionist practices. The vote to leave the EU was seen as being disproportionately driven by those who are more disadvantaged, and feel ignored by mainstream society and the political class. Many felt their vote to leave the EU was the first time they had the opportunity to have their voice heard, but some people feel that because of their social class that they are depicted as ignorant and racist as a basis to undermine the vote.


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


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


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


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


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


 * You cannot summarize a current political debate with academic sources; newspapers ought to be used for this. I am telling it to you once again, but there is no falsebalance in reporting Brexiters' opinions, even if they contradict academic studies.  By this logic every stupid thing a politician could say should not be reported on Wikipedia.  I think that a section "academic assessments of Brexit" must be included in the article, which would make it clear that the consensus is Brexit is going to be terrible.  Brexiters' fantasies should however be featured, as well as Remainers' (I said every party, including the debates within each party).  T8612  (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "You cannot summarize a current political debate with academic sources". There are countless academic articles and books that have been authored about Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Such as? Give examples of what RS on the political situation are acceptable for you.  T8612  (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Google "University Press"+"Brexit" and "Professor"+"Brexit". Look up Brexit on Google Scholar. Endless RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are indeed endless studies on Brexit, but they mostly deal with the economy, or sociology, etc. They do not transcribe the opinions of political leaders, which we should detail in the article about Brexit. Hence why newspapers are the best sources to track their declarations over time. T8612  (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great argumentation. T8612  (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . A few of the numerous academic books that have been published about Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These articles are not reliable sources proving Brexit's benefits. There is an academic consensus on the consequences of Brexit that cannot be challenged with news articles.  What should be added to the article is the opinions and arguments made by politicians, Brexiters and Remainers, in which case news articles are reliable sources.  T8612  (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) That article does not substantiate the claim that a Brexit-induced decline in migration has boosted salaries. (2) That's an op-ed by George Monbiot. (3) That's a random op-ed by a children's author (?). This is not what I had in mind when I said the article could cover both pro- and anti-Brexit arguments. Random op-eds. (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is not covered by WP:MEDRS or any other restriction on the use of sources, other than the standard WP:IRS. WP:V states that "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources" - it does not state anything along the lines of "we'd need to rely on high-quality academic sources to summarize the contemporary debate" (as you do above). It is thus against Wikipedia policy advice to insist that only certain types of reliable sources are allowed to be used. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please. As a long time Wikipedia user, who has followed with interest this article over its development, this article gets repeatedly POV tag bombed, it goes to mediation and then the tags are removed. Why? Because every time this has happened there have been virtually no serious suggestions of what exactly this bias is, save that the article dares to give prominence to peer reviewed and published research on the consequences of Brexit over political speculation by this or that figure. It's very clear that what is intended to is either remove academic peer reviewed research or present other less reilable sources as false balance, all based on a rather false understanding of the heirachy of sources for social science based claims. Remove the tag and start acting in good faith to make suggestions on the talk page. But again, remove the tag now. As an aside, I've long thought that wiki needs a better way of controlling how these tags are  use given their power to convey a message about the quality of content of an article to the average user. It is clear that in this case its being abused.  154.70.139.234 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The article already uses lots of non-academic sources about the potential risks and downsides of Brexit. Many of these warnings are left unchallenged, and some have been left in the article even after they’ve been dealt with (see under Rail for example). The Sport and Culture section is all based on speculation from non-academic sources, but it only notes the potential downsides and ignores the potential upsides mentioned in *those same sources*. That needs added. Also, the British government's website can be used as a source for information for what is likely to happen. As I said, the article is overwhelmingly about the potential downsides and doesn't say enough about the potential upsides. The key points made by the pro-Brexit side aren't even noted, for example that the UK: These points must be noted and any criticism of them must also be noted. Again, there may be lots of downsides to Brexit, but by not giving enough of the other side we're going against Wikipedia's key policies. ~Asarlaí 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * will have full control over the laws that govern it
 * will be free to make its own trade deals
 * will no longer pay membership fees and could spend the money saved as it sees fit (noted above by Jopal).
 * will have more control over immigration – the article focuses on the potential downsides of there being fewer EU immigrants, but doesn't note the potential upsides of being able to prioritize the immigration it needs and limit the immigration it doesn't need at a given time
 * will regain control of fishing rights in its waters – this is vaguely hinted at under Fishing, but it barely notes the potential upsides for the UK and instead focuses on the potential downsides (mostly for the EU, even tho the section is meant to be about the UK).

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


 * Support removal of neutrality tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The choice to only rely on academic sources de facto excludes Brexiters' arguments from the article, hence the NPOV tag. T8612  (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If your proposed sources meet WP:RS then they should be included. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There seems to be a concerted effort to bias this article with the ruse that only "academic studies" are allowed as a reason to reject anything that doesn't match their ideology, including other studies or factual items. Even though that is the premise of the argument, the article is allowed to contain passages like "The decline in EEA immigration is likely to have an adverse impact on the British health sector. According to the New York Times, Brexit "seems certain" to make it harder and costlier for the NHS, which already suffers from chronic understaffing, to recruit nurses, midwives and doctors from the rest of Europe." which goes unchallenged and cannot be classified as a "academic study". Jopal22 (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as your sources are not original research and they meet WP:RS then they should be included. Feel free to add them. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Content sourced to RS is perfectly fine. What I opposed was pulling random quotes from politicians from news items or from op-eds to summarize a political debate or to rebut academic studies. The NYT quote furthermore mirrors a Lancet study (which is also cited in the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: as many editors over time have said the article is not neutral, there is a neutrality dispute, and the tag should remain until this is resolved.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per T8612, Jopal22 and Jack Upland, and because the article is structured in a way that emphasizes criticism of Brexit. The article contains no section on the arguments given by both sides before the referendum, which is a huge omission, yet it goes into considerable and lengthy detail on the "impacts" of Brexit, even though these are necessarily of a speculative nature because Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. The way the article is structured now, combined with the issue over sourcing mentioned above, and with the insistence by at least one editor of presenting estimates as facts, results in the article basically making an analysis on whether Brexit is good or bad - something it should not do - with the emphasis being that it is the latter (bad), as indicated by comments elsewhere that it seems a mystery to readers why anyone would have voted Leave. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Views of Brexit supporters are either ignored or painted as ignorant. That is a far cry from neutrality. — JFG talk 08:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Views of Brexit supporters are either ignored or painted as ignorant. In that respect, the style and tone of the article follows that of parliamentary debate and reporting in commercial media and their websites, and other sources such as BBC. If there is a citable source about that, let it be included, briefly in the lead, and expanded in the main body in the usual way. Further, the article is overloaded with detail on the "impacts" of Brexit, even though these are necessarily of a speculative nature because Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. (per PCW above). Qexigator (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support removal of neutrality tag. NPOV concerns stem from editors' sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The same editors who complain about NPOV have tried to insert random assertions by politicians as rebuttals to studies in the article. The article neither presents pro- nor anti-Brexit arguments, yet there is a desire to solely include pro-Brexit arguments because of a false sense that the contents derived from RS, studies and academic assessments are wrong or somehow biased. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The article should neutrally present Leave and Remain arguments, attributed to their authors when needed, without stating in wikivoice anything that is not strictly factual. I agree that speculation on future outcomes should be heavily trimmed, or forked out to a dedicated Consequences of Brexit article. — JFG talk 12:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support If the editors who keep "bias" tag bombing the article wanted to make serious suggestions of how to improve the article they would have - and could have - drafted paragraphs for their inclusion here on the talk page, even during this discussion. They have not. They have not previously either. Indeed what has come to fore - yet again - is that a certain subsection of editors, in particular PaleCloudedWhite, T8612 and Qexigator have repatedly tried to label academic consensus on the likely affects of the available Brexit scenarios as - and here I'm using their own words - "speculation"  which needs to be "balanced" against the views of the proponents of Brexit. Here they are deliberately portraying academic research as being pro-EU or anti-Brexit or attempting to taint it with that brush to dismiss its findings or in order to justify having to "balance" them out. This is plainly presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Not only do I support removal of the tag, but I think tha the new doctrine for this article going forward, since it has been abused so often, is that use of it should be confined to being deployed after a talk page discussion, in which editors discuss actual drafts of substitue text they would like to see to combat these imagined "NPOV" issues. 41.170.83.205 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can IP users vote in this kind of discussion? On what you say: Academic research is almost by definition anti-Brexit since Brexiters' arguments are mostly fantasies and unicorn-chasing, but that does not mean we should not include them as well. You and Snooganssnoogans misunderstand what WP:FALSEBALANCE is.  It is when minority or fringe views are presented as mainstream.  It would be WP:FB if an editor had put Patrick Minford's works as commonly accepted among academia.  The situation is different here, we're not saying that Brexiters are right,  but that their arguments must be reported.  They won the referendum after all, and the current mess is mostly their fault.  As I said above and you have conveniently ignored: "Nigel Farage is only mentioned twice in the text, the first mention is about his resignation from UKIP, the second is his portrayal in a film. Boris Johnson is likewise mentioned two times. Jacob Rees-Mogg is not mentioned at all, but the ERG is mentioned once (without any explanation about what "ERG" stands for). Corbyn is only mentioned twice. Etc. These people are very important to the whole process, I dare say more than academic studies about the economy, or foodstuff and the NHS."  A section on "academic studies on the consequences of Brexit" debunking Brexiters' claims is needed, but it cannot be the basis for the whole article, which should instead focus on politics.  T8612  (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is preventing anyone from adding text on the history of the Brexit process, including the important actors, the campaigning and political rhetoric. So far, every attempt to add Brexiteer rhetoric has been to inject them into sections on the impact of Brexit in attempts to rebut academic studies and expert assessments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support removal of neutrality tag. To complain that " The choice to only rely on academic sources de facto excludes Brexiters' arguments from the article" is silly. WP:RS- When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources....Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available. WP always prefers academic and scholarly sources to others, by policy.Smeat75 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because of the peer-review process, academic studies will always be late on the news. If Brexit had happened 10 years ago, I would agree to only rely on academic studies.  But as you know, Brexit is an ongoing event.  The "When available" from WP:RS you quote is important.  T8612  (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is false. There are countless books and articles, either peer-reviewed or by recognized experts, on Brexit. It took me two minutes to find and link to a dozen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Whether one thinks the article is biased or not, we can clearly see from this discussion that the article's neutrality is "disputed" – that's what the NPOV tag says. Its neutrality has been disputed several times by multiple editors. The issue has been made clear, the discussion is ongoing, and there's no consensus that the issue has been dealt with – therefor it shouldn't be removed. Also, the article already uses lots of non-academic sources about the potential risks and downsides of Brexit. Many of these warnings are left unchallenged, and some have been left in the article even after they've been dealt with (see under Rail for example). But let's try to keep that discussion in the section above. ~Asarlaí 16:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - this tag is not a "I don't like the way this article is worded", all-purpose tag. Every politically controversial article has its neutrality questioned. That's what RfCs are for, not silly tags. There will always be some user(s) who will dispute the current version of the article. Due to personal biases, we will never achieve unanimous consensus. But this shouldn't mean political articles should have tags all over. If someone has reliable sources that document pro-Brexit arguments, then great, add the content yourself or start a discussion. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unlike most encyclopedias, Wikipedia can cover ongoing events, and that's great, but it will never do so perfectly until the event's postmortem has been analyzed by many experts.  Especially for a wide and complex subject debating speculative future effects, not having such tags seems evident POV in itself, implying Wikipedia knows what perfectly balanced means when the people involved do not, and that reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Let's just admit this is bound to happen, tag it, and move on to useful editing.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I support your overall Oppose position, I think it would be useful that contributors are familiar with the WP:NPOV guidelines. I specifically refer to "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." WP:NPOV should be a temporary measure with a agreement by contributors to address the issues with the aim of removing the tag. Having the article tagged indefinitely because it is an ongoing event should not be for discussion here. Jopal22 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If protagonists wish editors to edit the article to address the NPOV issue, they should cease giving false reasons for reverting good-faith changes. This edit summary illustrates a disingenuous gerrymandering that is occurring here - reverting one word back to another with the summary that 'all these words are fine' is completely illogical, because it is a reason to not revert. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Editors are disagreeing, right here and now, on what "neutral" means. I agree that NPOV tags, as any tag, is supposed to be temporary and addressed quickly.  But, for this article, because of the subject's nature, I don't see how anyone could even pretend that is possible in the foreseeable future.  I suppose we could come up with a better tag than NPOV that tweaks its definition just for this article, but that's a waste of effort.  I'd be suspicious of any editor declaring they fully and completely know what neutral means here; in fact, I'd suspect them of POV-pushing based just on that.  Brexit isn't just another political view that gets just another article.  It's a bizarre mountain-high dumpster fire of colossal career-ruining mistakes that spans ethics, nationalism, trade, global economies, society, and who knows what else.  Let's admit that it's exceptional with no perfect neutral position (yet), and move on.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. This is not a mere disagreement over a technical issue.  The problem of this article is that a few—principally one—editors own the article (WP:OWN) and revert those who do not match their views of how it should be written.  I have edited other very controversial articles, such as on the history of Palestine, and it went fine.  A quick glance of this particular editor's talk page shows that I am not only one to have a problem with their behaviour.  T8612  (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article's neutrality is disputed by multiple editors. The discussions on this are ongoing. Why is there a rush to remove the tag before the issues have actually been resolved? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree with you that a large number of editors don't like the article and are in disagreement but it's not necessarily over POV but a choice of WP:RS sources which keep getting bounced in and out of the article. The debate is in fact an WP:OR dispute and not necessarily a WP:NPOV disagreement.  The issue is that the article is using the wrong tag, should be an OR tag.  Quite a few editors want to include WP:OR and speculation from equally reliable sources as opposed to academic sources.  It's more of an RFC issue and not POV.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Guidelines at WP:NPOVD state: "A NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved."
 * The issues are still ongoing and being discussed and therefore it would be premature, according to the guidelines, to remove the tag while discussions continue. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Change of tag
Being bold, I have changed the tag from template:npov to template: unbalanced because IMO the latter is better reflection of the dispute within Wikipedia terms. I don't think anyone is saying that the material in the article as it stands is biased of itself or that it does not reflect good and valid citations. The challenge is that it lacks a similar amount of quality material supporting the case for leave. This is exactly what the 'unbalanced' tag is designed to show, without the confrontational effect of the npov tag. As usual, wp:brd applies. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. T8612  (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a unreasonable thing to do but I would challenge that adding a load of pro brexit text to balance the article is the best approach. One of the things that puts me off trying to balance out the article, is that the Brexit page is becoming one big dump of anything to do with Brexit. For instance, the economic discussion has a separate article, Economic effects of Brexit. The main Brexit article is becoming too long and difficult to read. In my view we should be making the page more concise so it provides an overview which the multitude of associated more detailed articles compliment. Stuff like a section outlining a selective set of novels should not be included in the main article! Jopal22 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * The text that you're proposing for paragraph 5 is nothing but your fringy WP:OR. The text in no way reflects what the body of the article says or what the actual studies and assessments on this topic say. The intent seems to be to cast doubt on the consensus of research on this subject by describing it as speculation and by bizarrely describing this large body of research as "forecasts published in 2016 and 2017". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I tried in this edit to add Brexiters' arguments (with sources), but it was reverted by the owner of the article. T8612  (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Snoog.: Thank you for responding, but would you please let us know any word, phrase or sentence in my proposal above which your comment calls "nothing but your fringy WP:OR." Actually, of course, you have no way of knowing my own POV. For convenience, here is a breakdown of my proposed text:
 * In respect of economic consequences
 * before the terms of the Withdrawl Agreement, if any, have been agreed,
 * forecasts published in 2016 and 2017 proposed
 * that Brexit could reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term.
 * Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from European Economic Area (EEA) countries to the UK,
 * and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research.
 * As of February 2019, the size of the "divorce bill"—the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements—and relations with Ireland and other EU member states remains uncertain.
 * Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * T8612: Thank you for responding, but I would not see the text you inserted as usefully in the lead, which I am proposing would be improved if trimmed as shown above. Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You deleted the language of a consensus among economists, your language inaccurately suggests that the only studies on this topic are "forecasts published in 2016 and 2017" (I suggest you actually read the body of the article before complaining about what the lede should say and then unilaterally trash the long-standing lede), your language falsely suggested that economists are just speculating by adding "could reduce" per capita income (when they are estimating likely impacts), you also added your own WP:SYNTH to suggest that the studies are bad because they preceded the Withdrawal Agreement (even though the estimates do account for both Soft and Hard Brexit scenarios, and there's nothing revolutionary about the Withdrawal Agreement), and you falsely claim that studies of the impact that has already materialized are "forecasts" of future impact (which again suggests that you need to actually read the sources in question before complaining about NPOV and then unilaterally changing the language). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I have WP:BEBOLD and put together a rough draft of what I think the lede should look like. Please see User:Jopal22/Brexit. Just to note I haven't bothered agonising over detailed wording, correct links, or adding citations as I obviously don't know if I will get buy in for the change, and I'm not going to waste my time unnecessarily! But my approach is
 * Paragraph 1: Very short high level very basic summary of brexit
 * Paragraph 2: Very basic history of UK and EU, and the factual items around brexit
 * Paragraph 3: Setting out the issues Brexit raises without going into detail
 * Paragraph 4: An overview of the current position


 * The principles I think the lede should follow are:
 * Anyone who reads it and knows nothing about Brexit or the UK or politics should be able to follow it
 * Also it only keep to things that are relevant for the core facts, so whether the party in control is left or right wing, politician names etc is not important for the lede
 * Only keep to core facts. By that I mean factual things that need no challenge or discussion to put in further context. So for instance saying "economist think GDP will fall by x%" might be a factually correct statement, but the conclusion is far from universally accepted, and you can't adequately cover the item without having too much text for the lede.


 * Note I am not saying things I have not included should not be in wiki articles, just not in the lede Jopal22 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Jopal22: The article's lead continues to be open to improvement by tweaks, trims, and updates in the usual way, but, given that brexit denotes the event when UK's membership of the EU ceases, and the UK acquires the status of a "third country" for any further negotiations with EU, the current version (subject to the "balance" notice) is better suited to outlining the present dynamic state of affairs than your proposed text linked above; and given that we do not know how the situation will be significantly changed from one day to the next, and require some corresponding adjustment to the article, much of the current version can be no more than provisional. In particular, the events of the next few days before 29 March will determine whether brexit will happen on that day or not, and if not, whether it will happen sooner or later according to whatever new agreement is reached between the UK and the EU. Qexigator (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Current events" tag added to article
This article really might as well be replaced with the information "Brexit is the proposed exit of the UK from the EU, it is utterly chaotic at the moment and nobody has a clue what is going to happen". I don't see why it needs a tag "unbalanced" ie, the xenophobic morons who support this evil lunacy feel the article does not sufficiently represent their views, or "the lead is too long", who cares, better to let readers know that not a single person on earth has a clue about how this is going to play out right now, so I added a "current events" tag and took the other unnecessary ones off.Smeat75 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion clearly shows that there is a consensus that the article is "unbalanced" or "not neutral". Your opinion that other people are "xenophobic morons" is not particularly relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead cleanup
According to MOS:LEAD, the lead should "contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." This lead is five paragraphs long, and several of those paragraphs are unreadably dense. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 23:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The whole 5th paragraph of the lead should be deleted. Emass100 (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved the fifth paragraph to the section which discusses brexit and the economy. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is great, but the lead still contains a lot of non-essential details as well as links. These should be removed. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 04:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to put together a skeleton of what I thought the lead should look like here User:Jopal22/Brexit (rationale above), but it didn't seem to get any support. Obviously it would need updating a bit and citations added etc. Jopal22 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is so much that can be cut from the first four paragraphs of the lede (in particular, all the pointless sources). The content in the fifth paragraph should absolutely under no circumstance go. The lede should summarize the body of the article, and an enormous part of the article covers expert assessments on the impact of Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I hadn't realised it took so much space in the article. As such, I'm proposing we split these sections from the article. I think it is those sections that are causing people to feel the article is unbalanced, so splitting the article might be a way to remove the tag as well. Emass100 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There's no need to fork that content. It's entirely due weight. The section that can be split entirely is the "Cultural references" section, which is just a random assortment of cultural references. Other sections of the article can also be trimmed considerably. The impact sections are actually fairly concise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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


 * Good point. I'm not sure I fancy trying to write an NPOV account of the arguments for and against Brexit, complete with fact and logic checking, but if you want to try, or just want some personal enlightenment, you might like to look at the Washington Post article and https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/01/why-uk-cannot-see-brexit-utterly-utterly-stupid. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Brexit is a very polarised issue, even on Wikipedia, with many of those wishing to remain seeing an unbiased view of brexit being it is a complete disaster voted for by the naive and mislead. This article from before the vote doesn't do too badly in summarising much of the points covered https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36027205 Jopal22 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * I agree with PaleCloudedWhite. If the article is only about the process of the UK leaving the EU, and not about the potential effects after it leaves, then shouldn't big chunks of it be removed? This would include most of "Domestic impact on the United Kingdom". If it's only about the process, then surely it should only include things that have already happened or almost certainly will happen because of the process – not things that some believe may happen (be they for or against Brexit)? The facts and speculation here are overwhelmingly about the downsides, with none of the upsides or counter-arguments. The key points made by the pro-Brexit side aren't even noted: that after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees (all of which are facts). That's the issue. Again, there may be lots of downsides to Brexit, but by not giving the other side we're going against Wikipedia's key policies. ~Asarlaí 01:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that this article should only include things that have already happened or almost certainly will happen because of the process – not things that some believe may happen (be they for or against Brexit) per above comment, the article would certainly be improved by text with citable sources to support a description of the issue as after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees (all of which are facts) ? Are there sources such as NPOV reports of publications issued by the UK government, House of Commone or House of Lords? Qexigator (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Citable sources that adequately define for an inquring reader what the "underlying issues are", or why the result of the referendum was that the UK should withdraw from EU, are in short supply. The bulk of the article's speculative forecasts is in sections 8 'Domestic impact on UK', 9 'Impact on bilateral UK relations', and 10 'Consequences on bilateral UK relations'. Those forecasts are rapidly becoming out of date, but some of the information about them may be retained for historical interest for comparison with the actual outcomes. Thus, the lead states "The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself had damaged the economy....". Before long that will need to be updated to past tense, and removed from the lead, to be replaced with NPOV information about the current state of affairs after 29 March. Qexigator (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As per, I agree that sections of the article that speculate on future possibilities should be removed or seriously reworked to present a more balanced overview. It's no wonder that non-UK readers of this article might be baffled as to the referendum result, when speculative information is presented in this way and certain aspects are omitted entirely (for example, there appears to currently be almost nothing on the post-Brexit regaining of UK sovereignty, despite the fact that this was a major factor in the Leave victory). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you mean by "regaining of UK sovereignty" exactly and what you expect to see in the article about that? After all, the article does already say that there are "759 international agreements, spanning 168 non-EU countries, that the UK would no longer be a party to upon leaving the EU" as well as outlining all the EU agencies it will no longer belong to. In fact, the who point of withdrawal is that EU law no longer applies. As for impact, facts and verifiable scientific predictions about what will (likely) happen after 29 March is something readers will expect to find. Here, too, I'd invite concrete proposals of what should be added. After all, there are things that are certain to happen, such as the UK losing access to any EU provided services if there is no Withdrawal Agreement. Again, this article should not be about why there is a Brexit, only about what happened and what will likely happen based on reliable sources. In that vein, I suggest those who see NPOV problems to clarify what exactly they want to see added and which sources they have to back this up. Regards So  Why  11:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "...scientific predictions about what will (likely) happen after 29 March" are predictions and speculations akin to the arguments given by the Remain side prior to the referendum, yet you stated above that "what arguments were made to support these stances before the referendum does not belong in this article". The problem with engaging in speculation in this way is that, to be balanced, the article will necessarily have to engage with the politics of the whole Remain-Leave argument, which is certainly not aligning with your previous statement that this article is about process. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Someone who was in favor of Brexit can (and sometimes also has) admit that there are negative consequences and someone who was against Brexit can admit that there are positive consequences. So why there is a Brexit can (and imho should) be viewed distinctly from what the predicted consequences are (for example, the article Aftermath of World War II does not contain the same information as Causes of World War II does, yet no one would expect this to be any different). So I ask again, do you have any reliably sourced information about what is likely to happen that aligns with pro-Leave arguments that you think is missing in the article? If so, please tell us and we can discuss changes. Regards So  Why  13:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The language you use is revealing. Above you wrote "I suggest those who see NPOV problems to clarify what exactly they want to see added" (my emphasis). Want to see added but need to ask permission? Sounds like it. Immediately above you wrote "please tell us and we can discuss changes". Please tell who - the people who are permitted to edit the article? Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (allegedly). Editors don't need to ask permission to make changes. You're not a gatekeeper. I have scanned the recent article history and I get an impression of a recurring theme of certain editors only allowing "scientific" economic forecasts while disallowing political statements. Yet Brexit is as much a political animal as an economic one (if not more so), and to adopt this approach seems like a clever wheeze to ensure the article only presents one side. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to just edit the article and add what you think is missing. But the purpose of this talk page and this very discussion is to identify the alleged shortcomings, so it would be useful if they were actually named. So instead of focusing on whether you are allowed or not to just edit the article (you are), could you tell us, what exactly you want to edit? Regards So  Why  15:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've nailed it, . The article is a list of academic studies which completely ignore the political situation.  It is almost impossible to find academic studies supporting Brexit because the consensus is that it's going to be bad (and I also think that).  However the academic consensus on Brexit is almost irrelevant for this article, the most important is about the process, as  himself said above, and the whole process—apart from the official negotiations with the EU—is blatantly missing. In a nutshell, Brexit was designed by Cameron to unify the Conservative Party, but it was not supposed to happen.  Cameron's plan failed and now Theresa May is facing a stalemate because she cannot find a majority either way (Soft/Deal/Hard Brexit) and also relies on the DUP, which further complicates the process.  Added to this the fact that Corbyn is a closet Brexiter, going against the majority of his party.  Hence why the whole thing has been going on for three years without a solution.  This is what should be detailed in the article, with the arguments for/against either solution to Brexit (Soft/Deal/Hard Brexit), as well the official positions of each political parties, groups or leaders, etc. Then academic studies can be used to contradict politicians' fantasies, but they shouldn't be the basis of the article.  T8612  (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with the general thrust of what says above, and would support some restructuring of the article on such lines. In particular, much of the speculation on the impacts of Brexit should be taken out or, alternatively, re-sectioned, trimmed and balanced, as it is a form of re-hashing of arguments given prior to the referendum. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current version of the article would be improved by such restructuring and trimming, but, apart from anything glaringly out of date or POV, it may be better to leave as is, and to wait until 29 March (18 days:9 hrs, 27 mins, decreasing), when we will know definitely whether "exit day" is an accomplished fact or not, and if not,  what the position at that date has become. The current state of affairs is too unstable and shifting from day to day to restructure before then. In the meantime, as said above,  the article would certainly be improved by text with citable sources to support a description of the issue as "after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees" (all of which are facts).  Qexigator (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that they aren't (facts), this is more speculation. It depends on the withdrawal agreement and trade agreement if any. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case perhaps we should delete the article altogether, as it is not a fact that Brexit is a real thing. The people's vote could get it's way and Brexit could be averted. Jopal22 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * JMF: The issue is, of course, whether or not "after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees" after 29 March: the government is contending that the current proposed "withdrawal agreement" (with the declaration and joint instrument) would satisfy the referendum result in that respect, others contend it would not, and this issue is for further debate in the House of Commons today, Tuesday. Qexigator (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Brexit is also a proof if the people of the uk are still the sovereign of the country because the majority of the people voted to leave. If that dosnt mean anything to the politicans, then maybe the eu intractability already made a move into the way of thinking that most MP's and Lords do. Then people have no further interest into politic issues i guess. In germany we learn for today as the left party, which was ever against the eu state building, changed to be eu states supporter. One of the big left politican (Sahra Wagenknecht) decided to quit politics because of that and she is only in her 50's. That sovereign cover is one of the more important arguments that the PM also mention almost every time she is asked about the brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8A80:4CD8:7D28:B087:67E:A090 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Garbage.
"The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term,[14][15] and that the Brexit referendum itself had damaged the economy.[16] Studies on effects since the referendum show a reduction in GDP, trade and investment, as well as household losses from increased inflation.[17][18][19][20] Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from European Economic Area (EEA) countries to the UK,[21] and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research.[22] As of November 2018, the size of the "divorce bill"—the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements—and relations with Ireland and other EU member states remains uncertain. The precise impact on the UK depends on whether the process will be a "hard" or "soft" Brexit. Analysis by HM Treasury has found that there is no Brexit scenario that is expected to improve the UK economic condition.[23]" - All this is out of date and 100% biased in favour of remain.86.187.161.112 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, add some up-to-date analysis from reliable sources. JezGrove (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke? Anything put on by a non-Wikipedian would be immediately removed by a lefty (Wikipedian).86.187.165.253 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really following this, and I'm not an economist and I don't know how broad that broad consensus is, but a bit of googling turned up this and this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Forbes is certainly a respected source for financial matters.86.187.174.164 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a self-published op-ed by a pundit. The author does not have a PhD in economics nor any peer-reviewed publications on any related subjects. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)