Talk:Brexit/Archive 8

New polls ? Related subjects included.
Any kind of polls made in 2019 that is related to Brexit, could and should be given a chapter here, I think. From the outside it's very difficult to understand what's going on in the House of Commons. Most of the Tory party MPs' vocabulary appears to have shrunken to one single word - "no". Watched a spot at France 24 in English, and solely based on that, it seems like ordinary people in the UK understand less and less. And during the last couple of weeks more or less nothing at all. Brexiters and remainers alike. Wouldn't the final outcome be a better subject for a referendum than the one held ? Any polls on that ? And where is that Nigel Farage now ? He said "it's just to negotiate", but not even he could anticipate the problems to be inside the Parliament alone. Any modern polls on UKIP ? Boeing720 (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * if you know of any such information being discussed, and given weight, in reliable secondary sources then you could add it yourself, or bring it here to discuss, and see how it goes down. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I could and would, but I have no access to British media. Swedish SVT and Tv4, Danish DR and Tv2 + France 24 in English, that's all. Boeing720 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Boeing720. There are many, many up to date polls on Brexit, including ones that go into great detail. Just needs a search engine to find them.86.187.174.164 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here for example: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/uk-poll-results/ 86.187.174.164 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Extending Article 50
As far as I can tell, UK MPs aren't due to vote on whether to accept either of the extensions (12 April with no deal, 22 May with deal) offered by the EU Council on the evening of Thursday 21 March until after they have voted for a third time on whether to accept Theresa May's deal. Until that happens, the leave date is 29 March - and if they reject an extension it will stay as 29 March. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeee...sss, probably, maybe. MPs were unable to elicit much information from the government spokesman in the House of Commons today, so Hansard will not reveal much. How the government proposes to conduct the business of the House next week will be disclosed on Monday, but the Prime Minister or another spokesperson may give some information of intent before then, perhaps in Sunday newspapers or broadcasting media. Exit day remains 29 March, unless, before then, HoC resolves otherwise and authorises the government to accept and agree one of the options offered by EU in a way that is valid in both UK and EU law. Meantime, it is reported that government departments are busy with contingency planning for "no deal", whenever that may happen. The House of Lords will also have a part to play. Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The extended dates of Withdrawal are now in UK law without a vote of the House of Commons. This is because of two reasons, the first is that the section of the European Withdrawal Act that lays down the exit day as the 29th of March has no Commencement Order, hence, it is not current UK law (this is why on legislation.gov.uk it is marked as "prospective" law and put in a grey box). Second, the UK has now accepted these dates in accordance with EU Law, which still has full effect in UK law per the European Communities Act, this is explicitly specified in Paragraph 12 of []. Further, the EU withdrawal act states in Paragraph 4 Section 25 that "The provisions of this Act, so far as they are not brought into force by subsections (1) to (3), come into force on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.". No such regulation has been made, and so the exit date is NOT UK law. []
 * "as set out in the letter from the Permanent Representative of the UK to the European Union, Sir Tim Barrow, of 22 March 2019, it has agreed, in accordance with Article 50(3) TEU, to the extension of the period referred to in that Article and to this decision,"


 * The British Government has now confirmed the extension per []. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanmayersweet (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Ethanmayersweet (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * When a RS reports that the EU has confirmed the extension, that should be made clear in the article. Currently, the lead section says, "The EU has proposed that the date will be postponed to 12 April 2019 if the UK fails to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement, or to 22 May 2019 if the UK ratifies the Withdrawal Agreement,[1][2][3][4][5]" I'm interested in this, but I'm not following it closely enough to be sure that I'll catch that when it happens. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, does it stay at March 29, as apparently there can't be a third vote on the Withdrawal Agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The legal and political position may be moot, but, per comment above, if the extension declared in the EU Decision as now published (see link above) has the status of a directive effective under the as yet unrepealed ECA 1972, the date could be held to be postponed to 12 April or to a later date if before then the stated condition is satisfied. That was what the EU proposed, as the formal documents disclose. The wording of the present version of the lead would cover the situation if tweaked from "is scheduled" to "was scheduled" and if "proposed" is changed to "decided". See "External links": EU Council decision, 22 March 2019, extending the negotiating period. Qexigator (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Qexigator (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The UK Government have confirmed the new dates [] Ethanmayersweet (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the two parties, the extension terms as set out in the EU Decision were proposed by EU. As above said, that was what the EU unilaterally had proposed (in absence of UK): THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 50(3) thereof, Whereas:...(12) As provided for in Article 50(4) TEU, the United Kingdom has not taken part in the discussions of the European Council concerning this decision nor in its adoption. However, as set out in the letter from the Permanent Representative of the UK to the European Union, Sir Tim Barrow, of 22 March 2019, it has agreed, in accordance with Article 50(3) TEU, to the extension of the period referred to in that Article and to this decision, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:... Qexigator (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding it all correctly, there can be no further extensions beyond May 22, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not? Qexigator (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sure there can be, if the UK asks and the European Council agrees to it. 22 May was picked because European parliament elections would have to start in the UK on 23 May if they stay in beyond then, so a longer extension requires more of a commitment, that's all. Also, the UK can revoke Article 50 altogether, which means not leaving, and returning to the full membership status that existed before the referendum and before Article 50 was invoked. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The EU keeps moving the goalposts, since they obviously don't want the UK to leave. But anyways, as you've pointed out, the current departure dates are 'No deal - April 12' & 'Yes deal - May 22'. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the BBC tonight, the leave date hasn't yet been changed from 29 March, although a law change is due this week: Wednesday [27 March 2019]: ... MPs will also vote on changing the Brexit date in UK law from 29 March. and Friday [29 March 2019]: This is written into law as the day the UK leaves the EU, although the PM has said she will pass legislation this week to remove it. The earliest Brexit is likely to happen is now 12 April. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe there's to be legal challenges if the departure date is changed. But yes, the current departure date is March 29, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While the UK remains a member, UK law includes EU law and does not overrule EU law- UK remains a member until the end of the negotiating period- EU law has extended the negotiating period- the date in the Withdrawal Act is not yet law- section 1 etc repealing the ECA 1972 has not been commenced, and see EXPLANATORY NOTE. . The question is fully discussed and explained by Mark Elliott's What if ‘exit day’ is not redefined in domestic law? (26 March 2019). Qexigator (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * + See also motion (A) tabled for debate. Qexigator (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So the NPOV tag was removed...
So, on 11 March, Octoberwoodland said the NPOV tag was unnecessary. Then, on 14 March, Octoberwoodland proposed removing the tag. 8 opposed (including me), 5 supported. On 17 March, the tag was removed, and Octoberwoodland closed the discussion (hatting it) saying that the UNBALANCED tag was more justified. It is not for a supporter of the status quo to make that decision. This itself is unneutral and unbalanced. I am not British and have no direct interest in Brexit, but this kind of editing shows why the NPOV is justified. There was no reason to remove the NPOV tag given that a majority supported it. The editing of the article should be open, and not controlled by a small group.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland is correct about faulty closure by Octoberwoodland, but UNBALANCED is sufficient warning and, in my view, acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As an observer of the debate but not a participant in it, I believed (and continue to believe) that the UNBALANCED tag more properly reflected the discussion, which is why I put it there. It addresses the question that led to all this flaring up again - that the article has a wealth of properly sourced, coherently argued, material that says that Brexit is a bad idea, but there is a dearth of equivalent material to the contrary. The even-handedness (or otherwise) of the article has not changed by the (IMO) better tag but merely that it states more constructively what editors need to do about it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As was correctly pointed out, it's not about votes, but consensus. The moment the tag was changed, the discussion became moot and the consensus of editors, even those whose voted for the tag, was that there was not any obvious POV.  Those who voted to keep a tag in the article got their way as the article is still tagged but now accurately which tells editors what to work on.  If anyone disagrees they are free to revert and keep discussing.  I did not change the tag, other editors did and in doing so rendered the previous discussion as moot. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, this shows why the tag is justified.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The editing of the article should be open, and not controlled by a small group." - This is The Wikipedia and that is how it 'works'. EVERYTHING is not "open" and is "controlled by a small group."86.187.165.253 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be fair, this article is not open for general editing unlike most others, which is most regrettable and temporary. The reason that editing is limited for the moment to registered editors is that there have been serious problems with vandalism and disruption. But if you want to contribute, you will be very welcome - all you need to do is register for a user name. But please be aware that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and has no interest in our personal opinions: whatever we add has to be backed up by a reliable external source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * all you need to do is register for a user name ; or alternatively make an edit request on Wikipedia. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, my mistake. Though I would like to think that someone who wants to participate actively would prefer to cut out the middleman but I accept that this is not always a trivial hurdle to jump. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The tags, while they appear similar are subtly different. An NPOV tag expresses an exclusionist viewpoint by inferring some text is not neutral and needs to be rewritten or removed, while the unbalanced tag is an inclusionist viewpoint stating that specific text or views are absent and require addition to complete the article, which is exactly the situation here.  The article is missing a balanced amount the pro-brexit arguments and views.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We could do with less cliquism.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Meaning? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you asking the meaning of?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Time
According to UK legislation it's "11.00 p.m. on 12th April 2019"; according to an EU website it's "13 April 2019, 00:00h (CET)". Because of daylight saving time, UK time will be UTC+01:00, which is the same as CET. Are these times GMT and CET, or BST and CEST? Peter James (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The 8 options
It looks like MPs might vote on the 8 options:
 * La motion B dispose que le Royaume-Uni quittera l'Union européenne sans accord le 12 avril prochain, conformément au calendrier fixé la semaine dernière par les dirigeants européens.
 * La motion D propose elle un accord dit de "marché commun 2.0" avec adhésion au marché unique européen et arrangement douanier.
 * La motion H suggère que le Royaume-Uni reste membre de l'Espace économique européen (EEE) et se joigne à l'Accord européen de libre-échange.
 * La motion J propose que l'accord de Brexit intègre un engagement à négocier avec l'UE une union douanière permanente et globale portant sur tout le Royaume-Uni.
 * La motion K reprend le plan du Parti travailliste, avec union douanière et alignement étroit sur le marché unique.
 * La motion L appelle à une révocation de l'Article 50 (dont le déclenchement a lancé formellement les négociations sur les modalités du divorce) si le Parlement ne consent pas à un Brexit sans accord, et donc une annulation du Brexit.
 * La motion M demande un référendum de confirmation de tout accord de divorce.
 * La motion O suggère que le Royaume-Uni chercher un "managed No-deal" (un Brexit sans accord 'géré') s'il n'est pas possible de trouver un accord de divorce.

Those 8 options should appear on the "Read" page, with the number of MPs who voted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.83 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can already with it here: Meaningful_vote Emass100 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we please have those translated into english? GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Google Translate renders them as follows:

"*Motion B states that the UK will leave the European Union without an agreement on April 12, according to the timetable set last week by European leaders.
 * Motion D proposes a so-called "common market 2.0" agreement with accession to the European single market and customs arrangement.
 * Motion H suggests that the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) and join the European Free Trade Agreement.
 * Motion J proposes that the Brexit agreement include an undertaking to negotiate with the EU a permanent and comprehensive customs union covering the entire United Kingdom.
 * Motion K takes up the Labor Party's plan, with customs union and close alignment on the single market.
 * Motion L calls for a revocation of Article 50 (the triggering of which formally initiated the negotiations on the terms of the divorce) if Parliament does not consent to a Brexit without agreement, and therefore a cancellation of Brexit.
 * Motion M asks for a confirmation referendum of any divorce agreement.
 * Motion O suggests that the UK seek a "managed no-deal" (Brexit without a "managed" agreement) if it is not possible to find a divorce agreement"


 * As I recall without rechecking, that translation source is not acceptable for Wikipedia content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Timeline
Can people stop reverting my edit when clearly I've replaced a image of a timeline where Brexit was set to happen March 29th (which it didn't) with a new timeline of Brexit happening April 12th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfodudeUK (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019
Taking into note the NPOV tag put on this article, I note that at current, the derogatory term "Remoaner" is included as a definition in the article in the terminology section, under "Remainer", yet the derogratory term, "Brextremist" is not. I propose, and would find it hard that the request could be denied given both a multitude of Reliable Sources demonstrating its wide usage and the former's inclusion, that Brextremist is hence included, and the definition for Leavers now read's as follows, also using the anchor "Leaver", which is far more common than "Brexiter":


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


 * Support – If the derogatory term for Remainer is the article, the widely used derogatory term for Leavers should be in the article too. As the above user making the edit request has demonstrated, it is widely sourced and in use. Inclusion of the term "Brextremist" is also timely given its definition applies to those supporters of Brexit who have adopted a puritanical resolve, now, ironically preventing the delivery of Brexit. This protected edit request was made two weeks ago, there is no good reason for its lack of inclusion. 91.192.2.168 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, in line with consensus Railhis (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone has absurdly put a note saying 'add information to correct the article' when of course, it's locked by its owners. This paragraph is biased: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing, [8][9][10] while pro-Europeanists , who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership." The correct term(s) are things like 'remain supporters/remainers and 'leave supporters/Brexit supporters/Brexiters/Brexiteers'. These are the sort of terms used by everybody, politicians, media, etc. Brexiters are pro-European and are not eurosceptic.86.187.169.128 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely incorrect; "pro-European" has long been the descriptor in academic litereature and common parlance for those who support European intergration, as can bee seen by navigating to the relevant wikipedia page. This wikipedia article is not a place for you to push "Leave" campaign slogans like "Love Europe, not EU." It's extremely transparent. Stop. 91.192.2.168 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition of "Remoaner"
I removed two tabloid sources (The Sun and the Daily Express) that had been used to support a description of the word "Remoaner". I added two reliable sources instead - an academic book by a university lecturer and two linguistics professors, and an Open University article - and I adjusted the text, as per those sources, so that it actually defined the term remoaner, rather than just saying who used it. The text was reverted by to again use The Sun as a source, with the definition of remoaner removed, and replaced by just a description of who uses the term ('sourced' to The Sun). The Sun is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and the article as edited by Railhis no longer defines the term remoaner - it just says it is derogatory, and used by "pro-Brexit media outlets". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that version of accounts is even close to accurate. You ammended the definition of remoaner to read "Remainers who moan about the referendum result". I reverted it to its previous definition believing that the way you defined it was not in line with WP:NPOV. came up with a compromise solution: The derogatory term"Remoaner" (a blend of "remainer" and "moan") is sometimes used by Brexiters to describe adherents of the Remain campaign. I have accepted that.


 * Seperately, and again misportrayed by you in your talk page comment, and obvious from my edits and description of them on the main page, I also KEPT your academic sources, whilst also using the Sun source as an example of a "pro-Brexit media outlet", as was given in the definition. Whilst the Sun is not an RS, it is an RS of what appears in the Sun, and the Sun is one of the biggest pro-Brexit media outlets. However, I have provided an official Oxford dictionary defintion instead. So all is good. Railhis (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Prior to my edit there was no definition of remoaner - it just said it was derogatory and used by pro-Brexit media outlets. If you read the excerpt from the book by the linguistics professors (here), you will read that it defines remoan as "to remain in a mindset of moaning [about the outcome of the referendum]". This is the basis of the text I used to define the term. This is nothing to do with NPOV. It is a definition by a reliable source. There is no "compromise" between a Sun-supported non-definition and an academic definition by people who specialise in analysis of language. And please read my comment above more carefully before saying I misrepresent you - I said that you reverted the text, which you did. You reverted the text but kept the sources - what's the use of that? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Reading through other talk page comments indicates that the overly aggressive manner in which you write is not an isolated issue on this topic. I suggest you stepping back. The definition of "Remoaner" was evident from the previous description would stood on the article for at least 1 year,which indicated it was portmanteau of "moaner" and "Remainer". However, as state previously I have accepted 's compromise definition. Why can't you?


 * On the separate issue of The Sun, I have also accepted its removal, but stated that there was a case for its inclusion of the newspaper as an example of "pro-Brexit media" coverage utilising the definition. I did not take the definition from The Sun. I have however, now included a definition from one of the official Oxford dictionaries, published and overseen by the Oxford University Press (OUP), which defines "remoaner" as "a name given to a person who believes that the UK should remain in the European Union and does not support Brexit." If that's good enough for the OUP, it's good enough for me. Railhis (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The definition that you have provided is less precise, and ignores the source by the linguistics professors. Remoaner is generally applied not to all Remainers, but those who do not accept the referendum result. And if you have a complaint about my comments here ("the overly aggressive manner in which you write"), either raise the issue at a suitable noticeboard, or refrain from instructing me how I should conduct myself. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * definition of Brextard (do all words deserve to be lexicographically accepted?)

Remain + -tard (prefix + suffix not a blend)
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=Brextard (derogatory slang for wikt: Brexiteer, usually used by Remainers [aka Remaintards] - etymology: Blend of Brexit + -tard [< retarded]).

Impact of Brexit on the UK should redirect there: Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom

 * 1) REDIRECT Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom

use that code above, it works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:D800:F438:E7DC:ABB6:BA1 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * redirect created and points to Brexit until such time as the article is split out. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

British from the European Union listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British from the European Union. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that sections Domestic impact on the United Kingdom and Impact of Brexit on bilateral UK relations be split into a separate page called Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom. The current page seems WP:TOOBIG and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Emass100 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Vote

 * Agreed with . I support a split. Many of the content are notable and it would be appropriate forking. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 20:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I do agree that at some point it may make sense to split the article content out.  We need to avoid speculation and sources which are a lot of WP:OR since most of the assumed impacts of Brexit are little more than speculation at this point. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A new article would likely include most of the notable content from these sections that was removed per WP:UNDUE today.Emass100 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I have thought for some time that this would be an appropriate forking. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have stated before that I believe the 'impact' info is disproportionate - this article should not be an assessment on whether Brexit is good or bad. I also concur with comments made by above, that recent removals of text and sources have not been productive. [A qualifying note, should the split occur: many 'impacts' are forecasts and predictions that can only be seen to occur if or when Brexit happens, and their exact nature is dependent on many future variables.] PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support In addition to forking, I agree with Emass's other statement that earlier versions of the article were more concise and professional. In particular, the attempt over the past months to impose an artificial "left-right" political narrative on Brexit events sounds more like a teenager's tribal tantrum rather than a serious encyclopaedic effort. (Full disclosure: I am pro-EU, but not this type of EU). 86.161.54.90 (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Very sensible split, given the wide coverage of this subject, which is also likely to grow significantly after Brexit actually happens (if ever). — JFG talk 04:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's getting quite big. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Absolutely do not fork this content just because you don't like what it says. Those sections are actually very concise, unlike virtually every section of the article, which can be trimmed considerably. I mean, for example, the "cultural references" section is just a random assortment of cultural references which do not need to be in the main article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But these sections are huge, with 25,636 characters, which makes them bigger than both the articles economic effects of Brexit and Impact of Brexit on the European Union. I feel that such level of detail on the impacts of Brexit is more information than the average person would want in this article. They could be replaced by a WP:SUMMARY of the key points.
 * I refute your claim that I want to fork this new article because I don't like its content. I, full disclosure, believe that Brexit has been and will continue to be a catastrophe for the UK, as the experts reported in these sections say. I do, however, believe putting the entirety findings in another article, and keeping the main conclusions here, would fix the WP:UNDUE issue of this article.Emass100 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also refute your claim that these sections are any more concise than the rest of the article. They are essentially a dump of what anyone notable and reliable said about the effects of Brexit on the UK.Emass100 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I trimmed a bunch of content in the impact sections. More content can be trimmed in the 'aviation' and 'road traffic' sub-sections, but I honestly don't know enough about the topic to determine what belongs or how to write it up more concisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't engage in edit-warring, but I disagree with the removal of content you did today. A lot of things you removed per WP:UNDUE, such as the creation of pro-european parties and the conclusions of reports by lobby groups, meet the WP:GNG and merit inclusion in the separate article. Emass100 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the concern is that the article is too big, then the obvious first steps are to (1) cut redundant sourcing (for some reason, there are 4-10 sources used at various points in the article for non-controversial statements of fact), (2) remove the contents in the 'cultural references' section, (3) trim 'Impact of Brexit on bilateral UK relations', in particular the recitations of a lot of statements by politicians, (4) merge the entire 'public comment' section with the 'negotiation' section (except the redundant parts which should just be deleted), and (5) trim mundane text from various other sections. The fact that the first thing that you want to remove is the extremely well-developed and concise impact sections (one editor has already bizarrely claimed that the cited sources engage in WP:OR (???) and that it's "little more than speculation", which demonstrates where the true sentiment comes from for wanting to remove this) is strange to say the least. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) Cutting redundant source doesn't reduce the prose size, which is what matters per WP:TOOLONG. This is wasted effort, and potentially dangerous as these sources don't always exactly have the same information. (2) yes, this whole section was essentially a repeat of  Brexit in popular culture, and so I boldly removed it. (3) This history is notable and valuable, and keeping it in a separate article would be beneficial. (4) No, and I think this diff was out of place. Emass100 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that my concern is not only that the article is too long, but also that this section takes a disproportionate amount of place in the article, and would benefit from having its own article, like economic effects of Brexit and Impact of Brexit on the European Union. Emass100 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed the 'Domestic impact on the United Kingdom' section considerably. It's now 40% smaller than it was a day ago. Any concerns with size should be satisfied. Note also that multiple other sections are filled with trimmable content, so the rest of the article could easily be trimmed additionally if editors genuinely have size-concerns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. With 69,424 characters of prose, this article still clearly falls under the "Probably should be divided" category according to WP:SIZERULE. Additionally, I feel you removed way too much notable content from this page. While some of your rephasing/deletion of redundancies were definitely needed, I feel that most of what was removed still has encyclopedic value and could be reinstated, or find a home in a separate article. Emass100 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The section is 40% smaller that it was a day ago and you still want it removed? Also, WP:SIZERULE clearly says about ">60K characters" that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". Brexit is an enormous, intensely discussed and covered topic with wide scope, so of course the article will be enormous. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That the scope of the article is large is all the more reason why it shouldn't focus on particular aspects unduly. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Four short paragraphs on the economic impact of Brexit is undue? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Removing 40% of that section was not the answer. I'd rather these whole sections in a separate article with a summary of the key points here than half of it here and the other half removed completely. Emass100 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article currently summarizes the key points on the impacts of Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And you don't have any comment on Wikipedia's size policy stating "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but ideally, we should aim for "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed". True, we can always justify adding length. Per example, this article could be more focused on the referendum, the history of the development, and the negotiations, but all these details have been forked somewhere else. The only reason the impact on the UK had such a large section of this article is that these sections hadn't been forked in another article as of today. Emass100 (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Lexit ("Left Brexit") in the terminology section?
Surprised that this has not come up on the talk page before, evidently. Shouldn't there be a definition of Lexit in the "Terminology and etymology" section? I'm speaking as an American with an outside (but avidly interested) perspective on UK politics but, even from across the pond, it seems like the term has currency in the Brexit discourse and would be worth defining. It follows from the phrase in the lead: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing". The page Lexit currently redirects to Withdrawal from the European Union, which leads me to suspect the term "Lexit" may be used in national contexts beyond the UK (after all, any EU nation could in theory have a "left exit" of its own); nevertheless, it seems worth defining in the UK context on this page. Thoughts? —BLZ · talk 06:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For my own part, I have never heard this word in British reporting about Brexit. — JFG talk 06:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Searching for "Lexit" on the Guardian's site (Lexit site:www.theguardian.com) brings up 322 results. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that a lot or a little?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019
new dates need to be changed as well as old Mahri8 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 15:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Quitling?
Can someone add in why leavers are also referred to as Quitlings? Is it linked to Quislings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is - but it's not a very widely used term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

50 pence Brexit celebration coin
Can someone add in a section and find out what happened to this>

50 pence Brexit celebration coin   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's been delayed - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/16/commemorative-brexit-coins-delayed-amid-confusion-date-departure/   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting that the dates are 1973–1998. Is that just to mark it as a sample, or has Brexit really secretly been going on since 1998? SpinningSpark 13:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As the caption says....   "A commemorative 50p was issued when the UK held the presidency of the EU in 1998".    Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019
Please change X (While serving as Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab said the UK will not pay the financial settlement to the EU in a no-deal scenario.[21] The UK Government's estimate of the financial settlement in March 2019 is £38 billion.[22]) to Y (If the UK were to strike a no-deal with the European Union over Brexit, they would be due to pay a financial settlement of £38 billion. Although, Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab has come out and said that the UK will not pay the financial settlement if this were to occur. Johnatela (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you got a source for this? As far as I've been able to gather there probably wouldn't be legal recourse for this to be recovered outside of a future agreement between the EU and UK. It's likely the EU would still consider it an outstanding payment but that requires a different source and more specific language. The original isn't quite correct either though as it implies no money would be paid when Raab actually said the amount paid would be lower according to the given source. Also, how would one strike a no-deal? That's just failing to strike a deal. Although even that's not strictly true because the UK's struck a deal with the EU but can't get it to agree with itself. PriceDL (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag
There was a lengthy discussion last month in March about a tag for the article to indicate that concerns had been expressed among various editors. The editor John Maynard Friedman stated on 17 March 2019: "Being bold, I have changed the tag from template:npov to Template:Unbalanced because IMO the latter is a better reflection of the dispute within Wikipedia terms."

A month later, I don't think the dispute within Wikipedia terms has yet been resolved. Indeed, there is nothing in the talk page archive or in the current talk page to state that the various editors who expressed concerns are now happy that the issues have been settled. Therefore, until there's a consensus that the issues have been resolved, I'm restoring the Template:Unbalanced tag which was removed from the article on 19 April 2019 (UK time). Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an argument that this amount of time is sufficient to contribute as much properly sourced balancing material as there is. However, given that this is fractious topic, I propose that the tag be removed on 17 May (no two week extensions!) as two months is certainly enough time for the challenge to be addressed: at the end of that time it will be reasonable to suppose that the article reflects the balance of opinion of wp:reliable sources (which may not be the same as reader opinion but that is not Wikipedia is about). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this recommendation. POV and other tags are expected to be temporary measures and are not intended to be a "badge of shame" for the article.  The onus is on whomever tagged the article to propose and add balanced content within a reasonable time frame.  If this time frame is not met due to inactivity or failure of the person tagging to address and correct the article content, then the tag should be removed.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think these are unreasonable tactics which prove that this article is unbalanced.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Brexit/Archive 7 and the lead paragraph at WP:TPG. If you have issues re the article, please participate in resolution of these issues through improvement of the article as improvement is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Unbalanced and Template:POV clearly states as Wikipedia Policy that, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." This is policy and is not unreasonable tactics. If the tagging editor cannot propose text or changes to address the reason for the tag then the tag can and should be removed after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I thought one of the main issues was not just the balance of brexit and remain positions in the overall text, but the prominence of the remain arguments in the lede, which has not (and it seems is not allowed to) be addressed Jopal22 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is titled "brexit" so it predisposes that much of the article will focus on leaving the UK since "remain" is assumed to be the status quo absent brexit. It just naturally flows that leaving would garner more of the articles focus since "remain" simply means maintaining the status quo (single market/customs union).  More remain arguments and materials would enhance the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was I who put the "unbalanced" tag on, not because I actually believe that the article is unbalanced (I don't), but as a way to break the deadlock over the POV (oh yes it is / oh no it isn't) pantomime. "Unbalanced" explicitly invites those who feel that one viewpoint is not adequately represented to actually do something about it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The tag you originally placed was removed by editor User:Sunrise several days ago. The newly placed tag was put there by User:Kind Tennis Fan, so it now falls to them to propose and assist in making the necessary changes to justify the tag.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (Summoned by ping) Yes, that's correct. If a discussion about improving the balance of the article does not materialize within a few days (or materializes but stops later on), then any editor is permitted to remove it again. Saying that an issue is not resolved is not considered to be a valid reason to keep it. If the issue is intractable, especially on such a highly visible article, then it should be brought to the neutral point of view noticeboard so that it can be resolved. Sunrise (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added and remain positions to the article lead in an attempt to deal with the unbalanced tag and the issue of a lack of remain arguments in the article lead. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work. We'd need reliable sources for those positions (ideally ones that demonstrate that they're relevant and represent substantial mainstream thought on the topic.)  And even then, they need to be added to the body before the lead.  Also, even if we do produce opinion cites to support the idea that eg. people arguing for Brexit are arguing this (which is something we could mention somewhere), I object to placing it in the same paragraph as economists and other experts - it'd clearly be WP:FALSEBALANCE to try and weigh op-eds and the like against reputable scholars we can cite for statements of fact.  We'd either need to find similarly weighty non-opinion sources arguing that position, or construct the sentence to make the consensus of mainstream economists more clear. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently there is no active discussion of any issues on talk; therefore, it's entirely appropriate to remove the tag. If you feel there are still issues, you need to start (or resume) discussions to try and resolve them - but the purpose of those tags is to alert readers of active discussions on talk that they can participate in, not to serve as a red mark against the article.  More simply, if you want to restore the tag, you need to identify specific, actionable problems with the article that you think should be addressed, and actively participate in discussions about them.  From a quick glance over previous discussions, I don't think there's an actual POV / balance issue; it feels like people are arguing for WP:FALSEBALANCE, ie. they want us to put "both sides" equally in the lead regardless of their coverage in reliable sources.  That's not how WP:NPOV works - the final paragraph of the lead summarizes sections cited to high-quality non-opinion sources and mainstream experts, so we'd need similar sources disagreeing with them to present it as an active debate, and not just eg. here's an opinion columnist who doesn't agree with what the economists say. Mostly, if people do think there's a balance issue, the best thing for them to do is to try and find high-quality sources that represent the position they feel is omitted from the article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the tag should be removed. There is a valid concern that the article lacks remain arguments in the lead, but I view this as more due to the nature of the article (it's about brexit and not "bremain") so it follows much of the article will focus on the leave arguments.  But I also think the article is fine without them.  Since I am involved in the discussion feel free to remove the tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, my sources for this content are the youtube videos of Jeremy Corbyn's speech before the House of Commons following the second Brexit vote. He cited fears of a recession and The Brexit minister is the source of the comments about free trade agreements post-brexit.  My sources are UK lawmakers.  I can quote the youtube video since the positions of UK MP's are certainly reliable and authoritative. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have made another attempt to represent the remain arguments in the lead. I hope that helps to balance the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you who oppose "remain" are attempting to represent it. How unbalanced is that?!--Jack Upland (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We are actually supposed to do that; see Writing for the opponent. WP:NPOV requires that we cover all aspects of a topic to the extent and with the weight that they're reflected in reliable sources, even aspects or positions we disagree with.  And, more generally, as that essay says, writing to cover stuff you disagree with is one potential way to work towards an acceptable compromise in a dispute.  The tricky part in this case is that we have a reasonably wide-spread opinion that isn't backed by much (if any) reputable scholarship.  Either way, though, the best thing people who want it added to the article / lead can do is dig up good sources for us to use, so we can discuss how reliable they are, how much weight they should be given, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please review and comment on the following text which addresses "remain" points of view. One ref discloses a confidential Bank of England forecast regarding recession, the other 4 refs chart the UK Brexit Minister's acceptance of only 16 billion in EU trade contracts out of 117 billion of the original total contracts between the EU and UK.  Feel free to alter the proposed text. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Proposed "Remain" Text

Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing, while pro-Europeanists, who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership and maintaining the customs union and single market, with Labour Party leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn citing that the UK economy will experience a recession and lack stability if the UK leaves the EU's single market.

The Brexit Minister, Stephen Barclay, has stated that leaving the EU single market and customs union would allow the UK to craft and enter into it's own free trade agreements with both the EU and other countries and long term would benefit the UK by removing trade limitations and releasing the UK of contractual obligations related to a variety of EU related trade agreements imposed by the EU on its members.

I haven't been checking this page too often, but I'm not sure what has happened to this discussion; my understanding is that the biased tag (later unbalanced tag) was placed on the article in response to concerns expressed of a lack of leave arguments, not a lack of remain ones. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said "remain" instead of "leave", and other editors have followed that!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Just have two or three short phrases that summarise the principle arguments for each side
There are so many pro- and anti-Brexit political arguments, and these examples don't properly reflect them at all. Furthermore, the pro-Brexit argument was dumped in behind text noting that there's an economic consensus that the economic impact will be adverse, so the text is used to rebut this consensus. So, the solution is to add two-three sentences that concisely summarize the pro- and anti-Brexit arguments, and not use it to impugn the academic assessments. It could go something like this (this is poorly written but just sketched out here as an example): "Opponents and supporters of Brexit disagree as to the economic effects of Brexit. Supporters of Brexit emphasize what they consider to be a surrender of sovereignty to the EU, and opposition to overreach by the EU. Remainers emphasize the economic and political stability of continuing EU membership, arguing that departure from the EU leaves Britain weaker and poorer." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that reads to me to be a good solution. Support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but revisit and verify the academic assessments, the current academic forecast is potentially erroneous since recent developments by the Brexit minister, Stephen Barclay directly refutes the academic position. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Should the word "new" be deleted from this sentence?
Article says, "The Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, pledged during the campaign for the 2015 UK General Election to hold a new referendum—a promise which he fulfilled in 2016 . . . ." [Emphasis mine.] Was there an old referendum? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC))
 * 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum. It's linked in that same paragraph, only a few lines above the reference to the "new" referendum. Doesn't seem inappropriate to me, given the broad flow of the historical overview there in the intro. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2019
Change the wording of the phrase "These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit." to "These estimates differ depending on whether the UK exits the EU with a "hard Brexit" or "soft Brexit" or similar to fit with the grammar used in the surrounding paragraphs.

The phrase can be found in the section Impact>On the United Kingdom>In the long term KermitTheFish (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — MRD2014 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019
"Please" should be deleted from the 'Customs Union' section of 'Terminology and etymology'. "Please see" does not belong in an encyclopaedia article. 71.235.184.247 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. See MOS:NOTED. I changed this to see also. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can a "Broad Consensus" Be Verified by Reliable Sources?
Article states (with no immediate citation),


 * "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 damaged the economy." [Emphasis mine.]


 * The sentence has no footnote. Is it even possible to verify such a sweeping generalization with reliable sources? Just some Economist saying it is so, establishes nothing. There would have to be a valid definition of who is "an economist". Would it be only those who have Ph.D. from accredited universities? Then who has made a poll? Is there a source which makes a claim based on a poll of 90 percent of those who have PhD in economics? Then what would a "broad concensus" be? (The words can be weasel words.) Would a broad consensus be that 90 percent of a poll of 90 percent of the PhDs agree? And is the whole concept valid? Does the questionable sentence attempt to reduce a scalar quantity to a binary decision? Is the question "reduce" vs "not-reduce" so that it would be valid if income dropped 0.000001 percent? Should not such an argument against brexit be stated in terms like: "90 percent of the 90 percent of PhDs polled state that income will go down 5-6 percent"? But is there any such data objectively collected? Isn't such a statement as appears in this article unverifiable for lack of sources which are really reliable? Who took what poll and when?


 * The statement also is in the present tense. Such a statement has to be in the past tense to remain valid, as ideas of economists change over time. An "is" quickly becomes false in time. Thus such a statement should say like, "On April 15, 2019," a poll of economists stated that income WAS likely to to reduce." ("Likely" is another problem with possible weasel wordiness to it. How likely? What is the probability?)


 * On the issue of reliable source, there is also the question as to how reliable the predictions of economists are, and particularly, how reliable are the predictions of economists about the income change to be effected when treaty alliances are broken? Do we speak about matters which have reliable sources, or matters of opinion? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC))


 * (1) There is no need to describe the consensus in past tense, because there is nothing to suggest that the consensus is out of date. Furthermore, this is not how consensus is described in Wiki articles on other matters. We wouldn't for example say "There was a consensus on date X that human activity contributes to climate change" and then cite a source from date X. (2) The language of a "consensus" is sourced to secondary RS coverage, peer-reviewed academic studies and surveys of leading economists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement is totally erroneous. The Brexit Minister has been working on the post brexit trade agreements and his work completely refutes this outdated statement.  I will remove it for now until balanced reliable sources are found. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Point to me to one RS that says that any or all of the credible studies on the impact of Brexit have been refuted or that there is no longer a consensus among economists because "the Brexit Minister has been working on the post brexit trade agreements." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As of March 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 is an erroneous statement, the current negotiated trade deals completed by the Brexit Minister result in a landfall of over 111,000,000,000 (111 billion) pounds saved per year in duties, tariffs, and other monies which the UK would annually have to pay to the EU. It is no longer uncertain since the Brexit Minister has done the due diligence and instrumented these deals, so that statement (which is from a 2017 speculative prediction) is completely false.  Also, the statement 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 damaged the economy. is not supported by the total landfall in saved expenses which stop the EU from taking out of the UK's pocket for over 30 years.     Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Am I wrong for thinking that a claim about a "broad consensus" would require a through amount of research and that the burden of proof is on the claimer? Or is the burden on the doubter so that the doubter is required to supply Reliable Sources that say that any or all of the credible studies on the impact of Brexit have been refuted and that the doubter must presuppose that there are such credible studies? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC))
 * The burden is on the person claiming the content is adequately supported by current, up to date references. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we use WP:RS, and WP:RS clearly describe a consensus. The burden has been met. For those insisting that RS are wrong, the burden is now on them to show that RS dispute the consensus description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your sources are from 2017, which is very dated. The recent sources I provided show just how out of touch these so called economic assessments are.  Little more needs to be said about it.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that you had no RS to back up your claims, and that the sum of your argument (your WP:OR) is somehow that the net payments into the EU are so massive that all the harms to the economy dwarf in comparison (?). This should also put into context the foundations behind the arguments that this article violates WP:NPOV... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources I provided demonstrate the progress made by May's government in negotiating trade deals. Little more needs to be said about it, the current materials from 2017 in the lead are out of date, and amount to gazing into a crystal ball and are about as accurate as such.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that all these economic assessments did not take into account that the UK government would negotiate a few trade deals? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am saying that the current content about the state of the economy is dated and needs to be updated to take into account recent events. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This one seems recent, though? If you want more recent stuff, surely that's the kind of thing you'd want to see added? --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So brazen and shameless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed research about Brexit impact on financial institutions
An editor removed a peer-reviewed May 2019 study authored by Barry Eichengreen about Brexit's impact on financial institutions, with the ludicrous suggestion that the study is somehow unreliable. The study should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion, however, the reports conclusions need to be explained somewhat so the average reader who is not an economist understands why these impacts may occur and what will cause these events. Amazing how much progress can be made when we work together to get consensus :-).  I am unable to access the full document from the link you provided which will allow me to read the entire paper.  Do we have a better link to the document?  Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not an article about the economic impacts of Brexit, or the predicted economic impacts of Brexit. It is a broad-scope article that should briefly cover all pertinent aspects of Brexit, which, as has been stated on this page before, is not just an economic phenomenon. There is already a paragraph in the article about predicted effects on the financial sector, given in broad brush strokes. There does not need to be an additional sentence that quotes estimated figures on one specific aspect, particularly as there are sub-articles that are more suited to greater depth of coverage. The study that was added deals with estimates and predictions; the study abstract states it "provides a survey of the still limited literature on EU membership and international capital flows" and "provides new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment" and concludes that "the impact on cross-border capital flows to and from the UK is likely to be substantial" (my emphases). I have not suggested that the study is somehow unreliable, but that it deals with estimates. I do not believe there is justification for such additional estimates in a broad-scope article that already mentions general predictions about the financial sector. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that simply blind quoting from this document without explaining the reasoning for its conclusions is not helpful to most readers. Unfortunately, the paper requires a fee of $39.95 in order to access and review the entire document and unless we can locate a better link to read the entire document and take it in context it will be difficult to obtain consensus for it's inclusion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine to cite gated content per Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, we as Wikipedia editors should not be analyzing and interpreting studies, as if we were peer-reviewers. We simply report the findings of the study, which by any account is a strong WP:RS. Also, there is no value in adding in-the-weeds text on how the authors evaluate cross-border bank flows or what methodology they use. We should just report the findings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I challenge your assessments on the ground it appears that you have not fully read the source document. Without reading a source it is impossible to determine its relevance or context.  Also, Wikipedia is a not an advertising arm of the peer reviewed community for promoting and advertising their studies to attempt to get readers to spend money with pay per view websites.  We need reliable sources which can be reviewed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have no clue what I've read / haven't read. As for the relevance of the study, the abstract alone should make it clear that it's relevant and what the context is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the abstract does not provide sufficient context to determine its relevance for me to support it's inclusion. The fact the document requires a fee of $39.95 to read it means that the average reader will be unable to get a good idea as to it's rationale.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your failure to access content is not a legit reason to exclude content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then go and purchase a copy of the document (on your nickel) and post the pdf somewhere that all of us can review it. The abstract alone does not provide enough context to determine whether or not the paper is relevant or cumulative (repeating previous content) to the article.  When you have the document post a link here so we can review it, or locate a public, free source for the content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to violate copyright here. Can you please explain how on Earth you are unable to deduce that a study providing "provides new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment" has something to do with Brexit and that it provides an original (i.e. "new") finding? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a presumption that academic content and assessments are free from copyright claims. If the content is copyrighted, as you suggest, then it doesn't belong here.  If there is not a non-free version of the document, case closed since we as editors cannot review the document to assess it's relevance.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how you are unable to deduce that a study providing "provides new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment" has something to do with Brexit and that it provides an original (i.e. "new") finding? Pretending to be obtuse is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That something is new and concerns Brexit does not in itself mean that it warrants inclusion in the article. As I stated above, the article already has a paragraph of general statements regarding the financial sector. The article should not be a coatrack for predictions and estimates about the economic implications of Brexit. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand, I support inclusion of the suggested content and the paper, but we have another editor who has stated that the document does not directly assess Brexit economic impacts, and you need to satisfy that editors concern. I am not going to spend $39.95 to do that and since our average reader also will most probably not spend money to read the document, I am unable to refute the previous editors concerns -> User:PaleCloudedWhite.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ??? I've had enough of this. I've started a discussion on the RS noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, the RS noticeboard says the edit is fine. Go ahead and include it in the article provided that User:PaleCloudedWhite is also in agreement.  I think their position is that the content is cumulative, so you still need to address their point of order. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My point, as I've stated repeatedly, is that this is excessive detail, based on estimates, covering an area that is already covered overly generously in my view, within what should be a broad-scope article that is already 73,000 characters long. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

- Here is a free access link to the document in question. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Impact section is unbalanced
The section on Impact is sub-divided into "On the United Kingdom" and "On the European Union". These are treated asymmetrically.

"On UK" starts with a disproportionate and tendentious discussion of "Economic effects" subdivided into "Immediate", "In the long term" and "In the short term", followed by "Inequality" (from economic pov) and "Financial sector" (from  financial services pov). These headings are not used in the EU part of this section. The reciprocal effects for UK being free from EU "Structure and budget" are not discussed.

The result is that the information about all these forecasts or assessments is unbalanced, as between the negotiating parties, and inherently NPOV unreliable, perhaps tending to polemical.

The UK section continues with sub-headings for information about topics which affect reciprocally both UK and EU, and would mostly be better presented if treated as such in a single UK and EU section, or another article: Relocation of agencies, Energy, Fisheries, Health, Academic, Migration, Scotland, Transport (subdivided for  Aviation, Rail, Road traffic, Shipping), Bilateral relations (sub-divided for International agreements, Security, European Union, Border with the Republic of Ireland, Border with France, Gibraltar and Spain, Relations with CANZUK countries). Qexigator (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the sections 'impact on the UK' and 'impact on the EU' should be merged into a big 'impact' section where relevant content from the two sub-sections gets merged into similar sub-sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rearrangement
The title "Impact" in itself operates as tendentious rhetoric, unless explained in some npov way. Contributors (but not necessarily the ordinary reader) may be aware that, while Wikipedia has no article on "Impact statement", there are articles on Environmental impact statement / Environmental impact assessment, Victim impact statement and more generally  Problem statement. Of the two Wiktionary definitions, the second is the more relevant: "An analysis or study which describes the expected effects of a policy, project, or action being contemplated by a business or government organization." The article would be improved by changing the section heading to "Brexit impact analysis and comment".
 * Done. Qexigator (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A websearch on "Brexit impact analysis and comment" includes, for example, "Brexit Impact Studies", published by EU, and a report "The Impact of Brexit on Birmingham and the West Midlands""commissioned and published by Birmingham City Council. Both of these are more in-depth, wide-ranging and informative than the narrowly focussed "peer reviewed" statistical article relying on IMF and BIS data. The Birmingham report (last update 21 November 2018) includes a well-reasoned review of the "Overall Context", making the point that "People need information not opinion" (p.5), and a section on "Public Sector Impact" (p.62).

In view of this and other comment above on this page, I propose to go ahead with re-arranging the text of the current version by re-grouping the existing text and sources under "Brexit impact analysis and comment", with subsections for "Affecting United Kingdom and European Union", "Mainly affecting United Kingdom", "Mainly affecting EU", and headings:
 * Affecting United Kingdom and European Union
 * all except as allocated below


 * Mainly affecting United Kingdom
 * Scotland
 * As suggested by the Scottish Government before the referendum....
 * Bilateral relations
 * The Financial Times said that there were approximately 759 international agreements, spanning 168 non-EU countries ....
 * Relations with CANZUK countries
 * Pro-Brexit activists and politicians have argued that for negotiating trade and migration agreements with the "CANZUK" countries....


 * Mainly affecting EU
 * German products
 * According to a report by the German parliament, Britain is, after the United States and France, the third-most important export market for German products.....
 * Council of the European Union
 * Analyses indicate that the departure of the relatively economically liberal UK will reduce the ability of remaining economically liberal countries to block measures in the Council of the European Union......
 * European Parliament
 * UK MEPs are expected to retain.....
 * Legal system
 * The UK's exit from the European Union will leave Ireland and Cyprus as the only two remaining common law jurisdictions in the EU.....
 * World Trade Organization
 * Questions have arisen over how existing international arrangements with the EU under World Trade Organization (WTO) terms should evolve. ....

Qexigator (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Done, with some tweaks. 09:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Now undone by another editor. 19:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The anti-scientific distrust of peer-reviewed research which permeates this talk page is frankly absurd. It's perfectly fine to include impact assessments from credible authorities and there may very well be important info in that the Birmingham City Council report... but your argument that the Birmingham City Council report, which was authored by the West Midlands Economic Forum, is some kind of stunningly brilliant state-of-the-art analysis whereas peer-reviewed studies by the guys who literally write economics textbooks are flaming garbage is just embarrassing. The West Midlands Economic Forum is essentially one guy's 12-yr old consultancy firm, and the report in question was authored by him and four other people. He does not have a PhD in economics and has AFAIK no peer-reviewed publications, and the only other person in the report described as an "economist" is someone who graduated with a BA in economics two years before the publication of the report. Get a grip. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems strange that you think research commissioned by Birmingham City Council, lead by the Visiting Professor of Economic Analysis at Birmingham City University, and which cites an extensive lists of sources (mostly from gov.uk - are you saying statements made on gov.uk are inadmissible?) is inadmissible for wikipedia. This is the guy who lead the research if anyone if interested https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-forrest-5a38669/?originalSubdomain=uk https://www.talbotsevents.co.uk/profile/paul-forrest/
 * By the way I haven't actually read the report so don't know if I agree with the content. Where does someone say "guys who literally write economics textbooks are flaming garbage". The reality is the impact of Brexit is unknown, and there will be a range of studies investigating the impact. We shouldn't just choose one study and make that the de-facto truth which cannot be challenged, we should reflect the range of educated opinions/research. Jopal22 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "It seems strange that you think research commissioned by Birmingham City Council... is inadmissible" - I literally said "It's perfectly fine to include impact assessments from credible authorities and there may very well be important info in that the Birmingham City Council report". Please read more closely. "Where does someone say "guys who literally write economics textbooks are flaming garbage"." The editor above suggested that the peer-reviewed study (with peer-reviewed in scare quotes) by Barry Eichengreen is some kind of snippet of "investment advice" and claimed without evidence that the study might very well be based on fraudulent data. Your last sentence has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. The Wikipedia article already includes the range of educated opinion/research, except recent additions of peer-reviewed research that some editors are fighting tooth and nail to exclude. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Urgh
 * a) Although you said there might be important info in the council report, I would suggest you pretty heavily and aggressively implied that it wasn't a piece that is reliable enough to reference from "The West Midlands Economic Forum is essentially one guy's 12-yr old consultancy firm, and the report in question was authored by him and four other people. He does not have a PhD in economics and has AFAIK no peer-reviewed publications, and the only other person in the report described as an "economist" is someone who graduated with a BA in economics two years before the publication of the report. Get a grip."
 * b) I am struggling to see where Qexigator says it is based on fraudulent data, he simply points out the study says "It first provides a survey of the still limited literature on EU membership and international capital flows." If you could help me here?
 * c) even if someone is proposing something which is incorrect, he is still allowed to propose his position, then other people will review it, and then we can agree on a consensus. You put your proposal to the vote and are currently winning. I don't see the need to angrily attack anyone who disagrees with you
 * d) I would ask if you could be more open to discussion around this page without trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with you. TBH I'm not sure why I'm replying to this as I gave up on trying to be involved in editing this page a while ago, like many others, as stated in the article featuring you (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-wikipedia-page-battles), but it has stayed on my watchlist and I chime in on the talk page every so often. You seem to wear it as a badge of honour that people find you antagonist (as by your user page), and give the impression you WP:OWN this page. Just understand that people aren't against you because they don't think you add useful additons to wikipedia text, it's because you angrily drive others away who disagree with you leaving wikipedia in a much worse place Jopal22 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Shorter "Impacts" section?
Given the now current version of the "Impacts" section, should we reconsider moving parts of it to the other articles that cover the same topics, such as Brexit and the Irish border, Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit,  Impact of Brexit on the European Union, Economic effects of Brexit? Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the length is disproportionate. Many of the "impacts" mentioned are predicted and therefore not yet "impacts" at all. There was a discussion about splitting it off and I think the consensus was in favour of doing so. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What criteria can we use to decide what to retain and what to move? Is it editorially NPOV practical (avoiding OR or SYN) to distinguish text about outcomes necessarily resulting as from the end of the negotiating period (currently in or before October 2019), and other consequential (mostly more conjectural) results? As I see it (reviewing Wikipedia articles and links), the following could be grouped in a category of unavoidable happenings but with uncertain "impacts", depending on first, the terms allowed for during an uncertain interim period under the currently proposed Withdrawal Treaty and Political Declaration, if agreed by UK legislation, and secondly, on UK domestic policy and legislation (currently guesswork):
 * Outcomes depending on the terms allowed during an uncertain interim period under the currently proposed Withdrawal Treaty and Political Declaration, if agreed by UK legislation before the end of Octyober 2019
 * Borders between the UK and Gibraltar, and EU member states: Republic of Ireland/NI, France (Calais), Gibraltar/ Spain
 * European Union institutions
 * Legal system
 * Relocation of agencies
 * Transport
 * UK bilateral international agreements
 * UK-EU relationship post-Brexit
 * UK relations with CANZUK countries.
 * That leaves a residual category, also with uncertain "impacts":
 * Possible consequential outcomes
 * Academia
 * Economic effects
 * Energy
 * Fisheries
 * Health
 * Migration
 * Scotland
 * Security
 * World Trade Organization.
 * Qexigator (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it needs trimming/moving elsewhere, especially as much of it is speculation and theorising. Content that can be moved to a more specific article covering its subject should be moved there. What's left should be summarised and characterised appropriately (as informed opinion, or whatever) in a few sentences. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

All of the above, all of the sections, look only at economic impacts, the impact on migration. They do not consider the effect of not having the EU decide on what’s what in Britain any more. Therefore, the section will be glaringly incomplete. Is it necessary to follow the Remainers’ agenda in the structure and ignore the positive effect of the stripping away of control from Brussels? Boscaswell  talk  01:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

BREXIT© on 31 october
Why is Brexit on that date, Plus it said on ITV news© it will be on 31 october So its oR - RobloxFanEditor 02:08, 18 May 2019(UTC)

Lede is unbalanced
This is an example: “The growth of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 2010s and the influence of the cross-party People's Pledge campaign have been described as influential in bringing about a referendum.”  True, of course, but it is only part of the reason. And stating the situation like that is overlooking the real reasons why over 50% voted Leave. It wasn’t just because of some campaigning, such an assertion is deeply insulting to the voting public. In the way it written is an implied suggestion that people only voted Leave because of some campaigning. Over time, people could see the ever-increasing encroachment on their lives and on democracy resulting from the succession of treaties, and the declared desire of many in the EU that it should become a European superstate. Everyone living in Britain knew this. Some were happy with that or wished to be unaware of it, but the majority weren’t. No doubt there’ll be those who think that this piece here is mere grandstanding. By all means think that if you want to, but we come back to what I say at the start, that it was far more than mere campaigning which had 51.7% people voting Leave. Boscaswell  talk  00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am on board with you saying the lede overall is unbalanced, and you could argue the statement doesn't belong in the lede. The statement itself though is not as bad as you make out as it says "influential in bringing about a referendum", not "influential in getting people to vote leave". The reasons for a referendum are different from why individuals voted to leave. I think UKIP and the People's Pledge campaign are widely thought to be what pressured Cameron to agree to a referendum. Jopal22 (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "A fork on a saucer." Maybe the article would be improved by adding that image. If it implies "having your cake or eating it" that could be said by any commentator about both or either side of the debate or negotiation, so OK per NPOV balance? If it would violate OR or SYN in the text, why not let it be used in the infobox. Qexigator (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole article is overlong, and in some ways "unbalanced", but the timeline will continue growing for an indefinite period, that is, until the UK finally becomes a fully "third country" outside EU jurisdiction, or the UK withdraws the withdrawal notice altogether (revocation). Given that we are watching the brexit cookie forming/crumbling* in slow motion, the ingredients, timing and final shape and taste of the end result is unclear, and it is uncertain what criteria editors can accept in the meantime for separating information that, after the event, will be of ongoing relevance, from details of what will be regarded as outdated past events, such as occurred before the 2016 referendum or in the successive negotiation phases after the referendum. *(Jack Lemmon to Shirley Maclaine, The Apartment, 1960 movie). Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "people could see (...) the declared desire of many in the EU that it should become a European superstate. Everyone living in Britain knew this." As I do not live in Britain, I was just wondering who in the EU would desire it become an European superstate.
 * Might be the euro-federalist party (EFP) which with 12581 or 0.06% votes is ranked #21 in France, after ESPERANTO, but before UNE FRANCE ROYALE  ?
 * or might be, if super means super, the MEPs who want to have a "super group"?

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019
I want to change this line (4th paragraph from top of article):

"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 damaged the economy.[a]"

to this:

"The broad consensus among economists is that 'if the UK left the EU and the single market' it would likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy.[a]"

The reason is that the survey the reference to the Independent article is based on did not ask the economists about 'Brexit' but that which I enclose in single quotes, and this is taken from the survey itself, which you may wish to link to. Whatever the article said, the actual findings of the survey have been garbled in the process resulting in inaccuracy, hence it is better to link back to the source, which is here: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/economists-views-brexit I'll leave it to your discretion on exactly how this is best formatted, but please do correct it as the meaning is wrong. 2.97.33.138 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Sam Sailor 16:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't need a consensus on this because it has been misquoted and you can check it yourself. It's objective, not subjective. Please take a proper look at what I'm commenting on, because your response shows misunderstanding.2.97.40.193 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the IP editor does have a valid point. To say, as we do 'that Brexit will likely reduce' requires a definition of Brexit, which depends on who you ask. There is wide range of possibilities from the the Norway option to the Mauritania option. So it would be better to report the source as accurately as we can, especially since it side-stepped the trap that our text walks into. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article
 * states that "Brexit .... is the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.... At present, Brexit is impending under the EU Treaties and the UK Acts of Parliament, and the current negotiations pursuant thereto."
 * Lists in the Terminology section variants
 * ranging from "Clean break Brexit... means the UK would leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement"
 * and "No deal Brexit ... means the UK would leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement"
 * to "Slow Brexit... a longer period of political uncertainty in which members of Parliament will debate the next steps of Britain’s departure from the European Union"
 * and "Soft Brexit ... any deal that involves retaining membership in the European Single Market and at least some free movement of people according to (EEA) rules".
 * Does the source support attributing the commentator's opinion to the whole range indiscriminately? Qexigator (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

What are the Conservative party candidates' positions on a 2nd referendum?
Would be quite interesting. --BJforSR (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but not in this overloaded article. Is there a UK Conservative Party leadership election, 2019 or some such? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * the article is at 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, but I will create a redirect from the title you used as that's a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Study on impact on financial sector
Should the following sentence be added to the section about Brexit's impact on the British financial sector: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"According to a 2019 study, Brexit will adversely affect London-based financial institutions; by the most conservative estimate, FDI stocks will decline by 12% and foreign portfolio investments will decline by as much as 30%."

The study in question is peer-reviewed. It is authored by the economists Barry Eichengreen (University of California, Berkeley), William Jungerman (University of Minnesota) and Mingyang Liu (University of Southern California).

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. This is a peer-reviewed study by recognized experts. It provides important context as to Brexit's impact on financial institutions in the UK. It passes WP:DUE and WP:RS by any measure. On Wikipedia, we ought to use the best available sources, and in particular welcome peer-reviewed academic sources ("usually the most reliable sources"). We should use more academic sources, not less. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support After reading the study, I think a short mention may be helpful. I also agree with Jopal22 that the page Economic effects of Brexit may be a better place for the content than this article.  This article is getting large and adding it here means it may not have the same impact. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, but I would add the caveat that I would like it to read "...by the study's most conservative estimate...". The first time I read that sentence I was unsure of what the comparison was to. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per my comments in the above section. This is excessive detail, based on estimates, covering an area that is already covered overly generously in my view, within what should be a broad-scope article that is already 73,000 characters long. The article already has a paragraph of general statements regarding the financial sector. The article should not be a coatrack for predictions and estimates about the economic implications of Brexit. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we should be careful making sure this page doesn't go into excessive detail. There is the page Economic effects of Brexit that I think would be more suited to this Jopal22 (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support c.f. Snooganssnoogans, the texts in academic assessments typically include reasons and are more appropriate for readers than politicians views. JRPG (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a reliable sources that gives an estimate of the immense impact Brexit will have on British society. Why wouldn't it be here? How could this possibly be described as "excessive detail"? I guess anything other than "Brexit means Brexit" qualifies as "excessive detail" for some people who are trying to bury this. PraiseVivec (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The linked article's title is "Brexit, the City of London, and the prospects for portfolio investment". The informative value of the proposed sentence, in the context of the Brexit article as a whole, is not dependent on whether or not it is "academic", "scientific" or "peer reviewed". Regardless of the immediate source, and its remoter sources citing IMF's Consolidated Portfolio Investment Survey and data from BIS, the sentence is no better than a headline snippet of (presumably good) investment advice for funds management (an important function in macro- and micro- economic operations). The article on Economic effects of Brexit offers a context for information of this kind. Qexigator (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim that this content is only pertinent info for readers who need help investing is inane. Per our own Financial services in the United Kingdom article, the financial services in the UK employs 1.2 million people (approx. 4% of the total workforce) and accounts for 11.6% of the total UK government tax receipts. A credible peer-reviewed assessment by leading experts that the financial industry will be badly harmed has broader relevance than this editor lets on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that Snoog.'s comment misrepresents mine as if it claimed "that this content is only pertinent info for readers who need help investing" suggests that Snoog.'s editorial judgment may be lacking sufficient npov. Qexigator (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Called by bot. A short description of the results of this peer reviewed paper should definitely be included. A longer description of the results should be included in the article on Economic effects of Brexit. Darx9url (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Speculation isn't factual. It doesn't matter how trustworthy anyone is, this is still speculation and has no place here. Factual and neutral, and seeing this isn't factual, it shouldn't be thereGregnator (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This^ account was created today for what its worth. Plus, the editor's sole contributors (besides this RfC comment) is to remove RS text from the Wikipedia article of a Dutch far-right party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose (quite strongly), estimates without a margin of error are completely useless. Especially so in a situation with such uncertainty. Even if improved it probably is too much detail in here (unless this is *the* leading study) - (coming from the wp:FRS) Nabla (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm no statistician but, re error estimates, I took a look at the cited source and see "Robust standard errors in parentheses" there. I'm thinking that this might be a factor in reliability of the study's assertions (or might not -- I'm no statistician). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. And as a reminder that WP:CRYSTAL exists for a good reason, remember all the economists who said that the gov't shutdown would hurt the US economy? How'd that turn out?Adoring nanny (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Per every post-hoc analysis, the shutdown DID harm the US economy, so the expert ante-hoc forecasts about the impact were correct. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it cost the US economy $11 billion (and this excludes indirect costs that were too hard to quantify). The White House's own Council of Economic Advisors found that Trump's shutdown was harming the economy. So, your example of how experts are just idiots who throw out random guesses is pretty much the best example of how the reverse is true. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But the "consensus" prediction was 2.5%. If one accepts your argument that without the shutdown, it would have been even higher than the actual 3.1%, it still looks good for WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, note that financial market predictions are notoriously bad in general, typically even worse than economic projections. All the more reason to follow WP:CRYSTAL.Adoring nanny (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (bot-summon) Oppose as worded, in particular the by the most conservative estimate which is ambiguous (it is the most conservative estimate from that study, not overall), as well as tongue-in-cheek considering the politics of Brexit. Citing study bounds (between X and Y) would be acceptable if the study is one of the most prominent ones on the subject (I have no idea whether that is true, since I have no familiarity with the field). Tigraan Click here to contact me 06:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment : The article is not a good place for headline snippets of investment advice of any kind, or economic statistics purporting to make forecasts, but with implicit political and/or other POV assumptions of remoter sources such as IMF or BIS (that may or may not influence the UK and/or EU as the negotiating parties), unless explained with sufficient detail (see Note below) of an extent that would be disproportionate ("undue") if placed in the main text. The linked website gives the Keywords: "Brexit International capital flows City of London Portfolio investment".
 * Note: The source's abstract states (emphasis added) as a conclusion that "the impact on cross-border capital flows to and from the UK is likely to be substantial", and that this conclusion is based on "a survey of the still limited literature on EU membership and international capital flows...new estimates of the impact of Brexit on cross-border investment utilizing data from the IMF’s Consolidated Portfolio Investment Survey (CPIS)... a comparative analysis of these same issues using data on crossborder capital flows from the BIS. The source is concerned with "Portfolio investment" in respect of "International capital flows" and the "City of London" (the UK's main financial district). Its conclusion is based on estimates "utilizing data from the IMF’s Consolidated Portfolio Investment Survey" (CPIS)...  and a comparative analysis "using data on crossborder capital flows from the BIS".  The CPIS "is a voluntary data collection exercise conducted under the auspices of the IMF that collects an economy's data on its holdings of portfolio investment securities (data are separately requested for equity and investment fund shares, long-term debt instruments, and short-term debt instruments). All economies are encouraged to participate."
 * Qexigator (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)revised 00:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The argument that the study is unreliable because it uses data from the IMF and BIS is absurd. The assumption here is that the IMF and BIS are faking data about the UK, which is an extraordinary and entirely unsubstantiated claim. There is also a basic misunderstanding of how studies work with weird scare quotes about what is essentially normal scientific language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans here uses hyperbole to misrepresent the above Comment, which neither argues or claims "that the study is unreliable because it uses data from the IMF and BIS", nor remarks upon its use of "normal scientific language". Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The IMF's CPIS is described as "a voluntary data collection exercise conducted under the auspices of the IMF that collects an economy's data on its holdings of portfolio investment securities (data are separately requested for equity and investment fund shares, long-term debt instruments, and short-term debt instruments). All economies are encouraged to participate." Qexigator (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * further Comment. Given the current version of the "Impacts" section, should we reconsider moving (all or most of) the subsection "Affecting the United Kingdom and the European Union" to the other articles that cover the same topics, such as Brexit and the Irish border, Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit, Impact of Brexit on the European Union, Economic effects of Brexit? Qexigator (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes sense to have sub-sections divided depending on whether they impact 'both the EU and UK', 'mainly the UK' and 'mainly the EU'. For example, all the impacts on the economy (whether the British economy or those of other EU members) should be in one sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See now current version. Qexigator (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Impacts
If I was from a country that has no dog in the ring over Brexit I would read the Impacts section and consider the British to be irrational for leaving because it is overwhelmingly negative with little to no positive aspects.

For a start the section is not balanced as the subsections tend to emphasize negative affects on Britain while not mentioning positive/negative effects on Europe. For example in the academic section it states "" then presumably that means more cash for research in other EU countries. Given a simple economic model of the market place without further explanation the two sentences in the fisheries section "" need more of an explanation. The section on security mentions the problems for Britain, but not for other European countries--for example Britain exporting troubles to other European countries as happened during The Troubles. It also does not mention the advantages to Five Eyes of the reduction of European institutions oversight and potential meddling (eg as happen in 2000–2001 Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System).

If I was from a country that has no dog in the ring, then I may not be aware of the benefits that some consider to be worth the economic cost. It has been pointed out by several observers that many leavers were from those regions that were left behind economically and work in minimum wage jobs they just do not believe that things can get any worse, and so might get better. A second group are those who think that the economic costs are outweighed by the constitutional benefits as was shown in the recent YouGov poll of Tory members.

To understand this apparent turkeys voting for Christmas one has to include in the impact section the perceived non-economic benefits that accrue if Britain leaves in October 2019 as perceived by Leavers. If UK leaves without a deal, then the British government and Parliament recovers control of some areas of competence that have been ceded to EU institutions, for example the UK Supreme Court will become the Supreme Count of the land with citizens having no right to appeal to the European Court of Justice. There are others Such as MPs being able to hold HMG to account for all aspects of government, and it is that sort of thing that needs to be in the section on impacts if the section is to have a neutral presentation of the issue. -- PBS (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not a "feelings" section. It's about effects. The political arguments for/against Brexit and/or the reasons why people voted LEAVE/REMAIN can be included in a separate section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where in what I wrote do you infer that "feelings" come into it? -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Another thing we're concerned about Brexit...
Re European Free Trade Association (EFTA)

When will the United Kingdom rejoin the EFTA after leaving the European Union? :/ --62.63.238.25 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Who knows? but as the 'red lines' stand, British membership of EFTA is ruled out (single market participation, free movement, co-decision with ECJ). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But WHY!? The United Kingdom MUST return back to EFTA after leaving the EU, because of that 2016 referendum! Otherwise, it'll be totally unfair! :O --62.63.238.25 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that?
 * Yes, I know that the leading Brexiteers proposed before that the UK would adopt the "Norway option" (= EFTA) but afterwards declared that it meant totally walk away. The referendum question was "do you want the UK to leave or remain" and, unlike constitutional referendums in other countries, exactly what was meant by 'leave' was not legally defined beforehand. Being formally an advisory referendum, it was for Parliament to decide what it meant and the Conservative Government decided that it meant leave everything and the Labour Party voted with the government to invoke Article 50 without any practical plan of action. I must stop there as this is at risk of contravening wp:NOTFORUM.
 * I have not seen anyone of note say anything in the past three years about rejoining EFTA and indeed the indication from at least Norway is that the UK would not be ever so welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Labour switches to second referendum default
This is significant news: it effectively makes Labour a Remain party, with the Conservatives and Brexit Party as the Brexit parties. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that it is not accurate. Read Corbyn's statement closely and you will see that, pace May, nothing has changed. He is still saying that Labour wants a GE and, it it should win, will negotiate its own version of Brexit, just not the "Tory brexit", but leave still means leave. The reference to a referendum is only that IF there is a second referendum (which Labour will not try to make happen) THEN he will campaign for remain. The probability of having to deliver is negligible. It is "just a different way of fence sitting". And it is not just vox pop: an LD spokesman said
 * Except except .. a Tory-Hard-Brexit resembles driving into a wall in 100 mph. Corbyn wouldn't do any such stupid thing. A Labour-negotiation may well end in a result that pleases the UK, and a third referendum can then be held. On top of all this Tory-mess (and remember it was Tory-PM Heath who brought UK in, in the first place - and the first referendum (1975) came as Harold Wilson had returned) the current PM now wishes Corbyn to appologise to the Jews (!!!). I think that just proves she thinks in terms of British Jews vs British non-Jews. Boeing720 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * “a Tory-Hard-Brexit resembles driving into a wall in 100 mph. Corbyn wouldn't do any such stupid thing. A Labour-negotiation may well end in a result that pleases the UK, ” Please understand, Boeing720, that all of that is opinion.   Boscaswell   talk  21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, to a certain degree I have to appoligise. I got a bit carried away. Still a third referendum isn't written off by Corbyn. Have you studied the consequences for the hardest possible Brexit ? Britain would not be like Norway or Switzerland today or like Britain before 1973. There are quite a lot agreements and regulations between the EU and those countries, and it was the same between Britain and the EEC before 1973. At a no deal Brexit there will suddenly be no regulations at any level. Within a few weeks after 31.October, shipping, air traffic, transfers of money etc will sees to be, between Britain and the EU, as there will be no rules for them. Within a few weeks just everything will close down. These are the prospects for the hardest possible Brexit . And it's not any punishment from the EU, but just a consequence of the lack of regulations. I haven't read anything on NATO, but I doubt that alliance can function together with a no deal Brexit. And it seems fairly clear by now, this is just what the Tories desire. Boeing720 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject of this section is whether the Labour Party has switched to a second referendum by default, or not. Your speculation is wandering into WP:FORUM territory. Britmax (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wiki is not a forum. There are doubts about what Labour's position actually is so let's stick to what reliable sources say. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Rename discussion at Talk:Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit
I've opened a rename discussion at the above page which people may be interested in, to rename it to No-deal Brexit. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

WeWork £55.7m cost
It looks like Brexit will provide additional costs (€6.5m or £55.7m) for taxpayers, if ex-EMA's american tenant has to be paid €6.5m for the first year, as a result of the UK's decision to leave the bloc. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/22/wework-us-brexit-european-medicines-agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.251 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The name of Gina Miller is not even mentioned
The court case R (Miller) v Secretary etc. is mentioned. But there is no word on who brought it - and why etc. (‎2001:16b8:5c53:ce00:c562:1456:9084:cae7 06:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The information about the case is readily accessible by the inline links. Qexigator (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifically and quite early in the article, under Timeline then 2017: 24 January: The UK Supreme Court rules in the Miller case that Parliament must pass legislation to authorise the triggering of Article 50.
 * I think your query confirms that the article is too long and too detailed already without bogging it down in even more detail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2019
"In the event of a No Deal Brexit, UK aviation would seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British flyers." should be "In the event of a No Deal Brexit, UK aviation would be seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British flyers." 194.78.36.66 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for pointing that out! <b style="font-family:verdana;color:#2b601f">aboideau</b><sup style="color:#474647">talk 15:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

no link to full text of the manifesto, there are two links to news media summaries
This line in the article "This was included in the Conservative Party manifesto for the election." should include a reference to the full text of the manifesto which should be most unbiased source of information, in addition to the two news media summaries already cited.
 * That sounds right, we always favour secondary sources over primary sources, the news summaries demonstrate notability. I don't see why we need to include the original manifesto, primary sources are typically more biased and political manifesto is a good example of where this might occur. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was looking at it from the perspective of 20+ years from now, someone looking back trying to find out why the referendum was initiated, and being able to quote from primary source material is generally considered good at least for research papers. I never realised that it was Wikimedia policy to only reference secondary sources of information. That seems odd to me, and I do agree that any political manifesto is biased, but it is still a primary source of information.

79.97.229.225 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC) longtimereader1 13 August 2019

German translation of "fight with every bone in my body"
The German press translates Mr. Berkow's statement "...I will fight it with every bone in my body to stop that happening" as 'er werde "bis zum zum letzten Atemzug kämpfen" and Der Spiegel even uses it as the filename of the page:john-bercow-kuendigt-boris-johnson-kampf-bis-zum-letzten-atemzug-an-a-1281808.html.

In everyday verbal usage this German phrase is meant without dark connotation but in written speech that connotation definitely looms in the background: The 1-1 English re-translation of the German press translation would be "fight to the last breath". I doubt that his original phrase has this connotation.

The 1-1 German translation of the original phrase would be "mit jedem Knochen meines Körpers" what is very uncommon in everyday usage. But I think that the common German phrase "mit Leib und Seele dafür streiten/kämpfen" (= "fight with heart and soul") is much closer to the English original. --Moreevo (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It may be that Der Spiegel's translation is perfectly apt. If Bercow said those words, he may have chosen them carefully in a way that most English speakers (including Der Spiegel's political reporters and editors), sufficiently alert to his customary bombast and self-esteem in respect of his function as HoC Speaker, will see for what it is, nothing more than a declaration of intent to act in any way he can "to stop that happening", a statement from him that is unsurprising in the circumstances, whether or not he could equally have said "to the last breath", which would recall Macbeth's well-known words "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow ....Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,/ To the last syllable of recorded time;/ And all our yesterdays have lighted fools/ The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!/ Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more. It is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/ Signifying nothing". Qexigator (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What is the meaning of the expression "fight with every bone in my body" in British English? Can it really have the meaning "fight to the last breath" (->fight to the bitter end, fight without limits, fight with gloves off)?? Or does it signal dedication and the willingness to go to great lengths but without recourse to going ugly? --Moreevo (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It means that he will use every procedural means available to him. As he must if the Executive gets above itself, since in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, it is Parliament (not the Executive) that is sovereign. See War of the Three Kingdoms and the Glorious Revolution.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"Opponents of the EU Withdrawal Agreement expressed fears that the agreement as drafted could plunge Northern Ireland into a conflict and spark a return of The Troubles."
It is remarkable that this article contains such a biased piece of pro-Brexit propaganda right in its introduction. The truth is that the Withdrawal Agreement was drafted to avoid conflicts in Northern Ireland and that no backstop would mean a hard border and the return of The Troubles. A possible source for this is the Withdrawal Agreement itself, but I'm sure the editors of this article want to keep it this way: an unbalanced pro-Brexit propaganda piece. Rominator (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have deleted that assertion from the lead as it is not a summary of any body content (per WP:LEAD) and in any case is unsourced. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rominator (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The DUP have argued (citation somewhere) that the WA would change the constitutional status of NI to the disadvantage of the Unionist community without their consent, contrary to the principles of the GFA. The Nationalist community argues that Brexit itself changes the constitutional status of NI as expressed in "the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

- preamble to the associated Treaty
 * without their consent. So the text was defensible but unbalanced and didn't summarise any body content. --Red King (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At the risk of breaching WP:NOTFORUM, it might be argued that the people of Northern Ireland were consulted and voted substantially against this change in their constitutional status. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a regular editor of this and related pages, but I note after some reading that the Belfast agreement apparently says that under the now-defunct Thresa May proposed deal people born in Northern Ireland (NI) were to be able to retain their EU citizenship. That may be defunct now and, if so, it might be an issue in NI. If WP:RS sources show it to be an issue worth mentioning, info about it ought to be presented on whichever detail page is most appropriate and mentioned/wikilinked from other pages where it is relevant. The Northern Ireland page might be a more appropriate place for details on this than this one (Brexit is briefly mentioned there). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the draft WA that did that but rather the GFA, which recognised the right of people born in NI [to a British or Irish parent] to be "British, Irish or both". (See Northern Ireland), So yes they can assert their European identity through their Irish identity. Any edits to the NI article are potentially controversial so it may be best not to add anything until the dust settles. Meanwhile, see Brexit and the Irish border. It looks like citizenship is the least of their problems except to the extent that it will allow them to go look for work in Poland. Auf Wiedersehen, Pet time again! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"Lots of fantastic mini-deals" with the United States
A comprehensive trade agreement would be highly preferable to "lots of fantastic mini-deals". It would be bad if Britain would have to sign a series of mini-deals with the U.S., perhaps would even have to look from year to year. What is Boris Johnson willing to offer to get a comprehensive and lasting agreement, perhaps the Bermuda Islands and Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha and more leverage over the Strait of Gibraltar? Wouldn't that pale in comparison to the high-flying American Greenland deal plans? The backstop with a back-up stop (i.e. distant expiration date) would be in accordance to the vote and British and European needs. --Moreevo (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. I'm afraid this has crossed the wp:notforum line and will have to end here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Political declaration: weakness in this article
When reading this article, I cannot find what the unilateral political declaration says. This is a weakness of this Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article of the withdrawal agreement suffers this same problem.

Nothaynes (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Timeline: poor editing
3 September: "A motion for an emergency debate to pass a bill that would rule out a unilateral no-deal Brexit by forcing the Government to reach an Agreement, get parliamentary approval for no-deal Brexit." Come again? Is that what it was? Nothing about forcing the PM to request another extension? 4 September: "The Benn Bill ..." what exactly is the Benn bill? Boscaswell  talk  04:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)