This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. United Kingdom C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fedegarb, Jovanna13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jovanna13.

This section of the article began with a statement that could be interpreted as technically incorrect and doesn't chime with the article's summary. I have changed it from 'As a majority of UK voters have supported leaving the EU' to 'As a majority of UK votes supported leaving the EU'. There's a clear distinction between voters and active voters and I think the article should be unambiguous. Chris Jefferies (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good edit. Qexigator (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, a voter is someone who votes (ie actually does so, not merely eligible to do so). If a person did not vote in the referendum he/she is not a voter. Sumorsǣte (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That introduces an ambiguity into what should be clear. Votes are counted. Voters are not. Midgley (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone did not vote in the EU referendum does not mean they are not a voter - they may have voted in other elections. I support the wording of Chris Jefferies Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the distinction under discussion is that between voters (those who voted when given the opportunity) and electors (those who possessed the opportunity to vote, whether or not they acted on the opportunity). Harfarhs (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section as it currently stands asserts that the UK has 'the second largest economy". This is uncited and dubious. AFIK (but can't cite either, so haven't changed it to 'third'), France has the second largest GDP. Certainly 20% devaluation of Sterling won't have helped! So I've tagged it as 'citation needed' and 'dubious' until someone can produce the data to support it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was cited. I have added a quotation (with translation) to the citation and removed the citation-needed tag.I have left the dubious tag for the time being.--Boson (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I have removed the tag because the citation says 'the second largest'. [I have since found a source that says that, in 2014, the UK economy was USD 2.99tn whereas that of France was USD 2.85tn. Obviously USD denomination means that currency fluctuations can cause headline grabbing swaps in the league table, which must be what stuck in my memory. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The immigration issue is mentioned in the article, but article could be improved by explaining how for instance Hungary could build a some kind of fence or wall even, in order to stop immigration - and is still a EU-member. Correct me if I'm wrong - but the day after London was awarded the 2012 Olympics, did four horrible terrorist-actions take place in London (and unlike IRA in the 70'ies was no warning call given, what so ever). Was that the beginning of the immigration matter ? Does Brexit-voters think that it will be safer, after the UK leaves the EU ? Or do they fear immigrants from for instance Belgium and Poland more than Sharia-Law areas etc ? Or was this question simply a jam, which was used by various "Eurosceptics" ? I feel more could be added to the immigration part and what it meant for the voters and perhaps also in what way, they had began to fear immigrants. It was a main topic before the referendum, wasn't it ? (And besides this, will foreign football players, managers and club owners be thrown out, when the day comes ? Belgium and Poland was not quite randomly chosen EU-members, by the way) Boeing720 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to answer those questions. Of course, if reliable sources discuss them, the article can mention them as well. But, it's complicated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, of course. But we should always also aim to explain the full story, when and if possible. Boeing720 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also have this article - Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit. The issues you raise are best discussed there, if anywhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add Theresa May's catchphrase Brexit means Brexit to the article? It has been widely used and I think it deserves a mention.

Kind regards, Chielbuseyne (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

brexit means brexit adds nothing to the more important argument of what will be the effects of brexit...a catchphrase using any word such as bread means bread again tells us nothing whereas the one i remember that did was that more means more ...which tells us that man does often wrongly but often by his greed and stupidity think that more is going to improve the situation...however one thing the catchphrase does indicate is that theresa isnt fit to be a our leader by her thoughts that she knows better than everybody else so they had better shut up and do what she says.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddybrad (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddybrad: Wikipedia is not a forum for personal opinions. Feel free to contribute to the article by citing reliable sources. — JFG ^talk 11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boson: I don't speak German, so wondered if you could provide a translation here of the part of the German source that supports your addition of: "this would include, for instance, export of German cars produced in the United Kingdom". I cannot quite understand why the Germans would have to pay the tariff to the UK for cars produced in the UK, or even why cars produced in the UK (MINIs I presume) need to be exported to the UK - if indeed that is what is meant by this addition. -- de Facto (talk). 00:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: The German report is specifically talking about the problems for German carmakers with manufacturing plants in the UK, so the tariffs are paid to EU countries, not Britain (as the old text said), when the cars are exported to EU countries, e.g. France. Cars exported from Germany to Britain might very well also attract a similar tariff but I couldn't find a statement that specifically supported that in the source. To clarify, I will change it to refer to "German car manufacturers with production plants in the UK" rather than "German cars".

The German text was:

• "Im schlechtesten Szenario einigt man sich nicht auf neue Abkommen, um die Effekte des Binnenmarktaustritts abzufedern, mit der Folge, dass nicht nur das VK durch höhere Zölle belastet würde, sondern auch bspw. deutsche Automobilunternehmer mit Produktionsstätten in Großbritannien."

Roughly translated:

• "In the worst-case scenario, no new agreements are reached to cushion the effects of the exit from the single market, with the result that not only the UK would be burdened with higher tariffs, but also, for instance, German automobile companies with manufacturing plants in Great Britain."

The Handelsblatt says:

• " Britain’s departure from the union could also impact German carmakers which have operations in the United Kingdom. German producers have increasingly set up operations in Britain in recent years. German manufacturers produced 216,000 cars in Britain in 2015, 11 percent more than the previous year, according to the VDA. There are more than 100 locations where German companies build cars or car parts in Britain – an increase of 30 percent since 2010. BMW has four operations with 8,000 employees in the country, where it produces the Mini brand. "

So it definitely appears to be especially about German manufacturers making cars and parts in the UK. I presume the Bundestag report would have got a lot of input from German carmakers, who would be keen to point out that high tariffs on cars from the UK would affect German companies, not just Japanese ones.

As regards the other details, the German says

• " Der durchschnittliche handelsgewichtete Zolltarif der EU unter den WTO-Regeln ist seit Gründung der WTO 1995 nach Angaben des Haushaltsausschusses des britischen Unterhauses deutlich von 7,4 auf aktuell noch 2,4 Prozent gesunken. Dabei bestehen zwischen unterschiedlichen Gütern jedoch große Unterschiede; etwa wäre der Handel mit Automobilen mit 9,7 Prozent deutlich stärker betroffen."

Roughly translated:

• According to information from the Treasury Committee of the British House of Commons, the average trade-weighted customs tariff of the EU under WTO rules has fallen markedly from 7.4 to currently only 2.4 per cent since the establishment of the WTO in 1995. However, there are large variations between different goods; trade in automobiles, for instance, with 9.7 per cent would be affected much more severely.

-- Boson (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boson: thanks for your trouble translating and explaining. So the reference is more about the worst case tariffs that might have to be paid to import British-made goods into EU countries than to import anything made in the EU into the UK. -- de Facto (talk). 15:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of edits that have been reverted in the last day or so by William M. Bugbee seeking to change the lead to suggest that Brexit is "prospective" until it happens. Rather than edit warring and reverting one another, it's probably best for the involved users to post their thoughts on the talk page. There has been a previous discussion further up the page at Talk:Brexit#Comment invited on "Brexit is..." which sort of fizzled out and we are now left where we are.

My personal opinion is that not referring to Brexit as either prospective or proposed is not a violation of NPOV. The current unstated 'consensus' seems reasonable, but it'd be good to see if anyone can present an opposing argument.

Pinging User:MjolnirPants/User:MPants at work and User:EddieHugh. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement was that I came across this through some pending changes patrolling. I have no real opinion on the issue, I only reverted the pending edit because I knew it would be contentious, and because previous edits had reverted this same change. I did try to give an explanation as to why it's being reverted: this is one of those wording changes that I think should be discussed first. It looks like the setup for a POV shift.

Again, I don't really have an opinion here, my revert was mostly procedural/policy based. This should be discussed on the talk page before it flares up (further) into an edit war. I'll watchlist the page for now and try to follow the discussion, in case my participation is any help in achieving a consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of recent wording changes[1]:

• in the first sentence, to add "prospective" is accurate,[2] NPOV, and avoids misreading the words as implying an accomplished fact.
• in the second sentence, "intends" correctly and NPOV states what the government intends and is now actively pursuing, per White Paper: "We will trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union by the end of March 2017 to begin the process of exit." Qexigator (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely linguistic. Some argue that 'Brexit is the proposed withdrawal...' is correct because it might not happen; some argue that 'Brexit is the withdrawal', followed by a sentence or two specifying that it hasn't yet happened is better because the thing (a British exit) is what it is, irrespective of whether it's going to happen / has happened, etc. See Scottish independence, Catalan independence, End time, etc etc. for support for the latter argument: first say what something is, then add any detail and qualifications. If that's not enough, apply logic: the naturally worded question "what effects might/will Brexit have?" means 'what might/will be the impact of the UK leaving?', not 'what might/will be the impact of the UK possibly leaving?' EddieHugh (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per contra. compare "Grexit": "Greek withdrawal from the eurozone is the potential exit of Greece from the eurozone monetary union in the 2010s, primarily for the country to deal with its government-debt crisis. The controversial and much discussed possible exit is often referred to as "Grexit", a portmanteau..." Of course, that one never happened. Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it being changed there! We could go the whole way and change "Brexit" to "Proposed United Kingdom Withdrawal from the European Union", in the style of Proposed second Scottish independence referendum! But that wasn't even the earlier title ("Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union"), which opened with "is a political aim" pre-referendum, not "is a proposed political aim". Let's try a different approach: does the balance of recent sources use "Brexit is the proposed..." or do they use "Brexit is..."? I'll start with the BBC, which gave "It is a word that has become used as a shorthand way of saying the UK leaving the EU" on 1 February. EddieHugh (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also somewhat redundant now as the user in question has been blocked as a sockpuppet... —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With it established that there was some impropriety going on with the editor whom I reverted, I think I will leave my involvement at this and unwatch the page. So ping me if you want my response, and you all enjoy your editing! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, inserting "prospective" is not merely acceptable, and not worth quibbling about in the name of semantics or otherwise, but a positive improvement, as above stated. The SP's "possible", however, was not acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ On Brexit becoming an accomplished fact (no longer "prospective") the wording could be simply adapted: "The United Kingdom's prospective withdrawal from the European Union <+>on d/m/y</+> is widely known as Brexit, a portmanteau of "British" and "exit". The first two sentences of the first section could be retained unchanged: "Brexit (like its early variant, Brixit) is a portmanteau of "British" and "exit". It was derived by analogy from Grexit, referring to a hypothetical withdrawal of Greece from the eurozone (and possibly also the EU). The term Brexit may have first been used in reference to a possible UK withdrawal from the EU by Peter Wilding in a Euractiv blog post on 15 May 2012."; but the text following would need to be updated. Qexigator (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Prospective" sounds particularly odd now, given recent events which are firmly establishing the government's intent to follow through on the people's decision. If we need a qualifier at all, I would suggest "forthcoming" which has been used in prior versions and neutrally reflects the path on which the country has embarked. — JFG ^talk 09:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You're missing the point here. The consensus was that Brexit meant the actual withdrawal, which may or may not take place. Not the possibility of withdrawal. So under that interpretation there is no need to qualify the word at all in defining it, even if you think it's only 1% likely to happen.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...missing the point... Please see above NPOV reasoning: "prospective" is particularly apt, relevant and accurate at the present time, until it happens. The opening sentence should be immediately informative and not speculative (as in "forthcoming": there are still many unknowns in the months/years ahead), especially for a person with no more than hazy prior knowledge or less, from any part of the UK, Europe or elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending would be the most accurate descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so: has technical connotations in legal parlance such as Griffith v. Kentucky and Patent pending, unsuited to this context. Qexigator (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Prospective" seems right to me, neutral, factual and widely used. Doesn't imply "already happened", implies that it will happen barring the unforeseen - it is in prospect. "Forthcoming" sounds to me far too specific - as in "the forthcoming Stoke by-election", where the date is known. "Possible" is history. I wouldn't go into an edit war over the choice, just my 2 cents. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Prospective" is the best, at the moment. "Pending" and "forthcoming" imply too much certainty, and "proposed" too much uncertainty. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information to this section on 20 February 2017 but some of this was removed a few hours later. Can someone please take a look at the text I added because the argument in this section is now incomplete.

The section speaks of funding issues but fails to explain that the research community in the UK counts many non-UK scientists (including PhD students). The article already mentioned that UK researchers received a disproportionate amount of EU research funding. I added the concrete example of the European Research Council (ERC), as the addition puts this in context. Brexit will affect the non-British research community in the UK but, if the non-British scientists leave post-Brexit, it will also penalize British science. The UK receives more ERC grants than any other EU country and more than 40% of these grants are awarded to non-British scientists based in the UK. The ERC example is also interesting in the context of Switzerland, since this country is the greatest beneficiary of ERC grants per capita, even though it is not an EU member. Switzerland also hosts a large number of non-Swiss researchers. (I provided some recent data to back up this assertion.) There are thus parallels with the UK. Switzerland is entitled to participate in the ERC because it accepts the four freedoms of the EU, including the freedom of movement. However, the Swiss model, which has been proposed as an alternative for the UK to EU membership, may not fit the UK circumstances, owing to Switzerland's changed circumstances since its own anti-mass migration referendum in 2014. Following this referendum, which restricted freedom of movement, the Swiss almost lost access to EU research funding through Horizon 2020 (negotations with the EU are still ongoing). The Brexit article states that one professor has suggested that Switzerland could be an alternative model. More information is needed to nuance this statement and provide a more balanced picture.

If you don't think this is the best place for the text discussing the pros and cons of the Swiss model for the UK research community, would it be a good idea to create a new subsection on this aspect?

I also added the information from a Nature opinion poll that 83% of UK scientists are pro-remain, as this serves to establish the state of mind of the UK research community. The only two citations in the current text are of the editor of American Scientist and of a UKIP supporter. They are not representative of the wider British research community.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot seem to access the revisions in question. From your summary, though, I'm not sure if it warrants an entire sub-section. Picking quotes you feel are more representative and substituting them instead would be a less onerous revision, I'd think. Vision Insider (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It took me a lot of time to put up the material that was removed, including the numerous sources. Can you please put it back on the Brexit page and I shall edit it for content. I can add more quotes if you like but an encyclopedia should also back up statements with factual information that includes data to enable readers to see both sides of the argument, in this case the pros and cons of the Swiss model for the UK post-Brexit. The section analyses the potential effects of the Brexit on UK science. Given that UK universities are strong, largely thanks to their capacity to attract non-UK scientists and students, leaving the European Research Area would have a big impact on UK academia. The best scientists would be tempted to leave the UK for EU countries, in order to retain access to European research grants like those of the ERC. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan- if you review the history of the article you can pick up your previous material, copy and paste into a text file, work on it then copy and paste back into this talk page or the article.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Schneegans: You could put your revised proposed text here, for comment by others, and if seen as acceptable, then insert in the article. Qexigator (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed this information from the article again. @Susan Schneegans: - you NEED to seek consensus for your changes, at this point it's not optional. Your additions will be removed otherwise. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick thought...I am getting the impression that WP:SCOPE might be getting relevant here. Encyclopedias summarize knowledge, rather than try to contain all of it. @Susan Schneegans:...I applaud your enthusiasm and your knowledge on the topic, but even I who works for an European Institution (and so I am concerned with Brexit) find it very hard to follow your edits in all their overwhelming splendour . Lectonar (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is today, imho the 'effect on academia' is unduly long relative to the effects on trade, economy, and financial services. I would prefer to see it simply reduced in length, as currently much of it can only be speculative, and what is not speculative is not (yet) of huge effect. However, if you can find sufficient interest, it's hard to object to a dedicated article in which the exposition can be at length.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best way forward is for me to paste the text I have added in below, so that you can comment on it directly. Note that I have added a couple of sentences and two related references, one of them to a speech by the PM in November 2017. I am not the author of the last paragraph on professor and UKIP campaigner Angus Dalgleish. Most of the references I use in the text below cite academic publications, including Nature magazine and the UNESCO Science Report.

Effect on academia[edit source]

Despite a persistently low research intensity by EU standards – 1.63% of GDP in 2013, compared to an EU average of 2.02% – the UK has a reputation for scientific excellence. It produces 15% of the world’s most highly cited articles for a share of just 4% of the global research pool.[164] About 32 000 non-British EU academics occupy 17% of UK university teaching and research posts.[1].^{[citation needed]} In 2012, the UK hosted the second-largest contingent of international PhD students in science and engineering (9%) after the USA (49%).[164] International fee-paying university students represent a key source of funding for the British university system. They also contribute to the UK's knowledge pool.[164]

As an EU member state, the UK participates in the European Research Area. All EU members contribute to the budget for each seven-year framework programme for research and innovation, the most recent of these being Horizon 2020, adopted in 2014. British research is a net beneficiary of EU funding. 'The UK receives billions of euros for research from the EU, mostly from its €74.8-billion Horizon 2020 programme'. For instance, in 2013, the UK received more research grants (over 1000) from the European Research Council (ERC) than any other EU country; 426 of these grants went to non-nationals based in the UK, the largest number of any EU country. Germany obtained just over 600 ERC grants.[163] [164]

The UK is also entitled to the EU's structural funds, which are increasingly being used to finance research-related infrastructure. Structural funds will be out of reach for the UK, however, once it leaves the EU. The withdrawal from the EU may also incite international firms to scale down their plans to invest in research and development in the UK. [164][165][166]

UK universities rely on the EU for around 16% of their total research funding and are disproportionately successful at winning EU-awarded research grants, as in the case of the European Research Council. This has raised questions about how such funding would be impacted by a British exit.[167][168] Jamie L Vernon, Editor in Chief of American Scientist, says that the equivalent of about $1 billion of Britain's scientific discovery has been paid for by European funding programmes every year and that these resources will now be called into question. "EU officials are calling for an immediate separation and British academics are already being asked to withdraw from EU-funded projects or to resign from leadership roles". Scientists in favour of staying in the EU have also noted that membership allows researchers to move freely between member states and to work with no restrictions. A group of leading British scientists wrote a letter to the Times on 22 May 2015 stating that ‘it is not sufficiently known to the public that the EU is a boon to UK science and innovation. Freedom of movement for talent and ambitious EU science funding programmes, which support vital, complex international collaborations, put the UK in a world-leading position'. A Nature poll in March 2016 found that 83% of UK scientists were in favour of remaining in the EU. Pro-remain scientists set up a Scientists for the EU website in 2015. [169] [170][171]

In August 2016, the British government promised to step in to pay UK contributions to Horizon 2020 projects after Brexit, provided that the projects were bid for before the day that the UK left the EU. In November 2016, the prime minister announced an increase in government investment in research and development worth £2 billion a year by 2020 and a new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund to back priority technologies.[2]

A July 2016 investigation by The Guardian suggested a large number of research projects in a wide range of fields had been hit after the referendum result.[174] They reported that European partners were reluctant to employ British researchers due to uncertainties over funding.[174] Some academics are contemplating moving to an EU country, in order to preserve their access to EU research funding post-Brexit. In February 2017, Jean-Michel Blanquer, dean and president of Essec Business School outside Paris, said that he had found some ‘strong interest’ among British colleagues in moving to the University of Paris Seine campus in France, a consortium of universities and related establishments that includes Essec Business School. This consortium has issued an invitation to British universities to establish campuses on site post-Brexit.[3] A number of EU politicians have also made ouvertures to the British academic community. For instance, when French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron addressed more than 2,000 French expatriates in London in February 2017, he called for nationals to return home and for British banks, researchers and academics to move across the Channel after Britain leaves the EU. [172][164][173]

Angus Dalgleish, professor at St George's, University of London, and UKIP campaigner, has argued that Britain paid much more into the EU research budget than it received and that existing European collaborations such as CERN and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) began long before the Lisbon Treaty, adding that leaving the EU would not damage British science.[175] Alan Sked, London School of Economics emeritus professor (and founder of UKIP), has pointed out that non-EU countries such as Israel and Switzerland have signed agreements with the EU in terms of the funding of collaborative research and projects. He has also suggested that, if Britain left the EU, Britain would be able to reach a similar agreement with the EU and said that educated people and research bodies would easily find some financial arrangement during an at least two-year transition period which was related to Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union (TEU).[176]

The impact of a Brexit on science and innovation will depend heavily on the post-withdrawal relationship between the UK and the EU. Were the UK to opt for the Norwegian model, it would remain both a member of the European Economic Area and an associated member of the European Research Area. The UK would continue to make a significant financial contribution to the EU. In this case, the UK would be subject to much of the body of EU law and policy, yet its future influence on the EU would be limited. This model would not be comptatible with the UK leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. [165][166]

Were the UK to opt for the Swiss model, it would not remain a member of the European Economic Area. A bilateral agreement with the EU allows Switzerland to take advantage of the main EU instruments in place for research, including the seven-year framework programmes for research and innovation, the Future and Emerging Technologies programme, the grants of the European Research Council and the Erasmus programme for student exchange. In return, Switzerland adheres to the four cornerstones of the EU's single market: the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. It has signed the Schengen agreement. However, the EU suspended negotiations on Switzerland’s participation as a full member in Horizon 2020, after the Swiss government informed it that giving citizens of the EU's new member state, Croatia, unrestricted access to the Swiss job market would be incompatible with the vote in the Swiss referendum of February 2014 approving stricter controls on immigration. On 22 December 2016, the Swiss parliament adopted a bill that gave priority to Swiss nationals and foreigners registered in Swiss job agencies but avoided introducing quotas on EU citizens. The EU approved the law, putting an end to a two-year crisis. The Swiss model would, thus, be incompatible with limiting EU immigration to the UK. [163][165][174][4]

Israel has participated in the EU’s framework programmes for research and innovation since 1996. Like Norway and Switzerland – but also Iceland, Moldova, Turkey, Ukraine and others – , it is associated with Horizon 2020 through a formal agreement and makes a financial contribution to EU research. For example, Israel has been a Scientific Associate of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) since 1999. When the agreement was renewed in 2013 for a fourth term of five years, Israel’s contribution was raised from 0.5% to 1.5% of ESRF’s budget.[165]

Additional references:

1. Henley, Jon; Kirchgaessner, Stephanie; Oltermann, Philip (25 September 2016). "Brexit fears may see 15% of UK university staff leave, group warns". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 February 2017. 2. May, Theresa (21 November 2016). "Transcript of speech delivered by Prime Minister Theresa May at CBI annual conference". UK Government. Retrieved 22 February 2017.

My immediate impression is that it is too long and needs to be reduced to the essentials. Time to exercise your précis skills!

Some important statements need supporting by citations, I've imbedded cn requests for your convenience.

Other statements need work. For example,

• • "British research is a key beneficiary of EU funding." "key" is subjective. Can you support "net"?
  • "as demonstrated by the aforementioned example." Can you find a way to merge these two paras succinctly. "Aforementioned" is not a good word to use on WP because texts get changed.
  • "might also incite" is very likely true but, per WP:CRYSTAL, it is not for us to speculate (though you may report a notable person saying so).
  • "Two models that are seen as being applicable to the UK" -> "were seen"? Although either of these models would certainly satisfy "the will of the people" as specified in the referendum wording, the Prime Minister appears to have decided to rule them out.
  • "However, after Switzerland tightened its immigration laws" - no it did not and still has not. See Swiss immigration referendum, February 2014.
  • The two UKIP academics - should have their names first and their affiliations afterwards.

I hope you find these comments useful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for proposing these thoughtful edits. They are indeed useful. I agree with your proposed word changes (key to net, dropping aforementioned, etc.). Should I incorporate your proposed changes in the text on the Talk page? Is the usual practice for me to incorporate these in the text? Or should I wait until more people endorse your proposals? Concerning the lack of citations, I should explain that I had spent hours adding citations for each para I drafted but these citations were lost when the paragraphs were removed by Wiki-editors. I had saved the text but not the embedded links. If the text is recovered by the Wikieditors, the links will reappear, I hope. What is the usual practice?

It is not easy to shorten the entry, as the topic of the potential effect of Brexit on British academia has quite a lot of different angles. You are right about the immigration laws. It is an error on my part. The statement needs deleting. I was trying to be concise. The original explanation for the hardening EU position was probably too detailed for the Brexit entry (it could possibly go on the Swiss referendum 2014 page with a cross-ref from the Brexit page for brevity?). It reads as follows (source: UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030, p. 307, CC-BY-SA license): 'Shortly after the Swiss referendum in February 2014, the Swiss government informed the EU and Croatia that it was unable to sign a protocol to its agreement with the European Commission that would have automatically extended this agreement to the new EU member state. Giving Croatian citizens unrestricted access to the Swiss job market would have been incompatible with the ‘yes’ vote of the Swiss on the ‘stop mass immigration’ referendum. The European Commission reacted by excluding Switzerland from research programmes potentially worth hundreds of millions of euros for its universities and suspended negotiations on Switzerland’s participation as a full member in the world’s largest and best-funded research and innovation programme, the almost € 80 billion Horizon 2020. The European Commission also suspended Switzerland from the Erasmus student exchange programme. According to the ATS news agency, some 2 600 Swiss students took advantage of Erasmus in 2011 and Switzerland played host that same year to about 2 900 foreign students within the same EU-funded programme. 'Thanks to intense diplomatic activity behind the scenes and fruitful bilateral discussions, the situation was looking less dramatic by mid-2015. In the end, Switzerland will be able to participate in Excellent Science, the central pillar of Horizon 2020. This means that its universities will be entitled to benefit from grants offered by the European Research Council and by the Future and Emerging Technologies programme, among other instruments'. (end) --Susan Schneegans (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to John Maynard Friedman's request for citations, I can suggest the two excerpts from an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement. I propose adding this to the text on the Talk page (see above the slightly modified text), along with the corrections suggested by JMF. I have inserted the proposed text in the Talk page above and sourced it:

3. Source: Elmes, John (2017) Brexit: UK universities invited to set up in France. Times Higher Education Supplement, 22 February. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/brexit-uk-universities-invited-to-set-up-in-france#survey-answer — --Susan Schneegans (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Schneegans (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just arranged the last three paragraphs so that the discussion on the Norwegian and Swiss models follows the paragraph suggesting Switzerland and Israel as potential models for the UK. As Israel is mentioned by Alan Sked, I have added a short paragraph at the end summarizing Israel's 'model'. You may think the entry long but, in my view, the issues are complex and need some explanation. Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia? --Susan Schneegans (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have consensus on the text above, as it stands now? Please advise. (I am new to this, so unfamiliar with procedures.) With thanks in advance,--Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just updated the information on Switzerland, as a law adopted by the Swiss in December 2016 has put an end to the crisis with the EU. The source of this information is:

4. Maurice, Eric (2016) EU and Switzerland agree on free movement. 22 December. EUObserver: https://euobserver.com/justice/136398 --Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is even longer than before! Suggestions for shortening (and remember this is an encyclopedia, not a place to present an entire argument, or an academic overview requiring lots of background)... delete the first para (lots of numbers, but no point); delete the examples (unnecessary); delete everything pre-referendum (put it in the referendum article, if anywhere); cut the penultimate paragraph to one sentence ("The Swiss model would be incompatible with limiting EU immigration to the UK") and add what that means (e.g. "so is unlikely to be adopted by the UK"); cut the Israel paragraph (again, it has information but no discernable purpose). EddieHugh (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative would be to split it off as a free-standing article (with a much shorter connecting section in this article). Given the multiplicity and complexity of sectoral and other distinct issues that are arising, and will arise, in coming months and years, I think that may well be the most productive way forward. "Brexit" is too huge a subject to be accommodated comfortably in a single article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been offline for a bit, so couldn't respond - but I agree with what others have said. In particular I agree with Ghmyrtle that it is time to break this article into a summary plus sub-articles. As a minimum start, hopefully Brexit issues is about to become available for use as a repository for issues that have come the fore since the referendum. Even then, I can see that new article needing to be subdivided. Fishing quotas and the Irish border for example will each need their own articles. I wouldn't want to see research and scholarship get sidelined off completely so we need a very succinct 'teaser' paragraph here with a link (via the Main template) to a detailed analysis. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit is too huge a subject to be accommodated comfortably in a single article. If the proposal for a free-standing article is adopted, please consider also:

• that the issues reported in "Between referendums" underlie what eventually surfaced in what later, after the Grexit possibility emerged, has been called Brexit, and those issues continue to affect the debates in Parliament, probably more deeply than what was discussed more superficially in the run up to the 2016 referendum.
• that much of the content of "Procedure for leaving the EU" is being overtaken by events, in the sense that once the Article 50 notice is given, a new stage in the Brexit process begins which will need a further (Wikipedia) article to accomodate it and its progressive expansion as the months go by: and we can expect a series of new bills to be proposed by the government, each deserving a Brexit linked article.
• the key issues are becoming more sharply defined in the parliamentary process, and to some extent in media comment: for example, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and other cross-border questions (persons, goods, services, intellectual property).

Qexigator (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ Given that the topic of the article is UK's prospective withdrawal from the EU, it can now be seen that much of the article's content is misplaced. Its focus should be on reporting the events which have been going in that direction, with a summary of events leading up to the referendum which are more fully reported in other articles. Maybe a major trimming of excess could be postponed until revision when the Article 50 notice has happened. Meantime, it can also be seen that the content of the "Consequences" sections, including Academic funding (currently subsection "Effect on academic research"), is mainly reporting, not factual description about the present position, but opinion based forecasts and expectations about possible outcomes resulting from negotiations which have not yet begun. The government's white paper does not provide a description of changes which will occur, and so far the EU has not published a comparable document to enable a factual comparison to be made. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)+ 09:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be possible to know the consequences of a Brexit, or even the government's final position, until the negotations between the UK and EU are very advanced, or even concluded two years from now (assuming agreement is reached). Is that a reason not to discuss the UK's options? The article currently discusses the immediate, visible consequences of the referendum (such as a drop in EU enrollment in UK universities and in applications for research positions at UK universities) and describes the Swiss, Israeli and Norwegian models, which have been evoked by politicians, business people and academics as possible options for the UK's future relationship with the EU. The question is: given the high level of uncertainty over the future configuration of the UK-EU relationship, should Wikipedia sit back and wait until agreement is reached before publishing any information that could provide insights into the UK's options? I agree that the Brexit issue is sufficiently complex to warrant several pages. Perhaps we should outline a plan for how the Brexit pages will complement one another over the coming two years or so? I am happy to create a page devoted to the theme of the effect of Brexit on academia based on the material above that could be enriched by various contributors over the coming years. Your views?--Susan Schneegans (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...reason not to discuss the UK's options - At present. the UK's "options" are (from a neutral ecyclopedic pov) little more than gossip in academic, political or commercial circles, as explained in my above remarks. visible consequences of the referendum - post hoc is not necessarily propter. should Wikipedia sit back and wait until agreement is reached - see above "..mainly reporting, not factual description about the present position, but opinion based forecasts and expectations about possible outcomes resulting from negotiations which have not yet begun. The government's white paper does not provide a description of changes which will occur, and so far the EU has not published a comparable document to enable a factual comparison to be made". '... a page devoted to the theme of the effect of Brexit on academia based on the material above that could be enriched by various contributors over the coming years.., - sure, give that a go. Qexigator (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But let's be careful not to fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL and wp:OR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Is that a reason not to discuss the UK's options?" - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform to "discuss options". Please keep this article and all others encyclopedic. Stick to facts. Sumorsǣte (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be some confusion. Discussing 'options' does not mean giving an opinion. It is a fact that different European models like the Swiss model have been analysed by the British government and parliament since the referendum (at least), to help the government and parliament determine what post-Brexit relationship they want with the EU, in science and other areas. The Swiss model is mentioned in a recent report by the House of Lords, for instance, which was, itself cited in a late 2016 report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The committee writes that 'A description of the existing models for non EU-member involvement in Horizon 2020 is provided in the House of Lords Science and Technology report. This includes a description of the “Swiss model”. See here: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/502/502.pdf, --Susan Schneegans (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think calling the title of this article Brexit is a good idea. Brexit is an informal term and regardless of how much its used in the media or by supporters and opponents I think the Wikipedia article on the subject should strive for a more formal analysis. I propose it be renamed "British Withdraw From the European Union" or something of the sort. Javerthugo (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Calling it by this informal name is NPOV because I think it trivializes the issue by giving it a trite name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javerthugo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Brexit/Archive_2#Requested move 15 July 2016 for a previous discussion that resulted in the current name. --Boson (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to the myriad of pages with similar titles on the causes and consequences of Brexit. I have added some pages to the See also section of the Brexit page, as the existing pages were not linked up, as far I can see. I would suggest focusing on a specific aspect of Brexit on each page (such as consequences of Brexit for the economy and trade, the consequences for science, the consequences for arts and humanities, consequences for political cohesion of the United Kingdom, looking specifically at Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, etc). Sections could be moved from one page to another so that material on a specific theme is grouped on the same page. Brief mention of these themes on other pages would still be made, with links to the page giving more details.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, the following links should normally be removed from the See-also section, since they are in the navbox at the foot of the page (and if they are not removed, what is the criterion for not including many of the other navbox links?):

• International reactions to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
• Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

But the following should perhaps also be moved to the navbox:

• Causes of Brexit

Of all the articles on EU law and landmark cases, I'm not sure why the following article (section) is included:

• Interpretation of EU Treaty law by European Court of Justice

The same applies to

• Multi-speed Europe

Any thoughts? --Boson (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes tend to be overcrowded, small print, difficult to read, and no more part of the article for the ordinary reader than "categories". Qexigator (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has commented I really can't see why we have to have hour-by-hour updates on this - WP is not a newspaper. We can wait until Royal Assent.[3]. We should keep the article up-to-date for anyone who needs to see here the current position as well as or better than can be found in newspapers or other media. We do not know the hour of any reader's coming, but leaving outdated information on the page is misinformation at any time, and if possible we should let this encyclopedia avoid that. Further updates should be made as events happen: when the bill is enacted and when the notice is given. Qexigator (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Brexit project as there is going to be quite a lot of movement on this subject over the next couple of years and a lot of new articles needed and other articles updated over time.

JASpencer (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't. You could try negotiating a split from Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union, but they probably won't reply until next week. EddieHugh (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A split from the European Union WikiProject? You might need a referendum for that! Ha; that was just too juicy to resist. Sorry. I'll see myself out. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest asking either Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union or Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom at the potential of a Brexit Task Force instead. Seeing as the whole Brexit procedure is of a limited time-frame. Creating a Wikipedia:WikiProject Brexit would be likely to go dormant shortly after Brexit itself. Wes Mouse ^Talk 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire! The aftershocks will be felt for a long time. There are already a few spin-off articles so I foresee the headline article being heavily reduced to being a clothes rail to hang a lot of detail on. But it does depend on whether May looks over the precipice and decides that the Norway option satisfies the Referendum question or whether as usual the Daily Wail tells her what to do, she leaps over and we have the Bangladesh option. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I am in favour of a section on Euroscepticism, but I am temporarily removing the current version because of fundamental flaws which need fixing: 1. The statement that the BSA has collected opinions on the EU since 1983 cannot be right - the EU did not exist in 1983. 2. The statement that "22% of respondents agreed etc" clashes with the statement that the BSA collected data over a long period of time and identified trends. So does this 22% represent an average value, or a particular year? Or whatever?

Here is the section I deleted as of 22 March 2017. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Euroscepticism is the criticism of and strong opposition to the European Union.

Euroscepticism has been increasing according to the NatCen Social Research and its British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey. Since 1983, the BSA survey has been collecting opinions in Europe whether UK should remain or withdraw in the European Union. In the 1990s, the BSA survey offered various choices to the respondents for the Britain's relationship with the European Union.

1. to withdraw from the EU
2. to remain within the EU and attempt to diminish its power
3. to leave things as they are
4. to stay within the EU and try to broaden its power
5. to work for the formation of a single European government

22% of the respondents agreed with option 1 and 43% with option 2. 65% either desire to break ties or decrease the EU's legislative influence and only 38% support both option 1 and 2. Euroscepticism has been increasing since 1993.^[1]

Your insight is incorrect, unfortunately. The EU was formerly known as the EEC. So yes, the BSA can still collect survey information since 1983, when the UK was part of the EEC, which then was renamed the EU as a result of the Maastricht Treaty on 1 November 1993. Wes Mouse ^Talk 10:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wesley Mouse. The EEC and the EU are two different animals. For example the EEC had no commitment to a euro currency, to free movement, to European border controls etc. In the public imagination back in 1983 the EEC was mainly about paying money to produce French agricultural surpluses (wine lakes and butter mountains) which were then destroyed. In contrast, the EU in current public opinion is to allow terrorist migrants into Britain to ease the pressure in France and Germany, and to undercut British wages with cheap labour. I am exaggerating tongue-in-cheek, but you see why it is important for any social attitudes survey reference to distinguish carefully between EEC and EU? Perhaps you are young and have not personally experienced the time before the EU existed. In any case the Euroscepticism section is misleading and needs urgent fixing before it can be reinstated. I am sure you can do it with a quick library visit. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am young? Haha, sorry but that made me laugh. I was born in 1979, so I think I'm old enough to remember that the EEC was changed to the EU after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. And that factor is also noted in this article and verified with sources. If any library visits are required, I would suggest that they be made by yourself, as I do not need to visit any library. Wes Mouse ^Talk 11:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organisation which aimed to bring about economic integration among its member states. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957. Upon the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated and renamed as the European Community (EC). In 2009 the EC's institutions were absorbed into the EU's wider framework and the community ceased to exist. And there we have the factual confirmation that the EU was once the EEC. Wes Mouse ^Talk 11:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I was saying, you are too young to remember the EEC fuss in the early 1980s (British taxes for destroying French butter and wine), and probably too young to have followed the early 1990s fuss about creating the EU and transferring sovereignty to it (Thatcher vs Heseltine). So in your generation's view the EU has more or less always existed, with perhaps slight name changes. Scary (a la George Orwell's 1984) and wrong, but quite understandable. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to persist in promoting your WP:FRINGE personal view that the European Economic Community is a totally separate organisation from the European Union which it formally evolved into, may I suggest you do so on your own website rather than insulting the editors here. Dtellett (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may. Meanwhile, here is the link to the Tarran/Curtice 2016 analysis for your perusal. You will see how the misunderstanding crept into Wikipedia.[4] Now fixed. Thank you for your uplifting comments. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a highly alarming that this IP user has the audacity to insult me based on my age? What gives you the right to be uncivil and attacking others? A formal apology awaits! Wes Mouse ^Talk 15:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "insult you based on your age", I merely pointed out that if you are born in 1979 then you are too young to witness public opinion on the EEC in 1982, and probably also in 1992 when the EU was launched. And to clarify: I find it "scary" that someone (the media?) has/have brainwashed you into thinking that the EU existed before 1992. That is reminiscent to my generation of George Orwell's book "1984", where the all-powerful Party has brainwashed every citizen of Airstrip One (Britain) that the Party has existed for decades. So it is not you who is scary, but the persuasive power of your media environment. But consider yourself fortunate that you are living in a time when we are "only" arguing about migrants, global warming and environmental destruction, and not about nuclear missiles and the end of the world as in the early 1980s. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss content! Do not prejudge users. I find your remarks disgusting, repugnant, and highly disruptive. My age has got nothing to do with this. And you do not have the right to cast judgement on my age or insult me in insinuating that I have been "brainwashed". You do not know me, and thus have no right to judge me. For the last time, retract your comment, or would you prefer I escalate this matter and your personal attacks for admin intervention? Wes Mouse ^Talk 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Which content do you wish me to discuss, and which comment do you wish me to retract? And yes, I would prefer you to escalate this to an administrator. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very calm. Retract your comment and prejudgement on my age and stating that I have been brainwashed. You have no right to make those claims about my personality, when you don't even know me. Wes Mouse ^Talk 16:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. If you tell me what makes you claim that "The EU was formerly known as the EEC" (I am genuinely interested where you picked that idea up - or is it simply an innocent armchair conclusion?) then I am happy to consider retracting the brainwashing claim. however, I am not willing to retract my point about your age, because it stands to reason that someone born in 1979 cannot personally have experienced public opinion on the EEC in the early 1980s. And please involve your administrator for a detached view. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your interaction is very unprofessional, and yet you still cast vile attacks at myself. I do not need to tell you what makes "me claim" anything. It is written in the article, and I provided further clarification in an earlier comment. Perhaps your armchair conclusion is to be pedantic and patronising towards others in a way that is disruptive and may lead to you being blocked. And for the final time, my age or the fact I was born in 1979 has go nothing to do with this. Stop with your harassing, pathetic, and vicious threats. Your actions are now coming across as cyber-bullying. Wes Mouse ^Talk 17:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes. You originally claimed "The EU was formerly known as the EEC" without references, and then you cited the incorporation of the EEC into the EU as evidence for the EU being a "renamed" EEC. I therefore conclude that you have reached this (wrong) conclusion by yourself, and not by some scary media brainwashing. Hence I apologise to you on this particular point. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your own arguments have likewise rested on such obvious falsehoods as "freedom of movement" being a novel concept that was not present in the EEC (Perhaps you were too young to remember the Treaty of Rome?). Perhaps, instead of condescendingly dismissing the arguments of others, you ought to spend more time in the aforementioned library. Dtellett (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dtellett for intervening. At the ripe age of 37, I am delighted to know that I'm still "too young" lol. Wes Mouse ^Talk 19:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Dtellett, I was too young at the time of the Treaty of Rome - only a teenager, ahem. I think I was unclear about freedom of movement a la Schengen (post-1995), i.e. passport-free travel, versus freedom of movement of workers according to the Treaty of Rome. I am not sure if you are an old-timer yourself, so you may be interested to know that freedom of movement of workers did not feature in the public perception of the EEC. Because in practical terms, millions of immigrants from non-EEC countries were imported into the EEC to do the unpopular jobs. So Arabs and Africans to France, Turks, Greeks, Yugoslavs, and Iberians to Germany, and Commonwealth immigrants to the UK. I think many of my generation would not realise that freedom of movement of workers was a viable option in the EEC. Are you sure it was implemented in national law everywhere? The Treaty of Rome mentions a "transitional period", whatever that is. 86.170.122.207 (talk)

Be careful throwing that old boomerang around. We wouldn't want any injuries in here. Perhaps now is the time for the IP to drop the stick and back off on the age issue. One should assume good faith and not cast ageism insult. It does not matter if we were "around at the time" to remember X, Y, and Z. What does matter is that everything written is easily verifiable from citing one or more reliable sources - which in this case all articles on EEC, EU, and the fact the EEC evolved into the EU have been sourced, cited, and verified. I think someone's cave is calling for them to return home before the Neanderthal wife starts wagging her club about. Wes Mouse ^Talk 20:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wesley Mouse. Everybody agrees that the EEC evolved into the EU. The new and interesting point that Dtellett raises is about freedom of movement. (It is not all about you.) Let us hope he answers and then perhaps we can incorporate that point in the article. 86.170.122.207 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of movement of workers was a founding principle of the EEC enshrined in its original treaty, so I don't see the likes of Nigel Farage opting to bang on about it rather more than Tony Benn as an indication that the EEC is far too distinct a beast from the EU for social attitudes towards the former in the 1980s to be relevant to a discussion of Euroscepticism. (The Schengen agreement you reference might be a novel development, but is also of course a novel development the UK explicitly and permanently opted out of). Properly-sourced descriptions of how the focus of Eurosceptic arguments may have changed post-Maastricht might have a place here - as does any interesting statistical data on social attitudes to the EEC - but the fringe view that associating the EU and EEC is some Orwellian brainwashing scheme certainly doesn't. (There's a certain irony in invoking the notion of "media brainwashing" in defence of the position that freedom of movement for workers didn't really exist in the 80s simply because the media was more preoccupied with the ECs quota/subsidy regimes and the alleged threat posed by non-EC immigrants) Dtellett (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you do not know whether/how fast freedom of movement a la Treaty of Rome was implemented into national laws by the constituent EEC countries. I admit it is a difficult request - I have not found anything on the internet (I have checked German and English websites). In my own experience (moving to Britain in the late 1990s, so EU period, not EEC) it was a complicated undertaking getting a National Insurance Number and starting work. Hence my gut feeling is that "freedom of movement" would have been even more difficult in EEC times. But I may be wrong. Will continue hunting for info, but I may not get back to you quickly. And you are probably unintentionally right - because Schengen and the Euro do not affect Britain, in your (presumably British) perspective there is much less difference between the EEC and the EU than for most Europeans. 86.154.101.63 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to the original point, the institution formerly known as the EEC, or the EC, is now called the EU. Hence the collection of statistics on public attitudes towards whichever of these it was at the time, and the display of these as a continuous sequence, are legitimate. Constitutional lawyers may be able to see the differences, but as constitutional lawyers form a rather small proportion of the population, public attitudes en masse have no doubt shown a continuous curve over time, not a series of vertical steps. So the main reason given for the deletion is unacceptable- it was fixable by a minor tweak in wording. Similarly, the statistical point in the OP merely amounts to the need for a small clause showing the period that was referred to.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gravuritas, read the Curtice reference and you will see that Curtice's statistics start in 1993, with the beginning of the EU. The EEC is briefly mentioned in the Curtice 2016 paper, but no statistics for that period are offered. Even if you were correct (that the EEC and the EU are the same, which I dispute), the Curtice reference is not adequate to provide any British attitude stats. The British public attitude during the earlier EEC period is however covered in a different reference (Mortimore 2016), which is cited and explained extensively in the History section. So regardless of your or my opinion on the EU-EEC difference, both subjects are fully covered and cited in the current Wikipedia article. Agreed? 86.154.101.63 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the sentence that starts "Khan admitted that complete..." 'admitted' is a loaded term and breaches the guidance in WP:CLAIM. -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section relies on the word "would" and so reads as if it is speculation on the outcome of the referendum. Once article 50 has been triggered by the British Goverenment it "will" need a change in tense. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that is pure common-logic and would be changed once events unfold. You'll find most articles dealing with a future event would use future-tense wording; as an event is progressing, present-tense; and after an event has occurred, past-tense. You're welcome to be bold and make relevant changes in past/present/future tense as and when it is deemed necessary. Wes Mouse ^Talk 16:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: In section "Relationship with remaining EU members" there are 10 "would"s, which will not change after the UK / EU negotiation begins. Simillarly the next sections. The text is all about "what would happen if...such or such...". It may be that after the EU negotiating policy has been published, some of the article will need to be converted from speculative comment to something firmer, superseding some of the "would" text which will no longer be notable enough to be retained. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Article 50 has been activated, this already long article is going to explode with information. A comment above noted the need for a "Brexit Project" on Wikipedia. This is NOW AN IMPERATIVE for those with some inside knowledge on the issues under consideration (that does not include me!). 62.60.23.66 (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of a Brexit Project.

I think this Brexit page should be kept as a header.

moving the historic features to a new page, maybe Brexit historical background

the consequences to maybe Brexit consequences of withdrawal

I would like to see a new page maybe called Brexit and the EU to cover the public chat between the UK and EU, setting out the various key subjects. From this page one can create new pages to expand on specific subjects as they grow.

A new page setting out negotiations between the UK and non-EU countries, maybe Brexit and the World looking at the creating of new trade deals and world relationships would also be useful.Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page Brexit negotiations with the European Union as the subject is moving quickly forward, hopefully the name is acceptable. Please assist by improving and expanding it. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good start. Qexigator (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from above) Is it time to let all or part of the content of sections 2 'Historical background'[5] and 3 '2016 referendum'[6] be merged with 'United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016'? This would allow the Brexit article to cover the ongoing developments of the withdrawal to date: 'Legal Challenge', 'Great Repeal Bill', 'Negotiating positions', and 'Consequences of withdrawal', the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, the notification letter of 29 March and the EU Council's draft guidelines for the other member states.[7], and hereafter to continue with further developments, allowing for new stand alone articles such as the existing ones: United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union - Great Repeal Bill 2016 - Effects of Brexit on science and technology - R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Qexigator (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)/ 13:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC) + Brexit negotiations with the European Union 13:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with section 2 and section 3 being shrunk with the whole "Historical background" section moved to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 page. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a chronological error in the introduction, which says:

"From the 1990s, withdrawal from the EU was advocated mainly by the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP) and by an increasing number of Conservatives."

In reality of course, prominent Conservatives protested in the early 1990s against the new EU on the horizon, their dispute caused the downfall of Margaret Thatcher and her replacement by John Major (see Geoffrey Howe#Resignation), and one Conservative even started his own anti-EU party in 1993. His name was Nigel Farage and his party was UKIP.

So the lead has it completely backwards. Please revert to old version. 86.170.122.141 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify "old version". Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The old version was: "From the 1990s, withdrawal from the EU was advocated mainly by some Conservatives and by the newly founded UK Independence Party (UKIP)." The erroneous change was made on 29 March 2017. To avoid future errors, perhaps it would help to insert "prominent Conservatives such as Malcolm Rifkind who famously called the EEC a German racket". But personally I think that would be too much detail for a lead. And it would not help win friends in the ongoing Brexit negotiatons... Thanks for taking care of this. 86.170.122.141 (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well withdrawal from the European Union was a small minority view (at least openly) among Conservatives in the early 1990s. Protesting at the evolution of the EEC into the EU is not the same as calling for withdrawal. Farage had left the Conservatives when Maastricht was signed, but there were no prominent Conservatives who followed him from the Conservatives into UKIP, and I suspect that apart from Norman Lamont you won't find a front rank politician (and Lamont was from the mid 1990s). UKIP carried the flag for withdrawal, and not the Conservative Eurosceptics.JASpencer (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your explanation. I was confusing Euroscepticism with withdrawal. 86.170.122.141 (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about John Major's "bastards" (Bill Cash & co.)? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases (there were a growing number of exceptions - such as Douglas Carswell after 2005) they were careful not to call outright for withdrawal - in fact many thought that the EU could be reformed. UKIP was set up partly out of exasperation with what they saw as cautious Tories. JASpencer (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit has created this ambiguous/misleading sentence: "Opinion polls taken after EC accession in 1973 until the end of 2015 typically produced narrow majorities in favour of remaining within the EU, although some polls have found the reverse result".

This sounds as if other polling companies came to opposite conclusions regarding long-term trends. That is not what the reference says, and is probably not what the editor intended. The trouble is I think that in idiosyncratic (southern?) British English, the word "although" is used as a substitute for "except that". So could something like the previous version please be reinstated:

"Opinion polls taken after EC accession in 1973 until the end of 2015 generally revealed popular British support for EC or EU membership.^[1] Similarly, in the United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum of 1975, two-thirds of British voters favoured continued membership. A clear exception was the year 1980, the first full year of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's term of office, when the highest ever rejection of membership was measured, with 65% opposed to and 26% in favour of membership.^[1]"

Thanks. 86.170.122.141 (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the cited article actually says "At Ipsos MORI, we have been asking people in Britain how they would vote in a referendum on membership since 1977. During this time, both pro- and anti-European views have spent time in the majority – but there have been some dramatic swings from side to side." Although the current sentence is not saying that (it was taken from the main article Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom) it is closer to the cited article than the other piece. JASpencer (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Since 1977 both pro- and anti-European views have had majority support, with dramatic swings between the two camps" JASpencer (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better, thanks. Why is the article protected? People seem to get on well here. 86.170.122.141 (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename subsection "5.4 Negotiations" as section "6. Negotiations". This section will expand based on current developments, and deserves its own section. 86.170.123.96 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new linked main article is for further information about ongoing devlopments. Qexigator (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A slight improvement, thanks, but readers will not easily find your new link, unless "Negotiations" becomes a free-standing section. You will notice this problem will become more and more pressing over the next few days and weeks, with the EU wishing to "entice" the UK to stay via threats to Gibraltar, and Howard responding with warships. These childish "negotiations" between geriatric politicians are far too entertaining to miss out in the Wikiepdia article. 86.170.122.192 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some would like to have a stand alone article for "Comedy of Errors, the Brexit negotiations" for day to day faux pas and such-like unnotable trivia, but including something for "Negotiable instruments" dedicated to the late humorist Gerard Hoffnung and his Music Festival, including "Concerto for Hose-pipe and Strings", "Concerto Popolare" , "Lochinvar", and "Variations on Annie Laurie" ? Qexigator (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer has carried out the renaming request on 6 April 2017. This section can now be archived. 86.170.123.62 (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking Brexit Whether a Member State can rescind its declaration of withdrawal is controversial. Jens Dammann has taken the view that a Member State can revoke its declaration of withdrawal until its membership in the European Union has ended. ^[1] Juristoman (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jamietw (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to content on reversibility/revocation found at United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union#Reversibility. --Mervyn (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could we add a citation from Donald Tusk: «Brexit is like an Alfred Hitchcock thriller»? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.187 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best to keep to things that readers will easily comprehend. EddieHugh (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the article is blocked from editing. Could I therefore ask JASpencer or others to improve the information-free Negotiations section? The EU leaders are meeting on April 29 to approve their detailed list of negotiating guidelines, which reflect a "hardball" negotiating stance against the UK (Gibraltar veto for Spain, lifelong UK citizenship and family reunion rights for all EU citizens living in the UK, jurisdiction of European courts over any final agreement, etc). This is consistent with Juncker's pre-referendum statement that "deserters will not be welcome" [deserters are shot] and that the UK will receive a "hefty invoice" for leaving (the sum of 60 billion euros is mentioned in the article, but not Juncker's rationale). The current section does not reflect this "hardball" reality at all. The details should then be presented in the linked Article on Brexit negotiations. The sources are not so much in the British media but in Le Monde and Der Standard, in my experience. Also Theresa May's 12 points should be briefly summarised here (the full detail is fortunately available in the linked Brexit negotiations article).

Finally, my own original research should be mentioned extensively, as per Wikipedia crystal ball requirements, namely that the EU will crush the UK, unless the USA and the Commonwealth come to the rescue and threaten Germany with a trade war. On second thoughts, omit that last sentence. 86.170.122.168 (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First para- suggest any article changes along those lines wait until after April 29 meeting approves whatever it approves. Second para- sorry, can't resist- "Some chicken. Some neck".

Gravuritas (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Gravitas. You are making the perfectly unreasonable assumption that the EU27 leaders will decide anything at all without first consulting our excellent Wikipedia article. I therefore insist that we update the Negotiations section well before April 29 as a matter of urgency. Surely it is the foremost purpose of Wikipedia to inform policymakers and other people with limited cerebral resources. 86.170.122.168 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciate your wringing endorsement, but in its entirety the Neu World Order is 1. at our feet 2. at our throats 3. and then wringing the neck. 86.170.122.168 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just piling error upon error. Our WP article is not 'excellent', it's only C class, which is equivalent in air travel to what a certain renowned businessman would have on his airline if he weren't constrained by animal welfare regulations. The foremost purpose of WP is not to inform the overpaid and undermoralled policymakers, but to keep us troublemakers and sad loser WP editors off the streets and out of trouble. And your worst mistake is to believe that you are here to have fun. You're not- there's a WP policy against it. Finally- could you clarify your insistence on this edit being made before April 29? Is that a hard insistence, a soft insistence, or just a reasonable insistence?

Gravuritas (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, if the purpose of WP is to keep sad editors off the streets, then WP ought to be fun... Jokes aside, I do think that it is high time to provide a summary of the wish list designed by the EU mandarins a month ago. Interested readers, journalists, and yes, politicians, WILL be logging in here on April 28,29,30 to check out what the background is, both immediately before and immediately after the EU27 meeting. The editor who takes on this chore this will need a reading knowledge of the main European languages, as I have indicated above, as the English media in my experience are far too polite. 86.170.122.168 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start by citing the German EU position (June 2016) that the UK needs to accept EU migrants if the UK wishes to stay in the European Single Market (ESM). The response by Theresa May (Tory party conference Oct 2016) then was for the UK to leave the ESM. We need to add this and all the other negotiation steps (Jan 2017 TM's 12 guidelines, April 2017 EU 29 guidelines, importantly including "sequencing" - first divorce, then future relationships) in chronological order. We can then trim back details as required, but first we need the substance. 86.170.121.196 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is none of this in the lead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laurel. I am the author of this section, and yet I disagree it should be mentioned in the lead. The consequence of Brexit for the EU and the UK is "educated speculation", not facts, and we should not clutter the lead with speculation. By the way, the lead is a mess now - it does not even contain the 48-52 percentage vote outcome. Please someone revert it to the old version.

I have restored that longstanding lead paragraph, which is clearer for new readers. It doesn't show the vote percentage, but that does not seem necessary: it's just one click away. — JFG ^talk 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply If consequence of Brexit for the EU and the UK is "educated speculation" then those sections ought to be deleted from the main body of the article. If they remain in the body, they must be referenced in the leads. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am proposing to remove the part that is "educated speculation", which has no place in the article. Qexigator (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done[8] Qexigator (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "educated speculation", I am referring to the German Parliament report which makes these official predictions but warns that their conclusions are subject to significant uncertainty. "Educated speculation" is my wording/interpretation, not theirs. So I am reverting your deletion. If you have any questions on the German Parliament report, do not hesitate to ask. 86.170.123.57 (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we can refer to the Consequences of withdrawal for the EU that are not educated speculation in the lead now? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right. If I refuse, then Qexigator wll go on the rampage again and junck the article with more random deletions. So how about adding this to the lead:

The departure of the UK is expected to have a major effect on the EU: Germany and her remaining northern EU allies will lose their blocking minority of 35% in the EU Council, enabling the other EU countries to enforce specific proposals such as larger EU budgets or EU-wide guarantees for troubled banks.

Happy now? 86.170.123.57 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. It is uncited assertion and original research. Text in the lead should summarise material in the body: section 7 which deals with this topic does not support these claims. Find a reliable source that says this then it can go in. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Ball

What is much more interesting is the news today[9] that the European Court of Justice has ruled that the EU Commission is not authorised to conclude free trade deals with other countries such as Singapore. Effectively this means that Juncker's team is not legally authorised by the various national EU parliaments and regional parliaments (such as the Belgian regional parliament in Flanders, which recently blocked the EU's CETA trade agreement with Canada) to conclude a trade deal with the UK government. Watch this space - you read it here first... 86.170.123.57 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: An Austrian journalist has made the same point as me just now. [10] So now we know why the EU/Merkel wanted Britain to pay a divorce bill first before negotiating a free trade deal - because they may not have the authority to negotiate free trade deals... 86.170.123.57 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here a counter-view in 'The Guardian'.[11] we have enough material now for a new section (the Brexit article being far too short and readable at the moment). 86.170.123.57 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ECJ ruling, published on 16 May,[12] was that the FTA between EU and the Republic of Singapore is within the EU's exclusive competence, exceptiing only sections that are within a competence shared between EU and its Member States: Section A (Investment Protection) of Chapter 9 (Investment), in so far as they relate to non-direct investment between the EU and Singapore; Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) of Chapter 9; and Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) of Chapter 9; and provisions of Chapters 1 (Objectives and General Definitions), 14 (Transparency), 15 (Dispute Settlement between the Parties), 16 (Mediation Mechanism) and 17 (Institutional, General and Final Provisions), in so far as they relate to the provisions of Chapter 9 and to the extent that the latter fall within a competence shared between the EU and the Member States. Informed comment:[13] ... the ECJ opinion has not worsened the UK’s chances of securing a trade deal once it has left the bloc. The European Council can provisionally apply FTAs with shared competences, which it has done with CETA, and there is, theoretically, no legal limit on how long this interim period can go on, maybe for decades... any eventual EU-UK deal could be split into exclusive and shared competences to speed up ratification process. ...or negotiate an FTA that only deals in exclusive competences.. omitting portfolio investment and dispute settlement altogether, See also Reuters.[14] Qexigator (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we mention, how devastating the Brexit was at the London housing market?^[1][2][3][4] --Rævhuld (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House prices are not going up like an elevator. Devastating. There's a bit of office space vacant. Devastating.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like US are concerned by the risk of unemployment that Brexit raises. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/25/trump-worried-about-brexit-impact-on-us-jobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.213 (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit is 'an incident not a trend' : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/26/eus-donald-tusk-says-trump-agrees-brexit-is-an-incident-not-a-trend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.213 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar, you have supported Prinsgezinde's deletion of the Juncker quote in the Brexit article, and have told us to discuss the matter here on the Talk page.

The problem is that Prinsgezinde has not intelligibly explained why he deleted the Juncker quote in the first place. This is Prinsgezinde's garbled message: "Way to put it in such a way that Juncker sounds like mob boss. Props".

Please explain to me what Prinsgesinde means. I presume you understand him because you are supporting his deletion.

If you do not understand what Prinsgezinde means, please revert your deletion, or justify your deletion on the Talk page.

For the record, this is the deleted Juncker quote:

EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said the UK’s decision to quit the block was a "choice they will regret one day".[1]

86.170.122.202 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do not support one or the other..we are in a typical Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle situation. It was added, it was reverted, you tried to add it again...so you jumped over the discussion part and reverted again. Onus is on you to gain consensus to keep the quote in the article. Lectonar (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and 86.170.122.202...trying to add it again again makes this look a little like editwarring, which you should not do. Lectonar (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lectonar, I am relatively new to Wikipedia: if someone deletes something in the article without any discussion on the Talk page, why should the onus be on other Wiki readers to discuss on the Talk page? Genuine question. Imagine for example I delete an entire section/the entire article without explanation. According to your logic, no-one should revert my vandalism without first starting a discussion on the Talk page? 86.170.122.202 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more clued-up than me may give a more authoratitive description, but fwiw my understanding is that whether it is an addition, deletion, or modification is not significant. The sequence is Edit (by editor1), then if it's reverted,(by editor 2), then editor1 should go to talk to justify his edit.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

86.170.122.202: Ideally:yes....for almost every case except obvious vandalism, my answer would be yes. Because, for it to be deleted, it had to be added first, and has probably been sitting there for some time without being reverted...could be hours, days, months. And sorry to say, I do not think the adding or deletion of the quote is vandalism, so you're comparing apples with pears. Also, it is not my logic, I just linked to an explanatory supplement to WP:BE BOLD. As I said before, I really do not mind one way or the other, I try to nudge people in the right direction....start discussing things. Taking sides here might make me involved, and as an administrator, I try to avoid that. @Prinsgezinde:, as his revert is being questioned. Lectonar (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you for the explanations. However, for the requested discussion to start, one has to be able to read and understand Prinsgezinde, but he/she has not intelligibly explained why he deleted the Juncker quote in the first place. This is Prinsgezinde's garbled message: "Way to put it in such a way that Juncker sounds like mob boss. Props".

On this basis, is it legitimate to revert P's deletion, requesting him to reword his justification? And then to have the requested discussion of his clarified explanation on the Talk page? Deleting and providing only a garbled explanation seems to me to be either carelessness or vandalism. And nothing on which you could base a Discussion. 86.170.122.202 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with 86.170.122.202. P deleted material that is valid, relevant, and fully cited, giving a POV justification for doing so (if I understand the semi-coherent explanation correctly, that he/she believes Junker's words to be a threat rather than simply a statement of the bleedin' obvious - but fundamentally because she/he doesn't approve of the sentiment rather than that it is not a true record). So .202's reversion was entirely appropriate. Look at it another way: if it had been an anon editor who had deleted that material, reversion would have been instantaneous and probably tagged as "rvv" too. Reinstate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very good reason for this deletion. This quote was cited by the Guardian, which is a reliable source, but that does not automatically make it appropriate for conclusion. Look at the article for a bit. Like many other news sources, the Guardian uses many quotations to ensure that no original wording or misquotation occurs. Conversely, see MOS:QUOTE (also note the part on point of view). Wikipedia does not build itself on quotations, it works by original wording and accuracy. Quotes like that are only notable when they either can not be converted to original wording without losing their meaning (not the case here), or when they received significant attention/controversy. To break it down: it clearly carries a certain weight. Juncker's statement was shown as one side of the spectrum, while the other was shown by Donald Tusk. But Juncker's statement, in its short and harshest form, is invoked here to tabloid-like effect. Now, note that I'm not suggesting that the severity of a quote should determine its innclusion. The core problem in this matter is that it's also in the completely wrong place. The sentence it was part of is in reponse to alleged British blackmail, while his statement was directly aimed at the UK's withdrawal in general. That's how it's described in every source I've found. And that's why it's inappropriate. By the way, forgive my skepticism but 86.170.122.202 does not seem ignorant of how Wikipedia works, which is odd if this were his sole edit on WIkipedia like his contributions suggest. If you have an account, use it. That's all I'm saying. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I was the author of the disputed passage. The reality is that Theresa May presented a negotiation stance, and the immediate response to it by three significant EU politicians was widely reported in the media (Merkel: "prioritise divorce", Verhofstadt: "blackmail", Juncker: "they will regret it"). And that is how I had worded it on Wikipedia. It is incorrect and misleading of Prinsgezinde now to claim that I took Juncker's "regret" quote out of context, and that I phrased it as a response to the Verhofstadt's blackmail statement. I did not. Here is my original wording:

 In response, German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted that the EU would not discuss future cooperation without first settling the divorce, the European Parliament lead negotiator Guy Verhofstadt referred to the letter as "blackmail" with regard to the point on security and terrorism, and EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said the UK’s decision to quit the block was a "choice they will regret one day".

Therefore, I am in favour of reverting Prinsgezinde's deletion. By the way, I find it surprising that Prinzgezinde suddenly is capable of perfect English. 86.154.101.56 (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore – The Juncker quote is not particularly inflammatory, and it represents Juncker's position rather consistently, as witnessed by his numerous interviews about Brexit (before during and after the vote). The Merkel and Verhofstadt reactions may well be reinstated too; I find the original paragraph rather well worded.

About process, we should not be suspicious of IP user 86.170.122.202: their questions are totally logical for a first-time editor, eager to learn the ropes. IP86, welcome to Wikipedia! You may want to create a named account, which actually would protect your anonymity better than an IP address. — JFG ^talk 07:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversibility of Brexit is a point of view that Brexit can be reversed with little legal fuss and (for some) that this is a highly likely outcome of the process. Both are reasonably common points of view, but the first is not proven (Article 50 is silent on reversal) and the second point is speculative at best.

This point of view needs to be respected and reported, there are a large number of people who believe this particularly within the other EU states, but it is a viewpoint and so edits such as saying that withdrawal is simply "proposed" should be recognised as a point of view edit. We need to ensure that this viewpoint is treated as a viewpoint, reported on within the article but not that it should become the canonical version of the truth here.

JASpencer (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was deleted with no serious attempt at discussion:

Confectionery Due to the 10% drop in the exchange rate of sterling in the wake of the referendum, the British version of the American (formerly Swiss) Toblerone chocolate bar was reduced by 3 chocolate peaks. The British Poundland chain exacted "sweet revenge" in June 2017 by issuing a similar chocolate bar, at the old price and weight (180g) as the former Toblerone bar, and, crucially, with twin chocolate peaks rather than simple peaks.[1]

Opinions? 86.170.123.84 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal was appropriate. Wikipedia is not for recent trivia or promotion of Poundland. --Boson (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just like regulations on the curvature of bananas, the Toblerone "castration" is a non-story which everybody knows about anyway. Wikipedia should concentrate on complex matters which the people do not understand and for which they seek help online. 86.170.123.0 (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to adding this. I have just asked at a Poundland shop, and they do not stock it yet. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recent addition to the lead which states that the EU politicians would welcome the UK back into the fold. I am concerned that the cited references do not reflect this: one reference is from April 2017 and does not reflect the current negotiation stance towards Britain, which it is fair to say, is hostile (stick but no carrot). See for example the lead article in today's El Pais, which gives a reason for the hostility, even disregarding the migrants who await a resolution of their status. The reason being that the new "Franco-German axis" (eje francoaleman) requires a new enemy, and that is now Theresa May.^[1] And the Guardian reference actually says that while Tusk is in favour of welcoming the UK back, the Belgian prime minister disagrees. So I am changing the lead to reflect this. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are, as far as I know, no EU leaders who are against the UK withdrawing its Article 50 notification. The only points of disagreement are on how the procedure should work (i.e., unilateral withdrawal, or a requirement of the European Council to vote by unanimity or qualified majority), which in the end will be something will be decided upon by the European Court of Justice, if it ever comes to it. I strongly support reintroducing the sentence on reversal into the introduction. EU explained (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to the article makes mention of the UK leaving affecting the feasibility of Germany and Northern EU states being able to meet the blocking minority threshold. This seems a rather odd sentence to make its way into the introductory piece on Brexit, particularly as it is the only claim of a "negative" outcome mentioned in an article on a subject that where there is a very high degree of academic consensus on negative outcomes on a variety of facets of UK life. It's also a rather odd claim, Germany may lose its blocking minority, but the EU will lose a reluctant veto player - it doesn't seem clear to me why one should have precedence over the other.

Of course, what I think is going on, is that in the light of the fact that though a high degree of academic consensus exists for negative repercussions on the UK's economy and international standing, this may not be the case upon wikipedia editors. In which case, the only facet you can all agree on to mention in the introduction is the parochial claim about blocking thresholds in the Council.

I would also point out, after looking at the sections on the effects of Brexit on the EU, that a mix of unintended and intended bias is present in these paragraphs. There seems to be a giant paragraph on blocking minority thresholds, yet the Council has found it easier to move ahead in certain policy areas where the UK's role as a reluctant veto player has proved difficult; defence, and talks of possibly reopening the treaties. These are not mentioned. I would add a point of caution that eurosceptic think tanks, such as Open Europe - which are used as sources here, are keen to promote an image of the "EU needs the UK more than we need them", with one or two of the former senior staff working in the Brexit department as advisors to David Davis. Many of their position papers will state this, and whilst not necessarily false, it quite obviously is not going to make mention of the removal of a reluctant veto player in having positive affects for the EU.

So what would I do?

Remove the claim about the Council blocking minority threshold from the intro. That is an interesting side effect of Brexit, not something worthy of the introduction. I have noticed from this talk page that it was only inserted to placate a particular user who spent his time vandalising the page if he did not get his way - which is hardly a great editorial policy. You should be bold and insert a claim about the effects of Brexit upon the UK, in some neutral manner, whilst preserving the fact that academic consensus on the issue is far from neutral. That will be tough, and I expect some Leave leaning editors to find it hard to accept, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda platform.

Amend the sections on Brexit's effects on the EU to take account of creeping bias from sources and a lack of any mention of positive attributes.

A last word on Article 50 reversal

I have read through the talk page on issues regarding reversal. So, I'll respond to a few. The issue of reversal is not a POV, how likely it will be an outcome is. More so, it is usually appropriate to include in the introduction to an instance of a "process" - which this is in its abstract form - whether or not the process can be reversed. It's reversal is regarded by all legal scholars as possible, the only point of speculation is by what criteria, focusing on whether this would be unilateral (just the UK withdrawing notification), or need the European Council to approve via unanimity or QMV. It has also been mentioned at nearly every summit by the most senior leaders of EU institutions and states leaders as a possibility. Quite simply it belongs in the intro, and if I was a layman wishing to find out about Brexit, it is something I'd want to see mentioned there. I respect your views of dissenters on this, but nonetheless, I am very strong supporter of keeping it in the introduction.

EU explained (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On reversibility - agreed - back in it goes. Euexperttime (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the text about the blocking minority does not belong in the lead. That would give it too much weight. --Boson (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a German point of view, I find that EUexplained and Boson and many other Brits are being Anglocentric about Brexit. First, it is simply not up to the UK to decide that happens next, whether hard or soft or whatever. Secondly the major effect for the EU is the loss of Germany's political ally (the UK) which regularly upheld liberal economic principles. The loss of Britain's vote will allow France to dominate the agenda from 2019. See for example this commentary just a few minutes ago in the mainstream German press.[15]. In the Brexit Wikipedia article, the section discussing and referencing the blocking minority and the shift in power towards France should therefore be mentioned in the lead. Otherwise you will not understand the German and French negotiating positions over the coming months, regardless of whether you personally are in favour of hard or soft or no Brexit. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a summary of the contents of the main text. Reversibility is currently one sentence and is only a theoretical matter, so is not needed in the lead. A simple statement of fact would be more useful in the lead: e.g. 'negotiations are ongoing, so the effects of Brexit on the UK and the EU are, as yet, unknown'. Anything else is just speculation and has the near-certain consequence of turning the page into a blow-by-blow newspaper-style account of what is happening / might be happening. EddieHugh (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie, you have put your paragraph in the wrong place. I am referring to the blocking minority, not to "Reversibility" - that is someone else's discussion. Please shift your paragraph slightly further up where it belongs. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, with a European politics background, I am not thinking about this from an anglocentric point of view. I take the point quite seriously that Brexit will have an effect on EU institutions and that there will be winners and losers in that process, just like there will be losers and some winners (maybe) in the UK. However, if I was a layman reading the introductory paragraph about Brexit, for a quick glance, the only negative effect on any entity mentioned is that Germany and some Northern states may lose the ability to meet the blocking threshold in the Council. Not only is this a POV, though sourced by research of one or two think tanks, it is a rather parochial concern. If we are going to mention the EU in the intro, why not include research showing that the EU may now find it easier to institutionalise common foreign, security and defence policies - which was what this past European summit this weekend has been doing as the UK has left the room. (As a fun aside from my own background there is quite a lot of research on how states vote in the Council, and as far as I know from the papers I've read, it's incredibly hard to tell what is going on as there is a) a lack of voting data b) even where this is data, European Council etiquette is that dissenting states will tend to vote with the majority once its clear they are going to be outvoted - so we have no accurate record of their intentions). Indeed, why put the Council in the intro, at all, why not mention the other legislature, the EP will lose the bulk of the members of its two largest eurosceptic groupings upon the departure of UK MEPs, possibly making it easier to push integrationist policies? My point is, that if we are going to mention the effects of Brexit upon any entity, then we have far more to cite about the UK's economic prospects, trading and international relations in the aftermath that though may be controversial for some wiki editors, is far more prescient to the subject. EU explained (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of due weight. Subject to consensus, it would probably be appropriate to have a short paragraph in the lead on the expected effects on the economy, politics and institutions of the member states (including the UK) and the EU, providing a balanced summary of a more detailed discussion in the body of the article. It is appropriate to mention the blocking minority in the body of the article, along with all the other expected economic and political effects that are the subject of mainstream debate. It is not appropriate to single out this one element for mention in the lead. --Boson (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EU Explained: On a personal note, I share to an extent your ideals. Someone should lock the power-hungry politicians into a room until they work out a reformed EU which will please everyone and put an end to Brexit. Surely it cannot be that hard to put something on the table which will make 5 percent of Brits change their minds. Back in the real Wikipedia world, the lead has to report in a balanced manner what the article says. I strongly urge you to write a section (in the main body of the article) about the new direction that the EU seems to be taking, particuarly with regards to defence. But I doubt it will be suitable for citing in the lead if there are no tangible outcomes (e.g. a new treaty on defence, or a new budget on defence, or an EU attack on the Russian forces in the Ukraine etc), see my comment to Eddie immediately below. On the specific point of the European Parliament, I am mindful that it is the Council which holds the main power, and therefore the Council should be prioritised in the lead over the European Parliament.

Boson and Eddie: The challenge for the lead is the sheer volume of information in the Brexit article, forcing us to be selective. The current lead solves this problem, first by focussing on events that have happened (e.g. the 1975 referendum) or on processes that are in force (e.g. the blocking minority threshold of 35%). If we start adding the more speculative elements of the Brexit article into the lead (such as the possible economic effect on the UK, or the possible development of the EU into a military power without the UK), I predict the lead will be repeatedly wrecked with disputes. Let us not go there. Secondly the lead adeptly balances effects on the UK (loss of access to the Common Market etc) with effects on the EU (shift of voting power away from the northern bloc).86.170.123.99 (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing of contents in the lead should not be allowed to give disproportionate weight to some aspects. There may sometimes be exceptional reasons for being selective (as opposed to summarizing), but such exceptional decisions should be made by discussion and consensus, not by edit-warring. --Boson (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

As I understand it, there was a discussion and a consensus to include a sentence on the effects on the EU. From my point of view, it would now require a new discussion and consensus before overruling the old consensus. N'est-ce pas? 86.170.123.99 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though I see some discussion, I do not see consensus. It was added recently, before a clear consensus was reached, and it appears to have been contentious since then. How do other see it? Is there a consensus to include the text

"The departure of the UK is also expected to shift the balance of power within the EU, with Germany and her northern allies losing their blocking minority in the Council of the EU."

in the lead (without additional information text about the effects on the UK and the EU)?

--Boson (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the heading of this section to make it more neutral and more descriptive of the discussion, in line with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines ("Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."), e.g. : : "Should the lead include information on (1) the reversibility of the Article 50 process and (2) the blocking minority in the Council?" --Boson (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, it has become too convoluted. Instead, please start a new Discussion section using your new headline. Thanks. 86.170.123.99 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would not solve the problem that the heading of the current section is inappropriate. If we are to have a new section it would be better to have it solely on the issue of your proposed addition about the blocking minority. We would then have two unfinished discussions on the subject, but it might be worth it for the sake of clarity. Let's wait and see what others say. --Boson (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boson, I have now checked out the question of reversibility - see my addition today. The lawyers agree that it is reversible, while the EU seem to be denying it (a negotiating tactic?). Interesting. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section on reversibility in this article refers to the main article where this is discussed in more detail. The section in this article should present a short summary of United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union#Reversibility. It should not compete in size with the relevant section of that article, be selective, or develop separately from that article. Additions should be made there – and there is a lot that could be added (or needs updating) in that article.

I think it is overstating the case to say that "lawyers agree that it is reversible", though we should distinguish very clearly between unilateral revocation and negotiated reversal. Apart from potentially selective interpretations of the law by jurists on one side or another, when looking at sources we might also need to look extremely carefully at precisely what they say, bearing in mind the possibility that UK domestic law, EU law, the UK interpretation of international law (and EU law), and the EU interpretation of international law may differ. People briefing the European Commission or the European Parliament may well be describing what they think is true under European law (and bearing in mind the teleological approach taken by the ECJ), while those briefing UK institutions may be influenced by the UK's dualist traditions and the conventions of international law.

--Boson (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least with respect to German Supreme Court judge Guido Di Fabio, I think your concerns do not apply. Clearly he is neither rooted in British law nor advising the British government. Most importantly, his argument is that by triggering Article 50, Britain has not even officially declared its exit. Only declared that it will declare an exit in 2 years' time. Here is the relevant passage (let me know if you need any help with the German - I suspect not.): 86.170.122.146 (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeder völkerrechtliche Vertrag, auch seine Kündigung, verpflichtet zur Wahrung des gedeihlichen kooperativen Geistes zwischen den Staaten, die eine Friedensordnung errichten. Deshalb sieht Art. 56 Abs. 2 der Wiener Vertragsrechtskonvention ein vorgeschaltetes Notifizierungsverfahren, eine Art Kündigungsfrist vor. Bevor ein völkerrechtlicher Vertrag, der ohne Kündigungsmodalitäten geschlossen wurde, wirksam gekündigt werden kann, muss 12 Monate vorher die Absicht mitgeteilt werden: Es besteht der Grundsatz der Erhaltung bestehender Verträge und internationaler Organisationen. Es spricht in diesem Licht alles dafür, dass die Erklärung über die Absicht eines Austritts im Unionsrecht noch selbst gar keine Kündigung wäre, sondern jederzeit bis längstens zur Unanwendbarkeit der Verträge widerrufen oder für gegenstandslos erklärt werden kann.

I have no concerns in that respect. I was making the general point that we need to know the context and be very careful when reading statements from politicians and lawyers. In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, for instance, the lawyers for both sides at least appeared to state their belief that the withdrawal notice was irreversible. They very definitely did not "agree that it is reversible" (at least, not publicly). And when reading pronouncements by Udo di Fabio, it may be helpful to remember that Germany seems to share Britain's dualist approach and has to perform similar contortions when accepting the supremacy of European law. My guess is that the European institutions and their research staff will interpret the treaties in terms of their wider purpose (integration, ever closer union etc.). On the question of unilateral revocation, see the briefing by the research unit of the European Parliament, which states

"… the question could be posed as to whether – once a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU, and a withdrawal agreement has been negotiated – it can, depending on the results of the negotiations, unilaterally revoke its notification and suspend the withdrawal procedure. Most commentators argue that this is impossible or at least doubtful, from a legal point of view. [my emphasis] …"

--Boson (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks: interesting nuance (in bold). Looks like they want to keep the option of threatening the UK with a bad deal and hope the UK will then revoke Article 50. That approach can work with historically defeated nations, but not with Russia, Britain etc. The EU would genuinely achieve far more with the British by extending the hand of friendship (see Quebec, see Scotland). Please let them know, if you have the right contacts. 86.170.122.146 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reading the daily wail. The EU (soon to be 27 independent countries that have agreed to work as one on some matters) has no interest whatever in retaining the UK as an unwilling member. Indeed some will be glad to see it go - xref qualified majority voting discussion above. The UK is already doing a very convincing job of blundering off the cliff [16] unaided. (A50 in March, now almost July and still has no realistic idea [17] of what it wants let alone begun serious negotiations). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this is an article talk page, right? What the EU or UK "should" do isn't up for discussion, much less which is at fault for what, and much, much less how other editors should change their opinions on any of this. Please, let's keep this section on topic: is the article's into NPOV? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the apparent agreement between Euexperttime and EU explained is unsurprising, as they are sock puppets. Both (really the same thing) have been blocked indefinitely. EddieHugh (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone get a section prepared, ready for the impact of the likely Brexit Recession - why it happened - weaker pound, higher priced imports, uncertainty etc.

Can someone look at previous examples of country or bloc splits, and why that led to a recession, and lower living standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but how would you like to pay us for doing your research, how much pay would you offer, and in which paper would you like the research to be published? 81.131.171.79 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, please read wp:crystal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit cannot generate a recession in 2017/2018, because Brexit only occurs after, in march 2019.

There's somebody who needs a primer on the effects of uncertainty in economics. Britmax (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some european source consider the Brexit date is schedule to occur at midnight. It is not clear at which time the UK expect the Brexit to occur.

Anyway, as long as source exist to clarify the Brexit should occur at midnight, why not to provide this piece of information in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is only one side of the story. If you wannabe fair and NPOV, you should also give the British point of view. As UK is not in the European time zone, British people say: “if we lose access to our European markets, that will be an instant effect, overnight, and to people who are looking to us to protect jobs, economic growth, living standards, they won't thank us if we deliver them an instant hit with only a longer term slowly building benefit to compensate. That's the concern that we have to have in our minds”. That means that from UK point of view Brexit will occur overnight. And you should accept that overnight is quite different from exactly at midnight. comment added by 77.193.104.22 17:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) [reply]

The real earnings are on the level ten years ago. https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article166590172/Jetzt-spueren-die-Briten-den-Brexit-im-Portemonnaie.html Soenke Rahn (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, your source says real earnings are at the level of twelve years ago. And the source also says that the UK unemployment rate (4.5%) is at its lowest level for 42 years. And the source says that fish in Germany will become expensive if Germans can no longer fish in UK waters. Only the fishy matter is technically a Brexit effect. The low earnings (due to inflation triggered by sterling weakness) and low UK unemployment (weak sterling frightening off immigrant workers) are, at best, Referendum effects and should be discussed there. 86.170.121.192 (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes 12 years. Result of the Referendum and beginning of Brexit. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC) (Maybe the fish will be more expensive, but in the moment the fish is on the same level. On the other hand, if British fischermen will not get customers, because it to expensive, German fisher will fish like yesterday and the fish can swim to other areas, because if the population of fish will increase in the English Seaareas ... the fish will swim around. However there is not change in the moment in the topic fish, the real earnings effect is visible and a brexit-effect. The fish-Topic could be a brexit-effect, but there are several views on it. But such real earning could be also placed in two years, after the fantasy of dreams are away. ;-) --Soenke Rahn (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Back to the toppic without the opinion to a good or bad brexit in general, to discuss the problem awaay. Bad discussion strategy for a POV-Problem.) The real earnings are on the level "12" years ago. https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article166590172/Jetzt-spueren-die-Briten-den-Brexit-im-Portemonnaie.html Soenke Rahn (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Or, how I wrote above, we can place it later into the article, maybe in two years .... Also shift the problem .... Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've had a quick look through this talk page, and what has alarmed me the most is contributions from non-registered users, particularly when they denigrate users who are bringing something new to the table. They often claim to act in a NPOV spirit when it is clear that they are bringing their own biases to bear both on the article and the talk page. Here's an example of what I'm referring to from an IP address user;

"Explanation for other readers: what Soenke is referring to here is the German media strategy of telling Germans that the British voted for Brexit because they want their Empire back. Quite a lot of Germans believe this story." - 86.170.123.36 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Now, it seems to me, that the above IP user's dismissal of this contributor's concerns, whether or not we agree with contributor are highly problematic. And it's by no means an isolated incident. I have noticed both in the edits to the article and the talk page, one or two IP users making substantial edits over an extended period of time. I would like to motion for this article and the talk page to be editable only by registered users. I know that those wishing to cause mischief could circumnavigate this, but it would add a layer of protection to the article, to ensure it meets wikipedia's enclylopedic standards. I am beginning to become highly uncomfortable with the way 1 or 2 totally anonymous non-registered IP users are setting the tone, content and substance of this entire article - often undoing edits at a whim, or bullying other users into keeping their content by vandalising the page. This needs to stop now. EU explained (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EU Explained. I am responsible for the sentence you have quoted above. I believe it is true but I agree it was inappropriate here, and it shall not happen again. In general, everybody here seems to get on fine. Let us keep it that way. 86.170.123.36 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please just create an account if you want to contribute to the article. I stand-by what I said, and I would like to call on anyone with the appropriate privileges to implement this policy for this article. I think we've reached a threshold. EU explained (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EU explained Yes --Soenke Rahn (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't need "to register". Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_not_create_an_account%3F

In my opinion pages should not be protected (IPs prevented from making edits) unless there is persistent vandalism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, ironically, EU explained has been blocked indefinitely, as a sock puppet. EddieHugh (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history section makes it sound as if the French president Charles de Gaulle was solely responsible for rejecting Britain's repeated pleas to join the European Community in the 1960s. However, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was also strongly against Britain joining. Here is Der Spiegel from 1962.[18] There are lots of fascinating details in here, but let me offer just one boring strategic passage (google translation, which is impressively accurate - I have modified it only slightly):

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

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

The reason given in the Spiegel-article is that Adenauer disliked the British because in 1945 in the British occupied zone of Germany he was initially mayor of Cologne but was quickly sacked by the British authorities for incompetence. Are any of you Wikipedians sufficiently expert in history and can advise whether de Gaulle and Adenauer should both be mentioned as culprits for Britain's exclusion from the EEC? 81.131.173.36 (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Spiegel is to read " 1919 befahl ein britischer Offizier dem damaligen Kölner Oberbürgermeister Konrad Adenauer, deutsche Zivilisten sollten künftig ihre Hüte ziehen, wenn sie in den Gassen der Stadt englischen Offizieren begegneten. Und 1945 jagte ein britischer Besatzer-Brigadier den Kölner Oberbürgermeister Konrad Adenauer wegen "Unfähigkeit" aus dem Amt. Adenauers schmerzhafte Englisch-Lektionen waren damit nicht beendet: Jahrelang (1950 bis 1954) erlebte er als Bonner Kanzler, wie London gegen sein Lieblingsprojekt einer Europäischen Verteidigungsgemeinschaft intrigierte. Er macht noch heute für den Tod des ungeborenen Europa-Säuglings in Paris die Briten verantwortlich, weil sie sich weigerten, der EVG beizutreten, und Frankreich damit allen Mut genommen hätten. Außerdem verübelt Konrad Adenauer den Engländern ihren weichen Kurs gegenüber Moskau. Als Pelzmützen-Premier Macmillan im Februar 1959 auf eigene Faust nach Moskau reiste, um sich als Unterhändler im Ost-West-Konflikt anzubieten, hatte der Bonner Kanzler sich eine so gefestigte Position in der Weltpolitik erkämpft, daß er glaubte, von nun an seinen Zorn über die Briten nicht mehr still in sich hineinschlucken zu müssen."

The Köln events are named "painful expierence" nothing more, not named "reason". After it there are named the European Defence Community, UK was against it. Adenauer made UK responsible for the end of it in Paris. So this is a reason noch speculation of the writer of this old article. (After the Brexit it will possibly made.) The next named is that Adenauer disliked the soft course against Moskau, because a travel of Premier Macmillan without to ask others.

So these reasons are clear changeable, not strongly but de Gaulles position was completly against an attempt with the UK to form a new Europe: http://www.zeit.de/2013/06/Grossbritannien-EU-Beitritt-Geschichte/seite-2 and there: http://www.bpb.de/internationales/europa/brexit/229985/zeitleiste After de Gaulle was gone 1969 it was possible ... before not. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But you are only repeating what my cited Spiegel article says. My question was, should we mention German Chancellor Adenauer's opposition to accept Britain as an EEC member, alongside French president De Gaulle's veto? At the moment, the Wikipedia article places all the blame on the French president. That is possibly not fair if Adenauer was equally guilty of shunning Britain. 81.131.173.36 (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP user (86.170.122.165) is engaged in actively trying to include spurious and speculative information via edits for the purpose of furthering his/her own POV. This is evidently contary to WP:NPOV. Furthermore, whilst IP address users do indeed have equal rights on wikipedia, it is beginning to become concerning that we have one IP user who is making substantial edits to the article and whom we can't address via his/her own talk page. Other users have reported disruptive edits of their user talk pages in an attempt to intimidate them, the posting of absurd accusations that single them out on the talk page of the article, and the IP user has even vandalised the page when he didn't get his/her way. I think we should motion to ban IP user 86.170.122.165 (and the range of addresses that they are using) from this article. His/her posts above on this talk page indicate that he/she sees this article as a re-run on the referendum, rather than an attempt to build an encyclopaedic resource about the process that is Brexit. I've used wikipedia for many years, as an IP user, and recently as a registered user, and I am appalled by this sort of behaviour from IP user: 86.170.122.165. Most odd is use of his/her own research suggest and strange claims about Trump and using language like "nail in the coffin of the EU" which is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The assumption of the motivations of other users is also bizarre. I really do think its time to put in place edit protection policies back on this article. Euexperttime (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the panicked claims above made by EUexperttime. If there is anything wrong with the article in your view, then simply go ahead and edit it. Like we all do. And why have you just deleted my discussion contribution on this talk page? Do you wish to prevent others from seeing what I have written? 86.170.122.165 (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, ironically, Euexperttime has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. EddieHugh (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brexit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160913032647/http://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/treaties_en to https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/treaties_en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160528104051/http://www.conservatives.in/ to http://www.conservatives.in/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/Cm6172.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Should we not also cover positive responses to Brexit in Europe? Some streams of thought, especially French, see this as a positive because it reduces the possibility of Anglo-Saxon meddling (whether British or American Imperialist) in European affairs. There are strains of this both on the left (ie - against neoliberalism) and on the right (in a Gaullist sense). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 'positive' (=anti-EU) as by Le Pen and Geert Wilders? They were more vocal at the time of the referendum. But in their national elections, that positivism was not used (anti-EU was not a campaign item). -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The former Liberal Democrat Minister Jeremy Browne reported that French authorities are pressing for a "disruptive" Brexit, intending to undermine the City of London.[1]

It is not possible to understand Brexit without this background information in Wikipedia. On a political level, to stop the rot, what we need is a European Peace Conference, where the French promise to stop eating frogs and the British solemnly renounce warm beer. But I am getting slightly carried away. 86.170.122.240 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) re Claíomh Solais: Sure those opinions (or sentiments) exist and could have/have had big influence. Note that we now have political parties, institutions (banks, civil rights organisations), scolars (universities), newspapers (in their editorials and news) that weigh in. Very hard to describe these opinions & their weight in an encyclopedic way I think, but probably can be done. Then, can these voices be called 'popular'? Probably the only real popular opinion is expressed in demonstrations and elections, not in Le Monde and FAZ? -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to add that in the article as it looks obvious that this helps to understand the rationale of the Brexit.

In august 2000, the United States International Trade Commission published The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Arrangement With the United States, Canada, and Mexico which consider Brexit as one mean to allow United-Kindgdom participation in NAFTA^[1] · ^[2].

This publication answers a Senate Finance Committee request to the U.S. International Trade Commission on 18 november 1999. In that mind, one scenario considered is UK access to ALENA with Brexit. It considers such a thning might lead to an USA GDP increase by USD 90 millions, with limited effect on UK and EU but this conclusion is considered as uncertain because there have never been any previous member state withdraw from the EU^[2].

In year 2000, Brexit ideology is yet supported by two opposite philosophies: the Gramm one and the Black one^[3].

No, not obvious: there were a number of reasons for the Brexit vote, and little justification for the view that potential US trade was of huge significance. That being so, an obscure 16-year-old US study does not seem worthy of inclusion.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

«a number of reasons for the Brexit vote»? which one?

• net contribution figures range from £5.7 billion (2014) to £8.8 billion (2014/15) is few amount of money against the planned «U.S. exports to the UK increase by $7 billion.»
• everybody understands that by itself $7 billion is of «huge significance», and you would not had had so much money to fund the advertisments for Brexit vote if there were not a «huge significance» behind.
• Alan Sked himself considers that «if Britain came out, she might want to join NAFTA or something, which would be both an interest of Britain and the United States»^[1].

Anyway, the rational of the Brexit is at least 14-year-old as the artcle 49A from Lisbon treaty (known as EU art 50) has been introduced in july 2003^[2], 35 month only after the «obscure 16-year-old US study».

This is why wikipedia article should not hide this background because it is relevant for understanding the Brexit (hi)story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So, even accepting your figures, why would the Brits have any interest in increased US exports. Replacement of Camembert by Monterey Jack? Did that win the vote?
• Sure, there were references to overseas trade during the campaign, but it was fairly low profile apart from Obama's twittery about the 'back of the queue'.
• ludicrous- trying to generate a conspiracy theory about a treaty having an exit clause. Have you looked at your mobile phone contract recently? And the 14-year/16-year stuff is post hoc windbaggery.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write that "Brits have any interest in increased US exports". I just understand that UK notified EU with art 50, because of Parliament choice. Parliament allowed art 50 notification because of the referendum result. 17 out of 46 million people voted for Brexit because they have been said to do that. The reason why at that time it has been said to British to vote Brexit remains to be clarified in wikipedia article, but it is quite clear that some people such as Donald Trump or Theresa May have their own ideas about an UK-US FTA.

• If your question is «Is there support for Nafta membership in the UK?» then the answer is, according to the telegraph, «Nafta is seen as an alternative to the EU in British conservative circles. Iain Duncan-Smith, the Tory party leader, supports membership, as does John Redwood, a prominent Conservative eurosceptic. They believe that British and American democratic tradition makes them good bedfellows. Europe is a less democratic creature and European economic practices are harmful to growth. British and US economic priorities are closer, they argue. Both countries subscribe to low tax rates, a limited nation state and a flexible labour market. In Europe sacking workers is harder and tax rates are significantly higher.»^[1].
• You can speak of Obama in one hand, but do not forget the other hand as Condoleeza Rice, President Bush's foreign policy adviser, told the Telegraph in July 1999: «Were the British to come and say with a unified voice, 'We'd like to join Nafta,' I don't think there would be any objection.»^[2]. It would not be fair to provide only one point of view, as long as we do not have a single party.
• As you raise the question of the exit clause, I have to say you raise a good question: why has the exit clause been introduced in the european treaty between april 2003 and 2007 Lisbon treaty. Some people are very clear to say this clause has been introduced specifically for British people. It might be a conspiracy theory if such idea was not supported by French ex-president and other mass media^[3]. for British people should be understood as for the british exit (Brexit). Anyway, it is sure that before this exit clause, exit of one country was considered as rather controversial^[4], if no insulting^[5].

I do not understand your argument about mobile phone. If your question regards the mobile phone contract exit clause answers might be dependant on local law, as long as it is not unified by EU. In France some people have contract avec engagement and other sans engagement, this might be slightly different, but in both cases you might have to perform some formalites to keep your phone number when you change your phone provider^[6]. Anyway you did not provided any evidence that a sui generis thing such as EU might be comparable to a mobile phone contract. Have you looked at your marriage contract recently? Have you looked at your biblical covenant recently? Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

For all those reasons we should avoid ideology and Point of View promoted by such or such party, by such or such breaking news, to keep with facts: verifiable facts, which provide an intelligible story which is accepted by everybody, in the spirit of wikipedia. This does not forbid to give a second rational for brexit, if NAFTA is not the unique argument.

Additional sources (which declare: Conrad Black employs both Kissinger and Gingrich via his media conglomerate, Hollinger International. He is also, a founder-member of the New Atlantic Initiative, while it owns Daily Telegraph.

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1350872/Bush-aide-supports-Britain-in-Nafta.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3604,349430,00.html

In 1998, the Canadian media tycoon Conrad Black, then owner of the Daily Telegraph, a conservative British newspaper, gave a keynote speech at the Centre for Policy Studies, a free-market think tank in London, entitled "Britain's Final Choice: Europe or America?" ^[1]

if Britain joined Nafta while remaining in the EU its exports to the US would increase by £1.9 billion per year^[2].

«A small, vocal minority of the Conservative Party has recently begun advocating the pursuit of a free trade agreement with North America. Originally, these advocates saw joining the North American Free Trade areement (NAFTA) as a viable economic alternative to EU membership.»^[3].Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What you have begun to establish is that there is some level of association between those in favour of Brexit and those in favour of the UK having a free-trade agreement with the US. You could equally well show a similar, or even higher degree of association, between those in favour of Brexit and of free trade with Australia. However, your assertion at the beginning was that the /rationale/ for Brexit was to have a NAFTA free-trade agreement, which is a completely different assertion, and one for which you have demonstrated no evidence. According to your wonky logic, my hair grows because I go to the barber.

Back to the exit clause- I don't have a marriage contract, but I believe that they would normally have an exit clause: in most cases that is their main purpose. Those of us without individual marriage contracts benefit from a generic exit clause defined by the state. Nearly everything, from a tiddleywinks club to NATO (art 13) provides for an exit clause, apart from the UN, so why do you wish to make such a big deal about the mere existence of Art. 50? Wonky logic again- your argument is that the exit clause exists, therefore the dastardly Brexiteers did it, whereas the exit clause exists, therefore nothing.

Gravuritas (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be considered with its chronology, else you will conclude that your hair grows because you go to the barber.

Since when exist the idea of free trade between UK and Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like UK opt out are a first step to Brexit, or at least that

• UK opt out and Brexit obey to a same goal of remaining outside of EU.
• UK opt out ease the Brexit, by exluding optout topics from brexit negociation

As such, I assume that list and dates of UK opt out should be registered in this wikipedia article.

It looks like the basis of Brexit have been planned since july 2003 by British tories^[3].

This is an important piece of information which should appear in the wikipedia article.

Brtian is not the financial center of the world, New York is and there is evidence to confirm it

You were asked to raise this on the talk page if you wanted to change it; you were also given advice on adding tags to the article (not the talk page) rather than deleting sourced material. Perhaps the advice was not clear. It meant that you should discuss on the talk page before reverting again. Please follow this advice: discuss the matter here with others so that a consensus can be reached and then followed. The source states that the UK (London) is. Something strong is required to counter that. To date, you have presented nothing. EddieHugh (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have provided sources during my first edit, if you have checked. Perhaps you did not understand clearly enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know that I checked, because I replied to you on my talk page, telling you that the source you provided "appears to have been abandoned in 2014", and you responded to that. I see that you have yet again reverted without consensus and without reasonable justification (a source of old data does not negate a recent one). I hope that another editor can step in here, because I've reverted your actions enough already and advised you on three talk pages of what you should do, and it's not making any difference. EddieHugh (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a look, and neither NY nor London unambiguously wins the title. If I were to pick one criterion for global financial centre, it would be forex, which London wins- but other criteria would hand the title to NY. I suggest the article is amended along the lines of "...one of the top two most important global financial centres". It isn't of huge significance to Brexit or this article whether London is #1 or #2.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latest Global Financial Centres Index (No. 21; March 2017) puts London 1 point ahead overall, so I agree that there's not much difference. I would prefer to use the existing source, which is quoted, and attribute the expression in the text (on the lines of "... 'financial capital of the world', as one German newspaper put it"). Otherwise, we will have to use a different source or re-word to avoid misrepresenting the source. The following quote from the Global Financial Centres Index report might also be noteworthy somewhere:

* "Brexit and the US election have had a significant impact. London and New York fell 13 and 14 points respectively."

--Boson (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After 2 weeks with no further discussion, I changed it to "'the financial capital of the world', as Münchner Merkur put it", following Boson's suggestion. EddieHugh (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Redom115 has been blocked indefinitely. EddieHugh (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, if this article should give in one paragraph, some piece of information regarding who is in charge for the UK, according to her constitutional requirements, of the following topics:

• ratification of european treaties,
• ratification of the withdrawal agreement
• decide on article 50 to withdrawal of ratified european treaty
• decide to not conclude any withdrawal agreement
• decide to increase the two year term before withdrawal

For instance, is this the Queen? is this the parliament? is this the executive power?

Which court is in charge of checking such constitutional requirement?

And if the european treaty is a part of the UK constitutional requirements, wile the withdrawal of EU reduce the UK constitutional requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In respect of ratification of any treaty pursuant to the UK's Article 50 withdrawal notice, there will be three aspects: validity according to international law; validity under UK law, including the passing of an act of parliament to satisfy requirements of constitutional law, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in Miller's Case; and validity for European Union as the other party to the proposed treaty. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions." Vive la difference!

Gravuritas (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it can be seen that, given the established position under international law and the law of the UK's unwritten (partly statutory) constitution, the weakness of the EU position becomes self-evident, with its various institutions (Commission, Council, parliament) and 27 disparate remaining member states, with their more or less democratic electorates and contending political parties, and mostly with written and republican constitutions of recent origin. Qexigator (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue about those topics, please open an Democracy within European union wikipedia article, and Democracy within United Kingdom and Constitution article. This topic is about: Who & constitutional requirements in regard to the treaties and decisions related to Brexit and to the United Kingdom. Two wrongs do not make one right.

Or else, is this democracy when the 48 have to accept the decision of the 52 and the 1 do not accept the decision of the 27? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM. The point is that covering 'in one paragraph' 'who is in charge for the UK', as per your original request, is difficult, verging on impossible. No doubt the various players in the UK constitution will have their say before the game is finished, You, and everybody else, will have to wait and see how the game plays out.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like UK would like to negotiate a transitional period for establishing national trade agreements, once Brexit (withdrawal agreement) is effective. Should such a transitional period dealt with by this Brexit article, or by another more specific article? Reference: www.leparisien.fr/international/brexit-londres-espere-negocier-une-union-douaniere-avec-bruxelles-15-08-2017-7193745.php

Since the referendum £ fell versus mostly all main currencies ,particularly versus € it lost more than a 15 %.It must be specified in the economic effects.It will weight also on prices,trading,net national wealth and per capita and on nominal and PPP GDPs.Picuslor (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

look up 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' error. Then read the source carefully, and find that it does not say that the fall,is caused by the Brexit vote. Then note that the heading under which you are trying to insert this stuff is 'Economic effects'. Then check the record of the GBP exchange rate over sayna ten year period, and you'll,find that it's been up and down like a whore's drawers. Then stop inflicting this POV. It is by the way, poor form to re-insert while discussing.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,£ is grown since referendum))))All people know £ weakness.I'm british and by the name you aren't ,you seem lithuanian.Picuslor (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage with the facts, and the argument. Have you got to first base? Do you understand a post hoc error?

Gravuritas (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had 10/10 cum laude in latin))).Picuslor (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, for about the fourth time, no engagement with the argument, just attempted personal gids and semi- literate drivel on my talk page from you. Conclusion: there is no rational support for your POV insertion. You've had more than enough opportunities to support it. It goes.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can find a recent article of the decline of £ versus.They talk about post Brexit.Game over.Picuslor (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pound declined in August. Not noteworthy.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not networthy for you.Picuslor (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh). Here's how it works. Read around the subject and try to understand what RS commentators in general are saying about the GBP exchange rate, and to what extent this is due to Brexit. Don't continue to lard the article with variants of the same non-news with an increasing list of references- you've tried that and I've deleted it. You've continued to insert silly comments here and on my Talk page. Now learn the lesson. Make your case on talk. Make your case on talk. Make your case on talk.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you both pause for a while: you've both violated WP:3RR already. Try to find a consensus on this talk page before (re-)adding anything on this topic. My view is that this section (Consequences of withdrawal for the United Kingdom) is about the post-split future, not about weekly/monthly updates on what's happening. What the £/FTSE/inflation is doing therefore doesn't fit in this section. Perhaps a new section could be started, but it's near-impossible to separate Brexit-related effects from broader noise and the immediate effects are already covered in the Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 article. EddieHugh (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read this much you'll know that no serious attempt has been made to justify the additional material beyond the creation of a longer reference list to support the POV. As I understand the WP way of working, that means the new material is removed from the article until consensus is reached on Talk. Is this correct? If so, I suggest that you remove the new stuff until justified.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. We can now wait for a rationale/other views. EddieHugh (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All world knows pound fall .Just you here ignore it.Incredible article.Stay in my former land,now a second world country.Picuslor (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

£ is in free fall also today at 1€=0.9315.All news in the world talk of £ fall and its risks to join parity with € or much more (1.1-1.15).I've shame to be british abroad.I feel like a beggar.Picuslor (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the "political effects" section to a broader "immediate effects" section with "political effects" and "financial effects" subsections where the fall in the pound could be covered. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with both points of view here. On the one hand, I find it unsatisfactory that key economic parameters since the June 2016 referendum are not mentioned in the Brexit article, namely:

• fall of the pound by 15%,
• fall in unemployment to 4.5% (lowest unemployment since 1972, albeit on zero hours contracts etc),
• fall in immigration to "only" 250,000 in the past year (mainly a fall in EU immigrants, but also a slight fall in non-EU immigrants),
• fall in house prices

But, do we really know if these are referendum effects? Or Brexit effects? Or would these developments have happened anyway? On the whole, the changes are not as drastic as predicted by most economists. But to be fair to them, the economists based their predictions on Cameron's promise of immediate triggering of Article 50, not the substantial delay we have seen so far. So I have no obvious solution for Wikipedia, but I think if even economists are not able to explain what is a Brexit effect and what is not, we should not attempt to do so on Wikipedia. Perhaps we can add economic effects with hindsight after March 2019. Or when the Bank of England's minutes are published. Or when UK government documents are made available to the public in 30 years' time - that will be an interesting read! 81.131.172.125 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Picuslor "has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy". EddieHugh (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reasons, there is an enormous amount of documents and links within the various EU & UK departments processes committees etc.

The link below gives an all in one place list of ALL of them in a decipherable order.

For obvious reasons editors got the impression that I am pushing some useless jounos blog link for whatever useless reason.

The thing is, this is exactly the opposite of the maze of links to dig into and dig again. Read the given link and the links in the current article, and you will find how many docs will not be found, and of course not easily by following the maze like a good boy

• A list of ALL official negotiation documents. EU & UK Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no endless documents, because Brexit negotiations will end en march 2019, or any other date agreed by deal, date of the end. There is just the amount of position papers documents necessary to mitigate some of the yet foreseen issues raised by Brexit perspective. The documents coming after Brexit would probably no more be Brexit documents, but rather in one hand the documents for negotiating the future agreement, and on other hand only the documents produced in the context of the WA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is fairly regular post-referendum polling, I suggest moving it to a page of its own and putting a graphical summary on this page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This needs its own place. Can be summarized in this article, however Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean summarised with a graph? I'm not sure how we could fairly/neutrally summarise it with text. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutelypuremilk: I suggest you put your graph on this Talk page to begin with, and then we make a decision whether we prefer your graph over the existing table. Technical question: will your graph be amenable to regular updates? Or do we risk that once inserted in the article, the graph will remain "frozen" as of August 2017? 81.131.172.125 (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to delete a phrase in the lead, stating "although revoking this might be legally possible"^[1]

This phrase has been the subject of editing disputes, so let me explain.

The first problem with the phrase is the cited BBC reference. I have listened to the BBC webcast, and it makes no such statement. So in any case the BBC reference must be deleted here.

The second problem is formal. The lead should summarise what the main article says. And the main article does not dispute that Article 50 is reversible. The described dispute is whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 (that is the view of the cited legal experts including Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50), or whether revocation requires the agreement of the other EU members (that is the view presented by the EU Parliament and the EU Commission). So an entirely different phrase in the lead would have been needed.

The third problem is weight. Reversibility of Article 50 is a tiny subsection in the main article, and so far, reversibility has not been extensively discussed let alone applied by the main actors (the UK government and the EU Council). So currently the lead should not give undue weight to the legal possibility of unilateral reversibility. 86.170.122.135 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been settled several times on this talk page, and each time consensus has decided against you. You just wait several weeks and then restart the same argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuman unchained (talk • contribs) 09:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schuman. Please do not be paranoid - to my knowledge I have not participated in any discussion on this point. According to my memory, there have been back-and-forth edits regarding Article 50 reversibility with acrimonious editing comments on the main page, but I cannot find any discussion on this Talk Page. If such a discussion exists, please point me towards it. If not, please respond to my three criticisms above. I am sure we can work out a solution to the problem. Meanwhile I am reversing your edit not to provoke you, but to make sure you read this. 86.170.122.135 (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last entry: unfortunately Schumann is now edit-warring, so I am letting him win and I am now signing off. It is not a big enough deal for me. For the record, he now claims there has been a discussion on this Talk Page on reversibiity of Article 50, and claims that I have been involved in that discussion. Neither of Schumann's claims is true, as any Wikipedian can easily confirm by searching for the terms "revoke" or "reversibility" on this Talk Page. 86.170.122.135 (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. Schuman unchained has now been blocked for sock puppetry. So ignore him and please keep up the good work. 86.170.121.171 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The English voted Leave, not the British as a whole, still less the UK. There should be some coverage of English nationalism in the article as that seems to be the almost unspoken driver. Fergananim (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How "the English" voted is unknown, but we do know how people registered in England voted. As always, though, if you think these things are important and have good sources that say something of value, then add them. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I have a few (http://www.ricorso.net/rx/library/criticism/revue/OToole_F/OToole_F20.htm, http://podbay.fm/show/794389685/e/1497610209?autostart=1, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/brexits-irish-question/), they are few in number. Plus I'd like some input and discussion from other editors. Fergananim (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/10/05/english-nationalism-drove-brexit-and-now-supercharges-the-tories-what-about-the-uk/, https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/tory-talk-of-union-hides-soft-underbelly-of-english-nationalism-1.3025164, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/britain-ireland-brexit-leo-varadkar.html?mcubz=0, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-scottish-referendum-english-nationalism-damaged-union-for-good-a7635796.html, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/18/english-nationalism-rising-hard-brexit-not-way-assuage, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/12/election-britain-brexit-english-nationalism-scotland, http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the-problem-with-the-english-england-doesn-t-want-to-be-just-another-member-of-a-team-1-4851882, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-04/brexit-is-an-english-nationalism-thing, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2041905816666124?journalCode=plia, https://www.britac.ac.uk/brexit-and-union, http://pascalobservatory.org/pascalnow/pascal-activities/events/brexit-reframed-english-nationalism-euroscepticism-and-anglospher, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/22/make-england-great-again-brexit-eu-david-cameron/,

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

Your proposal makes little sense to me. The Welsh are clearly not English nationalists yet they voted for Brexit. Same is true for Scottish nationalist voters who turned out the highest pro-Brexit vote in Scotland. What we need to cite is a proper survey which explores the reasons for Brexit. I dimly remember that the principal reason for Brexit was immigration concerns (I think this was identified as a major factor by the British Social Attitudes Survey, cited somewhere in a Wikipedia article in the context of how the younger generation voted). My impression is that the "English nationalism" claim is made by commentators such as Fintan OToole who are unhappy with Brexit, due to the scary effects Brexit could have on Ireland if no agreement with the EU is reached, and are thus not unbiased. So I suggest it is better for us to rely on scientific surveys rather than on commentators. I would encourage you to read the BSA and come up with a draft paragraph here on the Talk page for further discussion. 86.170.121.244 (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where BSA might mean British Social Attitudes Survey.

I assume the text to read, is the one which states that «national identity and cultural outlook were significantly associated with vote choice.»^[1].

It is not impossible that Thatcher played quite a key role in setting the mindset for both topics: British exit and British nationalism; extracts of Les années Thatcher en Écosse : l'Union remise en question (Gilles Leydier):

• «la rhétorique anti-bruxelloise mise en avant par M Thatcher au nom de la souveraineté «nationale» été perçue en Écosse comme le rejet d'une solidarité européenne en même temps que l'expression d'un isolationnisme typiquement anglais contraire la tradition continentale notamment pré-unioniste avec l' Auld Alliance, de l’Écosse»
• «M Thatcher a d'ailleurs revendiqué à titre personnel et à plusieurs reprises son identité de «nationaliste anglaise» » — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an erreur in your French. What is "contraire la tradition" supposed to mean? Perhaps "contre la tradition"? Please correct. 86.170.122.241 (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should read "contraire à". --Boson (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In original version which bing can found, they write as you write: «contraire à»; see http://www.cairn.info/article_p.php?ID_ARTICLE=RFSP_446_1034

I have reverted the recent good-faith edits. If there is a significant connection between Scottish Brexit sentiments and the Catalonian events, maybe a brief mention would be appropriate somewhere (not sure). But the recent additions were almost unintelligible, placed in the wrong section, and they added details not explicitly stated in the given source. With such a controversial topic, we should stay as close to the sources as possible. Also, Wikipedia does not need to pick up every single news article ever published. The article should provide a succinct encyclopedic overview of the most relevant information, it does not need to provide a comprehensive documentation with all secondary incidents and opinions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Trump administration (and other third countries) took position on the Brexit split of WTO deals. Might be this article should give some words about it, but in a better English... [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC) </ references>[reply]

I would add that additional sources are available, for instance:

• «Seven countries led by the US, including Canada, Argentina, Brazil and New Zealand signed a letter to the EU objecting to a plan to split agricultural tariff rate quotas, or TRQs.»^[2]
• «“We cannot accept such an agreement,” the letter stated. The seven countries are displeased that they had not been consulted on the negotiations.»^[2]
• «There is now a general consensus between UK and EU that TRQs should be divided based on historical imports and consumption.»^[2]
• «Mrs May, (...) presented the deal as a breakthrough for a successful Brexit, particularly as US President Donald Trump was an advocate of Britain leaving the EU.»^[2]
• According to the letter, the TRQs are based on global today's trade architecture, and no calculation of Britain’s tariff-rate quotas could be agreed at the WTO without the agreement of the seven.^[2]
• UK plans to ask that “technical rectification” method be used to establish its new agricultural quotas schedule, to secure approval from other WTO members.

The seven disagree on this last point as according to their letter, “The modification of these TRQ access arrangements cannot credibly be achieved through a technical rectification”

or, according to the FT:

• Trumps would like a “beautiful trade deal” with the UK after it leaves the EU, with a hard bargain.^[3].
• This might induce a risk for the UK to accept opening up beforeany deal^[3].
• The discussion will occur in the week of October 16 (agriculture week) in Geneva ^[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Reuters, the plan will be sent to WTO next week.

Three main issues:

1. the division of agricultural import quotas
2. farm subsidy rights
3. for Britain, continued membership of the WTO’s government procurement agreement, which it is not a member of in its own right^[1].

And according to the BBC, “It's also interesting to note which countries have raised the objection in the WTO. They include three that have been identified as leading candidates for free-trade deals with the UK post-Brexit: the US, Canada and New Zealand.”^[2].

According to the National Intelligence Council, «A range of issues pose a serious threat to the future of the EU, including the Brexit process and its fallout elsewhere in Eu rope»^[1].

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

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

I would like to know if you feel that this article is clear enough on the relationship which might exist between Brexit and the ECJ addressing some topics such as:

• any role any British dislike of the ECJ might have had on the process which led to the Brexit decision (notifying article 50).
• any role any British dislike of the ECJ would have on the process of deciding Brexit to be or not to be a no deal
• any plan to manage dispute resolution if any, after Brexit (for instance without the ECJ)

I assume that to understand the dislike of a dispute resolution organization, it makes sense to compare it to another dislike of an other dispute resolution organization. It looks like such other dislike of dispute resolution organization exists in some other places such as for instance:

• dislike of the NAFTA dispute resolution organization, by the administration of Mr Brexit++
• dislike of the WTO dispute resolution organization, by the administration of Mr Brexit++
• dislike of the Spanish constitutional court by some catalans, and by any Brexiters.

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

Hi IP 77.193.104.227. I suggest you are confusing the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights. It is the latter (only indirectly an EU institution) which regularly made negative headlines in the British newspapers in the years before the Brexit referendum 2016, protecting suspected Islamic terrorists from deportation etc. There is a useful and balanced article here[20] in The Guardian newspaper. Good luck with your further research. 81.131.171.205 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

( @ User talk:81.131.171.205 ) : No, “One of the most contentious issues in Britain’s exit from the EU is the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) during and after Brexit. This is because Brexit is ultimately a question of sovereign authority. Who decides the rules of the game when things go awry: a UK judge, or their EU counterpart?”and “We are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — that’s not going to happen,” Mrs May said to her party’s·

·

After a few search and some fast reading, it looks like there are some similarities and some disimilarities:

• Some criticism of the WTO DSS are:
  • “law made by a court is not subject to review by the legislature.”
  • “creation of laws that would have never been accepted by the parties in negotiations?”
  • “the extent to which the Members give it (sovereignty) up is actually unknown precisely”
  • “The question of the common law”
  • “over-interpretation contrary to the legal text.”
  • “lack of WTO rules concerning private counsel,”
  • “non-governmental persons who are not bound by any WTO code of ethics to gain access to privileged government trade secrets”^[1].
  • “lack of DSU provisions prescribing qualifications for appeals to the Appellate Body.”^[2]
  • “what extent compliance with the panel and Appellate Body rulings and recommendations can be enforced.”
• Some criticism of NAFTA’s settlement of investor-state investment disputes
  • NAFTA’s Chapter 11: “there is provision for the settlement of investor-state investment disputes (...) it has simply followed the already well-established model for investor-state dispute resolution.”^[3].
  • “host nation’s sovereignty is diminished by affording foreign investors added power in asserting investment claims in binding arbitrations”
  • “Chapter 11 (...) lacks the procedural safeguards to protect common constitutional guarantees.”
  • “unclear definitions in the Article’s text affect the manner in which it is applied”
  • “A permanent tribunal would "develop a consistent jurisprudence" more easily than ad hoc panels.”^[4]
  • “the secrecy of the proceedings”
  • “effectiveness of sanctions in the form of retaliatory measures”
• In regard to post brexit EC, some concerns are:
  • “is there a ‘third judge’”^[5]
  • “how is it decided which side has a majority on the panel?”
  • “the ECJ adopts a flexible approach which allows it to depart from the wording of the EU Treaties or legislation in favour of a teleological, i.e. purposive, interpretation even where the wording of the relevant provision is neither obscure nor ambiguous.”^[6].
  • “the scope of EU law is incrementally expanding”
• For the CCJ :
  • “If the region hopes to benefit from the soon-to-be-FTAA, it must work quickly to remove the jurisdiction that the CCJ currently has as a court of final appeal for the Anglophone Caribbean”^[7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change the edits themselves, but part of one edit summary was incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, although it doesn't matter if he's published something, has a PhD, etc. This is an encyclopedia article that covers (should cover) the broad range of viewpoints on its subject matter. Removing bits because they don't fit criteria for inclusion in an academic economics journal, or because the author hasn't been given a doctorate in the exact niche that is being described, is going too far. Similarly, rejecting a Capital Economics report because its authors aren't listed or it wasn't peer reviewed is over the top. Lots of organisations don't list authors – are we to exclude them all? And it wasn't peer reviewed – again, there's no reason for this to be essential. The Sampson publication you added is from a journal that isn't refereed: it "attempts to fill part of the gap between refereed economics research journals and the popular press" ... "Articles appearing in the journal are primarily solicited by the editors and associate editors". That's fine, because this isn't an economics symposium in which experts aim to build a consensus on particular forecasts; it's an encyclopedia article for the general reader, who expects to see more than a purely academic perspective presented. EddieHugh (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we're getting at is one of the common problems on Wikipedia: the conflating of science with random political rhetoric. In 'impact' or 'effects' sections in articles, there should only be high-quality scientific research and/or assessments by actual experts. Political rhetoric belongs in 'the politics of X' sub-sections. The two should never be mixed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JEP is a prestigious journal of the AEA. Whether it does blind reviews is irrelevant. Statements made in the publication about the state of research on a given topic are authoritative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a report published by Capital Economics is RS, especially when contrasted to research published by actual economists and when CE's findings conflict with those of actual experts. Just read the report, it's not a scientific study in the slightest. It reads like an extended op-ed and just makes random ill-informed claim. And it's authored by who knows? If it's not authored by trade economists, why should it be seen as RS in its declarations on trade? It also appears to have been funded by a euroskeptic hedge fund manager and the organization appears to be run by euroskeptic financial people, but diving in on the background of the organization is besides the point, given that there is nothing presented that should make anything accept CE's statements about the effects of Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a major irony in arguing for presenting only the analysis/opinions of economics experts in an article and on a topic that exists in part because of a referendum in which following exclusively the opinions of said experts was rejected! The CE report was commissioned and then made public by Woodford Investment Management, headed by Neil Woodford, who is one of the UK's best-known and most successful fund (not hedge fund) managers. So, one company makes money (since 1999) selling economic research and the other aims to make money in part by having/making accurate economic forecasts. Neither has any control over economic reality, but, just as with economists in academia, they make forecasts in the hope of being correct. They are all experts, but with different audiences, different reasons for being and different publication/acceptance rituals. Which view on Brexit & the economy we take or accept isn't what we should present in the article; we should present the different opinions/analyses that exist, in proportion, so that the reader is informed, not told what to think. Presenting the views of (economics) experts of different types and opinions is a step towards that. EddieHugh (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how ironic! Shall we next head over to the 'climate change' article and add some ill-informed nonsense from non-experts and fringe figures? After all, how can there be a consensus among climate scientists on climate change if the US public elected someone who rejects climate change? Everyone is equally right, right? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no, an op-ed (read the damn report, it's not a study in the slightest) by unknown figures funded by a euroskeptic is not RS. And no, there is nothing to indicate that the goal behind the report is to make the most accurate assessment, because the "report" makes no assessment in any scientific sense (presumably because no actual experts on trade were involved in writing it). The motivations may as well have been to produce whatever outcome that funder wanted or get media coverage for the firm. Who knows? There's no point debating the unknown motivations of the firm, given that the report is not credible, which is the chief reason to dismiss it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans. Your points would have more force if there existed the “high-quality scientific research and/or assessments by actual experts” which you are wishing for. Scientific research of even moderate quality shows that there are no experts in the field of economic forecasting. High quality scientific research on economic forecasts? Are you not aware of the crap record these clowns have? Are you not even aware that the assumptions underlying e.g the Treasury forecasts were tendentious? Have you not seen the apology that IMF produced? Get real. Nearly all the forecasts are produced with political agendas, with the possible exception of some commercial forecasts. So please don’t conflate economic forecasts with science.Gravuritas (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short-term forecasts ("what will happen months after a referendum?") which you are talking about are not considered credible by most economists. You would know this if you'd actually know anything about the field of economics (or if you could be arsed to actually read the Wikipedia article in question and the sources in it). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not restricted to short-term forecasts. Your implication seems to be that longer-term forecasts ‘’are’’ considered ‘credible by most economists’. But, given the predictive record of ‘most economists’, who cares? So, to demonstrate this high quality science and utter credibility, please point to some successful predictions made by experts which were considered credible by most economists when they were made. If, of course, you can be arsed.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: I can't be arsed to tell some stranger on the internet how science works. I have better things to do with my time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already know how science works: it works by making successful predictions on the outcome of an experiment, and if it can’t do that, it ain’t science. Your touching faith in ‘experts’ and the oxymoronic ‘scientific economic forecasts’ belongs in the field of theology. Anyone who is really an expert in economic forecasting would be a multi-billionaire after a couple of decades of successful forecasts. Know many of those?

Gravuritas (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge of science matches your knowledge of economics - you haven't a clue. Other than to verify another scientist's results, scientists have no interest whatever in doing an experiment where they know what the outcome will be. Please read Scientific method. Likewise, economists have no interest in gambling on the markets - that's not how economics works either. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From your chosen wikilink: “The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis”. Didn’t read very far, did you? The point about science is that it makes falsifiable predictions, and if the predictions are generally about as accurate as flipping a coin, then it ain’t science. And if an economist’s predictions are as expert and scientific as Snoo believes them to be, it wouldn’t be ‘gambling’ on the markets- it would be picking up their expertly identified, scientifically guaranteed winnings. So, returning to the proper topic, in the field of economic predictions applied to e.g the future economics of the UK post-Brexit, Snoo’s naive search for authority fails because the experts ain’t expert and the science isn’t science.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If smoking increases the probability of cancer, shouldn't physicians be able to pinpoint the precise date in which a smoker gets cancer? If they can't, then medicine isn't science and we don't know that smoking is truly bad for you." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False premise. Desperation showing.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your recent edits, deleting a dissenting economic view and using e.g ‘overwhelming’ amount to POV pushing. I suggest you revert them and take a more balanced view. Gravuritas (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Overwhelming" is reliably and abundantly sourced. The self-published Capital Economics op-ed is not a RS, as explained before. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans has been asked repeatedly to remove a clear NPOV violation and sourcing problem that he (I'm assuming gender; correct if wrong) introduced to this article. He still hasn't done it. Yet, three weeks after failing to gain consensus to remove accurately sourced and relevant material, he returns and removes it again! I echo Gravuritas' request: please make the changes and restore what there is no consensus for removing. EddieHugh (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That there is overwhelming agreement among economists that Brexit is likely to reduce the UK's real per-capita income is abundantly and reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published op-ed authored by unknown individuals at a firm is not a RS. Was the Capital Economics text "accurately sourced"? Yes. "Relevant"? Yes. Reliably sourced? No. Due weight? No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through the CE arguments already and you've added nothing new, just repeated your opinion without reference to policy. In summary: you haven't given valid reasons (just opinions) for removing material giving one point of view, and you've added material supporting another point of view (some of it legitimate and it should be included, but some irrelevant, some not in the source, some of your wording ascribes certainty that is unwarranted, and your latest positioning of information in the lead gives undue prominence). This is an obvious pattern of systematically pushing a POV. Your refusal to address obvious errors which you introduced, or to pay any attention to consensus (or a lack of one), also point towards the same conclusion. This is my last request to you to address these POV matters. EddieHugh (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SnSn again. If you have any economic understanding, re-read your edits- if not, phone a friend. For instance, you want to use a figure from an article which refers to a reduction in real,income due to the pound’s immediate devaluation on the Brexit vote. Devaluation has several effects, on different timescales, and as the article only covers the short-term effect on inflation and ignores all other effects, the appropriate descriptions for it include ‘half-assed’ and ‘propagandistic’, especially as it then calculates an effect on household real incomes, which by ignoring all other effects, is really piss-poor. But you swallow this garbage and seek to regurgitate a morsel of it into the WP article. You also continuein your naive belief that if a majority (whether overwhelming or not) of economists predict something about the future, then the predicted outcome is guaranteed. Look at the record.

Gravuritas (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]