Talk:Brexit

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.

Relationship with remaining EU members

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Consequences of withdrawal for the EU

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)

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)

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)

Immigration caused the turnout of the referendum ?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Brexit means Brexit

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).

Request for source translation/clarification please

@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)

@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)

@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)

Reopening "prospective"/"possible" and POV?

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

+ 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)

• "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)

  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)

...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)

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

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)

• "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)

"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)

Section reworked under subheading: Effect on academic research

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Draft addition to Effect on academia

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]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

+ 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)

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)

...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)

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)

"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)

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)

Change the title (NPOV)

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)

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)

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)

Proliferation of pages on similar Brexit topics

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)

See also section

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)

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)

Updating the article

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)

Brexit project?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Euroscepticism subsection

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)

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.

References

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Khan admitted that complete

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)

Consequences of withdrawal for the EU

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)

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)

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)

Need to split this article

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)

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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

Serious chronological error in introduction

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Ambiguity of "although" in recent edit

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. 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."

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

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)

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)

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)

Edit request: Promote subsection "5.4 Negotiations" as section "6. Negotiations"

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2017

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. Juristoman (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jamietw (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

References

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)

Donald Tusk: Brexit is like an Alfred Hitchcock thriller

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)

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

Edit request: improve anaemic Negotiations section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Consequences of withdrawal for the EU

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

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 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)
• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Housing market consequences / London mortages

Shouldn't we mention, how devastating the Brexit was at the London housing market? --Rævhuld (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

References

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)

Consequences of withdrawal for the US

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)

Brexit is 'an incident not a trend'

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)

Juncker quote

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".

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

References

Reversibility

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)

Effects of Brexit on Confectionery

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.

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

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

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)

References

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)

Stick and carrot: EU hostility towards UK vs "welcoming back"

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. 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)

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)

Intro bias: "Why is the only negative effect mentioned in the Brexit intro, about a parochial voting issue in the EU?" & Reversal: "No, its not a POV - it belongs in the intro"

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)

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