Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 23 November 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brexit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving Brexit was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates: 28 August 2019 20 October 2019 31 January 2020

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 23, 2019.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 2010s Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "A bitter turf war is raging on the Brexit Misplaced Pages page". 2019-04-29. While Westminster remains mired in endless Brexit deadlock, over on the Brexit Misplaced Pages page things are even less amicable. Editors are parrying death threats, doxxing attempts and accusations of bias, as the crowdsourced epic has become the centre of a relentless tug-of-war over who gets to write the history of the UK as it happens.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Brexit. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Brexit at the Reference desk.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 19 to 25, 2016 (5th) June 26 to July 2, 2016 (25th)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Violent Protests Over Brexit Continue In Belfast

crystal in lede

Hi, has this WP:CRYSTAL been discussed or gone through RFC before? If not, I think I will remove it. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

CRYSTAL refers to editors forecasting the future. Afaics, the text is reporting forecasts, which is legitimate. It seems to be properly cited? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Its not limited to editors, and states "Misplaced Pages does not predict the future." The article is currently repeating predictions of pundits on what will happen to a nation in the future and in the lede (putting undue weight). Its way too much from my standpoint. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: it seems to me that the predictions made by the proponents and opponents before the referendum certainly should be in the article because they so informed the debate. I don't see how that is Misplaced Pages predicting the future, especially since those predictions were so divergent. I agree that any new predictions in the light of subsequent reality should not be included.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The last line of the lede does not seem to be anything but negative predictions, not all sides. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The solution in that case is to add the positive predictions, surely? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Either, but I prefer Removal, as it seems to me the OP is kind of right. These were (they are not even are, they were made years ago) predictions, not facts. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong disagree. They should stay. It is a fact and an undeniable one at that, that there is (not past tense) a strong consensus amongst economists on these points. We don't also just "add positive" predictions, because that would be false balance. There is no strong academic consensus on these positive points. Luxofluxo (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not false balance to report the predictions of each campaign, indeed it is unbalanced to fail to do so. We should have the "£350m a day for the NHS", "immediate trade deal with the USA", "easiest trade deal ever", "same benefits as we have now", "Norway-plus" arrangement, "no border down the Irish Sea", "massive reduction in immigration". etc. But I'm afraid I must agree that it would be a CRYSTAL violation to give space to predictions made after June 2016 unless the predicted event has already occurred. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Luxofluxo, if there are indeed available sources that use is then we can swap out the crystal content for those. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, the facts are that predictions were made and thus it is entirely valid to report each of those facts. It doesn't matter how long ago they were made. It doesn't matter whether they were right or wrong. (If events have proved them wrong – and an RS says so, else it is OR – then that is reportable too.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking we dont include predictions, this is the point of CRYSTAL and the policy is more important than whatever is going on here (appears might be WP:RGW or advocacy). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding more nonsense (in this case predictions) is exactly the definition of false balance. Remove it all from the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I suggest that you have misread the policy. We don't include predictions as predictions, that certainly is CRYSTAL. The issue here that predictions were made on both sides of the debate leading up to the referendum and that they influenced how people voted. It is not CRYSTAL to record that those predictions were made – the details of what they were are almost incidental but we have to say what they were.

wp:false balance arises when the strong consensus is that "A" is the reality, that there is no significant evidence for "B" but nevertheless we give "A" and "B" equal treatment (see climate change). If the debate we are having now were about the post-2016 "consequences of Brexit" judgements and predictions, you would be correct because the consensus in recent years is that these are and will be economically adverse with no significant contrary expert opinion. But it is not about that (and even if it were, we couldn't include it, per CRYSTAL). Before the referendum, each campaign made its own 'pitch' and we have a duty to record what those pitches were. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are asserting the predictions now have come true, then cite the come true part and drop the prediction. I havent misread the CRYSTAL policy and quoted it for you above. First you said it applied to editors and not to articles (wrong) and now are you talking about some sort of POVs on both sides and that makes the crystal ok, it doesnt. Policy is more important than a particular article. Please just drop it. If you dont consent, I am just going to run an RFC on the matter and waste everyone's time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, please read what I wrote. What is relevant and should be included is that predictions were made by both campaign groups. That is an historical fact. The subsequent accuracy of those predictions is entirely irrelevant. This is not Misplaced Pages predicting the future, this is reporting the fact that predictions were made by the recognised campaigns. You are misleading yourself by looking at the content of the predictions rather than their existence. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• I removed it here per WP:CRYSTAL "Misplaced Pages does not predict the future." If you can find some text that says it has already happened, then it might be WP:DUE for WP:LEDE. Right now this crystal in the lede is a gross policy violation and undue weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

And I will now revert that deletion. This is a WP:Bold, revert, discuss debate. You do not get make a unilateral decision on the conclusion of that debate while it is still in progress. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Although my point about pre-emptive action while a BRD debate is in progress stands, the specific statement you removed was an "after the event" prediction and thus a CRYSTAL violation. I agree with deleting it. So that leaves us with a gap to be filled for the campaign promises. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is quite clear and always leans towards removal of content, especially when it is a clear policy issue. You need to find clear consensus to add predictions to the lede of this article and I dont see it. I also see that similar text in the article has WP:OVERCITE, making it look like the content might have been the source of an earlier WP:EW. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Impact section cleanup

Hi, I tagged Brexit#Impact with an additional cleanup for WP:CRYSTAL tag. The section now has multiple problems and needs urgent attention. It seems that old info (prior to Brexit) was left in that is both outdated and also were speculations of what might be the impact. We are a wikipedia and cover what has happened in the past. There should be plenty of sources on what has been the impact (not an expert myself) but I am sure there is something. Maybe the section needs to get chopped in half or more if there are not WP:RS of what has actually already impacted, not speculation by thinktanks on what might happen sometime if ever. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In principle yes but it is important to record what the official campaigns declared would happen. We don't have to say (and without RSs definitely should not say) how accurate those predictions turned out to be. Rees Mogg declared of one such that it would take 50 years to see the result. So the weeding will have to be fairly carefully done. As for the rest, wp:RECENTISM also applies: indeed it is arguable that we shouldn't even attempt to write such a section before 2066. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be more knowledgeable about this subject than me. Pontifications by notable people should be ok to include (normally I use the if they have a wikipedia article to test that). But we dont summarize what these people pontificated about in wikivoice implying that wikipedia is pontificating about the future (we dont do that). Most of the section should cover actual measured effects after the Brexit, as full sections about future guesses is not encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding new polling data

I recently added information regarding polling in the Section "Public opinion since the Brexit referendum", (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brexit&oldid=1166454093) which was removed. I believe up to date polling numbers are an important addition to this article, especially considering that the poll in question had a differently worded question than the older poll.

I would be happy for some feedback so I can come up with a revised edit.

Thanks in advance ~~~ WinkingWikiWiking (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@WinkingWikiWiking, I removed it per WP:UNDUE as I think it needs mainstream reliable sources reporting it to give it due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank your for your quick response. I added the aggregate poll on purpose because it is more representative than individual polls and the last survey cited was also an aggregate of six polls from the same source six months prior.

I could also add this poll instead (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-referendum-rejoin-eu-b2250813.html). It is included in the initial aggregate polling I cited, but was specifically cited by the Independent(^), the Express (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1716280/poll-second-brexit-referendum-spt), Politico (https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-brexit-fail-new-poll-nigel-farage/ ) and the Economist (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/07/19/brexit-was-wrong-say-57-of-british-voters).

~~~ WinkingWikiWiking (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

WinkingWikiWiking, the Express is deprecated, not a reliable source. The Economist is solid and could satisfy DeFacto's request for "mainstream reliable sources reporting it". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is undue of itself, it is factual and there is no reason to question the reliability of the source. It is not obvious what "mainstream reporting" could do other than attach an OpEd.

What is more of a concern is that the whole section Brexit#Public opinion since the Brexit referendum is a muddle of two different ideas (a) was the UK right or wrong to leave? and (b) should the UK rejoin?: they need to be separated. (The three graphs in the first section dealt logically with the separate concepts but have not been updated since 2020. Two of those graphs should really have closed in June 2016. with just the right/wrong going forward.)

So perhaps the way forward is to contact the author of the original graphs to ask the right/wrong graph be updated and an additional graph created for rejoin.

Does that help? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, fair comment. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you that was very helpful. Especially your point regarding the confusion between the different sets of questions.

I would suggest, that we add the polling sourced by mainstream media (citing the Economist, not the Express), if that's alright by @DeFacto and we can also bring in this graph here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Opinion_polling_on_the_whether_the_United_Kingdom_should_rejoin_the_European_Union.svg), which gives a really great overview of up to date polls on the question how people would vote in a potential second referendum, so we get rid of some of the mess, you pointed out @John Maynard Friedman. I think that would be a decent start to overhauling this section of the article.

How does that sound to everyone? WinkingWikiWiking (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is very important to distinguish between opinions on whether the decision was right or wrong (on the one hand) versus whether the UK should rejoin (on the other). So we really need to have both graphs. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added the graph on the rejoin question for now. Unfortunately I don't have the technical know how to create a similar graph for the other question. But I could gather the polling data for that and create a table similar to the one used here. I am not sure where we exactly this table should go though. The Brexit article seems long enough already, and this one is specifically about the rejoin question, so it would not be ideal either...

~~~~ WinkingWikiWiking (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

retained EU law vs assimilated EU law

What is the difference between retained EU law and assimilated EU law? 77.193.104.36 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would assume Assimilated implies that the rules were changed, rather than left unchanged. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Selected anniversaries (June 2019)
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class European Union articles
• High-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• High-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• B-Class law articles
• High-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class 2010s articles
• Top-importance 2010s articles
• WikiProject 2010s articles
• B-Class European history articles
• Top-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report