Open main menu

Contents

Starting point for the Timeline.Edit

I think this should be in the Timeline: "The European Union Referendum Act was passed in the House of Commons on 7 September 2015." Inclusion is needed, because, in part, the economy of the UK started to change about a month or so after that, with a distinct decline in the value of the pound on world markets, declining slowly up to a precipitous drop in value on the day after the Referendum, and never recovered since. Thus, the date that it was announced is important, since it appears to have fairly quickly influenced confidence in the UK economy and the value of the pound. The date of announcemnet is inextricably linked to the changes that are still unfolding today. Pound value --> https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-effective-exchange-rates/GBP-history#charts

no link to full text of the manifesto, there are two links to news media summariesEdit

This line in the article "This was included in the Conservative Party manifesto for the election." should include a reference to the full text of the manifesto which should be most unbiased source of information, in addition to the two news media summaries already cited.[1]

  1. ^ "Full text: The conservative party manifesto 2015" (PDF) (Press release). Promoted by Alan Mabbutt on behalf of the Conservative Party, both at 4 Matthew Parker Street, London, SW1H 9HQ. Printed by St. Ives PLC, One Tudor St, London, EC4Y 0AH. 9 July 2015. Retrieved 12 August 2019.
That sounds right, we always favour secondary sources over primary sources, the news summaries demonstrate notability. I don't see why we need to include the original manifesto, primary sources are typically more biased and political manifesto is a good example of where this might occur. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was looking at it from the perspective of 20+ years from now, someone looking back trying to find out why the referendum was initiated, and being able to quote from primary source material is generally considered good at least for research papers. I never realised that it was Wikimedia policy to only reference secondary sources of information. That seems odd to me, and I do agree that any political manifesto is biased, but it is still a primary source of information.

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

German translation of "fight with every bone in my body"Edit

The German press translates Mr. Berkow's statement "...I will fight it with every bone in my body to stop that happening"[1] as 'er werde "bis zum zum letzten Atemzug kämpfen" and Der Spiegel even uses it as the filename of the page:john-bercow-kuendigt-boris-johnson-kampf-bis-zum-letzten-atemzug-an-a-1281808.html.

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

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

It may be that Der Spiegel's translation is perfectly apt. If Bercow said those words, he may have chosen them carefully in a way that most English speakers (including Der Spiegel's political reporters and editors), sufficiently alert to his customary bombast and self-esteem in respect of his function as HoC Speaker, will see for what it is, nothing more than a declaration of intent to act in any way he can "to stop that happening", a statement from him that is unsurprising in the circumstances, whether or not he could equally have said "to the last breath", which would recall Macbeth's well-known words "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow ....Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,/ To the last syllable of recorded time;/ And all our yesterdays have lighted fools/ The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!/ Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more. It is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/ Signifying nothing". Qexigator (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
What is the meaning of the expression "fight with every bone in my body" in British English? Can it really have the meaning "fight to the last breath" (->fight to the bitter end, fight without limits, fight with gloves off)?? Or does it signal dedication and the willingness to go to great lengths but without recourse to going ugly? --Moreevo (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It means that he will use every procedural means available to him. As he must if the Executive gets above itself, since in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, it is Parliament (not the Executive) that is sovereign. See War of the Three Kingdoms and the Glorious Revolution.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"Opponents of the EU Withdrawal Agreement expressed fears that the agreement as drafted could plunge Northern Ireland into a conflict and spark a return of The Troubles."Edit

It is remarkable that this article contains such a biased piece of pro-Brexit propaganda right in its introduction. The truth is that the Withdrawal Agreement was drafted to avoid conflicts in Northern Ireland and that no backstop would mean a hard border and the return of The Troubles. A possible source for this is the Withdrawal Agreement itself, but I'm sure the editors of this article want to keep it this way: an unbalanced pro-Brexit propaganda piece. Rominator (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted that assertion from the lead as it is not a summary of any body content (per WP:LEAD) and in any case is unsourced. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rominator (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The DUP have argued (citation somewhere) that the WA would change the constitutional status of NI to the disadvantage of the Unionist community without their consent, contrary to the principles of the GFA. The Nationalist community argues that Brexit itself changes the constitutional status of NI as expressed in

the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union

— preamble to the associated Treaty
without their consent. So the text was defensible but unbalanced and didn't summarise any body content. --Red King (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of breaching WP:NOTFORUM, it might be argued that the people of Northern Ireland were consulted and voted substantially against this change in their constitutional status. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a regular editor of this and related pages, but I note after some reading that the Belfast agreement apparently says that under the now-defunct Thresa May proposed deal people born in Northern Ireland (NI) were to be able to retain their EU citizenship.[2] That may be defunct now and, if so, it might be an issue in NI. If WP:RS sources show it to be an issue worth mentioning, info about it ought to be presented on whichever detail page is most appropriate and mentioned/wikilinked from other pages where it is relevant. The Northern Ireland page might be a more appropriate place for details on this than this one (Brexit is briefly mentioned there). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Brexit" page.