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.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters.See talk page guidelines.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Fedegarb, Jovanna13. Assigned peer reviews: Jovanna13.
"A bitter turf war is raging on the Brexit Wikipedia page". 2019-04-29. While Westminster remains mired in endless Brexit deadlock, over on the Brexit Wikipedia 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. (details)
That article is literally a copy of the impact section, with Asarlaí even porting content there to keep them in sync. We should not have the same content two places, so either we should delete the other article, or we should split the section out in its own article, and only leave a summary here. I propose that we split, because of several reasons. One is length. This article is already >100kb prose size, which means that it per WP:SIZERULE "Almost certainly should be divided". I know that there are other parts of the article that really need trimming, but the impact section alone is 33 Kb. In addition, it seems like it is the the only other high-level Brexit topic that does not have its own sub-article. I think it will be a good idea to give it one, considering that Brexit have not even happened yet. The only negative thing I have to say about a split, is that we have to write a good high-level summary about the impact. What do others think? ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
'Split & leave summary'. Its burdensome here. Its ridiculous to start reading subsections like "rail" "france border" "relations with CANZAU" here
Maybe leave a sizeable summary here. But no more. Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I substantially trimmed the content in the impact section, solving the size problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Just for clarification, what is the current prose size of the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
By my measure it is 87K. The impact section is 30K. But even ignoring size, there is also an issue of duplicate content. We should not both have an impact-article, and an almost-as long summary here. The impact section is surely the most briefly summarized part of this article, which is good here, but I think perhaps it is too compressed if considering the subject alone. I think it would be better if the topic is not constrained by size-issues on this article. If we only leave a short impact section here, readers and editors will naturally flow into the impact article, but they won't now. Also ping to NUinHebrides who removed the split-template. I have reinserted it. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the impact of Brexit section should be condensed as it already has its own page. As long as we provide a link to the impact of Brexit, page, this would make this article easier to read. HouseBlaster (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Article 50 process - Extensions - Third (potential)Edit
This paragraph is now clearly out of date, at a minimum this sentence needs corrected; "In order for such an extension to be granted if it is requested by the Prime Minister, it would be necessary for there to be unanimous agreement by all other heads of EU governments.", since the "UK" and the Prime Minister have both sent letters (one a request for the extension, which Donald Tusk has also advised be acceeded to, and a personal one in which Boris Johnson says he doesn't want an extension (which may be found in contempt of court, depending on the government's response to the EU's response, in the Inner Court of Session in Edinburgh)). I suppose this is all in the air though but the current sentence as written above is now inaccurate and will stay so for the rest of history.
I, apparently, am not allowed to fix any of this. Apologies for your opaque editting permission system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019Edit
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A new Brexit deal has been agreed in principle and awaits to be signed off by both the UK and the EU. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Additions to the article: attitude of EU to BrexitEdit
I would like to see a section on the attitude of the EU itself on Brexit, particularly:
1 the attitude of various member states before the 2016 referendum;
2 the appointment of Barnier, a well-known anglophobe, as 'negotiator' (e.g. why was it not a Dane, or a Bulgarian?);
3 the fact that JC Juncker and G Verhofstadt have never expressed any regret that the UK is to leave the EU;
4 the conspiracy theory that the EU may well have deliberately planned to provoke Brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I am seeking consensus to add a countdown to the current Brexit date at the top of the article since agreement could not be reached through editing alone. I think that since this is an article about a scheduled event, everyone entering this article should see on the top how much time left till brexit will happen, without having to scroll down and search for the information in the article.
Hi The Very Best Editor. The very first paragraph says that the Brexit day is currently 31 January 2020, so there is no need for anyone to scroll to see that information. In addition, Brexit is filled with uncertainty, with the date being changed three times already, and the upcoming election might very well do it again. A countdown gives the reader the impression that the date is set in stone. Also, the template documentation says that the countdown should not be used in article-space. Hope this explains my reason for reverting it. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply!
I now understand the reason for reverting my edit.
@The Very Best Editor: it's not a scheduled event, that is just the current deadline for ratifying the deal. Brexit could occur earlier if ratification is earlier, or a new deadline may be agreed if nothing is settled by then, or Brexit could be abandoned completely if the new parliament decides that. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@The Very Best Editor: I agree with Hebsen and DeFacto, especially on the point that it could happen earlier than 31 January. I'd add that a second referendum is probably impossible without a further extension and would probably be accepted as a reason to allow one. Errantius (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Can we add the Nutshell template to this article? We could be writing about this for years to come! Something like this:
This page in a nutshell: Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU).
No, that is literally the first sentence in this article already. The nutshell template is for administrative pages, not articles. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)