Talk:Brexit negotiations

Active discussions

Currently we don't have a section on the Irish backstop???Edit

I came to this article looking for some material on the final form of the backstop (all UK in the CU, NI also in the SM) that I could use in the Irish backstop article. I was rather surprised that we don't have anything, especially when it was one of just three strands that had dedicated negotiations. (Brexit negotiations in 2018 sort of has it but it is not easy to get the essentials). I've been too involved in revising and concising {sic?) the Backstop article to do this as well, so would someone else care to write a summary here?

Surely page move is controversialEdit

I'm on the road but my initial reaction is todays page move and possibly other edits may be controversial.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, what did you do and why did you do it, especially without any discussion? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ssolbergj, I am concerned about copyright violations and a seems to be also. Even if you changes are perfect they will tie others up in scrutiny due to range across a number of pages. I am too tied up to drill down into things but I am concerned .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I reverted all Ssolbergi's mass copies/deletes per WP:BRD. Such a dramatic change needs a proper RFC. It may have merit but lets see a formal proposal with justification first, not be presented with faits accomplis. However it needs adminstrator intervention to revert a page move. Would someone else do a WP:ANI?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman, I'm an admin. I'll move it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Craig Murray: not implementing the agreed backstop when the time comes due to “force majeure”.Edit

Craig Murray has published an article on his blog based on information from a contact at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). According to the source: "There is currently considerable alarm in the FCO that Legal Advisers have been asked about the circumstances constituting force majeure which would justify the UK in breaking a EU Withdrawal Agreement in the future." Accordingly: "Johnson and Raab appear now to contemplate is agreeing a “backstop” now to get Brexit done, but then not implementing the agreed backstop when the time comes due to “force majeure”."

Craig Murray Blog - Bad Faith Negotiation, 15 October 2019.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BLOGS and WP:CRYSTAL. If it happens you can say "I told you so" but for now it is speculation not fact. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter." Craig Murray was an ambassador and, in the blog article, he is describing information passed to him by contacts in the FCO. Not that I'm saying that it has to go into the article, but I don't think it's insignificant that it is being reported that the FCO is worried that Boris Johnson is negotiating an agreement he doesn't intend to keep.     ←   ZScarpia   01:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Still fails by WP:CRYSTAL by a large margin. In addition to that, there is a lot of speculation out there. It would be undue to include this opinion, as it is not really something that have been reported elsewhere. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The WP:DUE argument is fair enough; the WP:CRYSTAL argument less so. Murray is reporting that he has been told that the FCO is worried that the government is negotiating in bad faith, reaching an agreement which they have no intention of honouring in order to proceed with BREXIT at the end of October. Stating that the FCO is concerned now with what the government's future intentions are isn't, in itself, the same as speculating in the article about what is going to happen in the future, which is what WP:CRYSTAL is about.     ←   ZScarpia   12:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, a fairly convincing argument (though any good contract negotiator should make sure that the parties agree to the sort of events that the Force Majeure clause covers and that there are arrangements for arbitration if the they cannot agree on whether a subsequent unforeseen event falls within its scope - so it should be stress-tested), but Wikipedia follows not leads. If the major nationals pick up the story, then we can follow but it doesn't seem wise to do so until then. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

World Trade Organization vs World Trade OrganisationEdit

I have just seen that World Trade Organisation has been renamed as World Trade Organization.

Is this British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.216.144 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, they have always spelt it with a Z. Wikipedia just copies. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Brexit negotiations" page.