Talk:Brexit negotiations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Concerns have been raised by both EU and UK citizens who live in the other's territory

This sentence looks like ill-formed, because UK and EU are not two different territories, but instead, UK is part of EU: «Concerns have been raised by both EU and UK citizens who live in the other's territory»

So, I suggest: «Concerns have been raised by EU citizens (both UK citizens and non-UK citizens) who live in the territory in the other side of the Brexit line» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Sentence rewritten. Wire723 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources in European language

A question has been raised about usage of source in European languages regarding this United Kingdom Brexit negotiations article. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_Brexit_negotiations&diff=773670617&oldid=773664472 ).

I would like to say how central is this question regarding the notion of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which concern the risk that a bias be introduced by limiting the scope of an article to only one specific point of view. For this I believe useful to remember that this Brexit negotiations, as an European issue created by United-Kingdom, is a confrontation between two parties: the United-Kingdom speaking English on one hand end European unions countries speaking European languages on the other side.

So, removing some part of the article and the associated source (as it was yet done) with the argument that this source is written in a European language raises the risk to remove the points of views available in European union and to only keep the British point a view, leading to some bias.

To face this risk,

• my first proposal is to identify the source written in an European language, using some wikipedia feature, (but without removing the source)
• my second proposal is to ask addition of a source in English language, (if it is assumed that such additional source is not use lees)
• my third proposal is to not remove the text (which has a verifiable source in European language) as long as there is no need to remove it.

I would like to add that amongst the English speaking people who are interested by this article, most of them might be British, and that most of british are skilled in foreign (european) languages (such as french), which make them able to verify a source in such language.

Knowing all this makes any hard removal of such part of an article for the reason that the source is in an European language can only be understood to be either answering to a pedantic, or vandalism ideology.

Anyway, please, consider Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in your hard removals.

Regards

The EU has asked for negotiations to be in the French language. I cannot see how we can refuse to accept references to French language sources, in fact I would welcome some as they may put the alternative view. As regards all the other 21 languages used in the EU, it could cause confusion if most references in the article use these languages, however that is very unlikely. So lets see some other language references in the article, especially where no reliable English language reference is available. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a source for that, and for the response of the other party, namely, UK? Actually many members of EU organs (Parliament, Council, Commission, Court) and of the Brussels/Strasbourg apparatus are more likely to have English as a second language, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, and to be as fluent in reading English as French. We can surmise that the EU website and documents will be available in English at least until UK ceases to be a member, n'est-ce pas? Anyhow, we are composing English Wikipedia, and editors must be able to verify sources. Is there a project to reconcile English Wikipedia articles with equivalent in French, German, Italian, Greek and other official EU languages? Qexigator (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

French language for negotiations .... French language I have not seen a UK response. It is just that French is also the language of diplomats. diplomacy so assumed that in international negotiations, it was usual to use French, maybe I am wrong. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Michel Barnier said to want to keep the complex negotiations in his native tongue" (from source with pov, 21 October, Trafalgar Day) LOL. French was the language of diplomacy in the 18c. as well of the King of Prussia, Voltaire and the Tsarist nobility. I understand that the official language of the Republic of Ireland as a EU member state is Irish-Gaelic, but English, French and German have the status of EU "procedural" languages: perhaps French and German have prior claim over English as UK joined later, and of those two French has the prior claim as one of the allies occupying Western Germany, or simply by virtue of being French. The Luxembourgish language is a variety of German while the Walloon language of part of bi-lingual Belgium is a variety of French. C'est la vie, in the traditional speech of Old England, which is unlikely to be derived from the French of the English monarchs before the Tudor dynasty seized the crown, which survives more or less in the Channel Islands, as if you didn't know. Meantime, Americans speak a variety of English, and English school children are learning Mandarin Chinese. Qexigator (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

+Come to think of it, the last word of the UK parliament will be signified in the customary French of the royal assent. Qexigator (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We are far away from the original question. In the French articles source in foreign language are accepted. Do we accept sources in foreign languages for this article in English language?

In the English articles, the article Mexico contains sources such as "Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas (General Law of the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples)" (PDF) (in Spanish). CDI México. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 25, 2007. Retrieved October 2, 2007.

Source in foreign language provides elements to help verifying the wikipedia text.

To be sure everybody understand the original question, we can ask: Do we accept sources in foreign languages for this article? The expected answer is yes, of course.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If, like sources in English, the source is notable and reliable and free from partisan rant etc, OK but only if linked directly to text in English translation, since we are not composing text in any language but English. Qexigator (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

So, what about this specific case: (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_Brexit_negotiations&diff=773670617&oldid=773664472 )? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The source is linked to French text. Qexigator (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The key paragraph « en cas de Brexit Gibraltar n’aurait pas accès au marché intérieur, à moins que [ne soit] accept[é] une formule qui suppose la cosouveraineté de l’Espagne durant une période transitoire » is something I have not seen in English, and in my view is important and as a quote is not partisan or ranting. I would accept it. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Must object to the language (not the content) of that quote. Could accept if in English, which is readable to the many English readers (including Americans and others - not Francophone - with English as second language), but not otherwise. Can you link to any relevant precedent in English Wikipedia? Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this either a wikipedia policy, or your personal view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There are problems[2], and see WP:ELPOINTS, WP:NONENGEL and WP:ILL. Qexigator (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:NONENGEL itself, WP:NONENGEL guideline does not apply to references. Anyway, your three WP references WP:ELPOINTS, WP:NONENGEL and WP:ILL are related to linking issue not to reference #Sources in European language issue. Those topics might be addressed in a different section, while the question from this section appears to be rightly answered hereunder by Boson who provides this interesting link to WP:NONENG. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NONENG for the use of foreign-language sources and quotations. --Boson (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This pinpoints the problem:

Quoting non-English source -- "If you quote a non-English reliable source ... a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. ... If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you. In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline."

Any offers to translate the source for this article? Qexigator (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's only quotations (including those in footnotes) that need translation, so the text could be something like:

Before the referendum, the Spanish minister of foreign affairs at the time stated that in case of Brexit, Gibraltar would not have access to the single market unless a formula giving Spain co-sovereignty were agreed for a transitional period; after the referendum, he saw the result as increasing the chance of a Spanish flag on Gibraltar.

The title of the French article is a bit of a problem but not really relevant. One could also translate it as "Spain inflicts two affronts on London", but that doesn't really read like an idiomatic newspaper headline, so I was rather free. --Boson (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Language for the negotiation

According to some newspapers, the language used during negotiations will be negotiated between the 29 april (sommet) and the 22 may (Conseil). This piece of information might be included in the wikipedia article, but the structure of this article does not let me understand where.

Anyway, this piece of information can be found in a French christian newspaper: http://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Europe/Brexit-negociateurs-europeens-dans-starting-blocks-2017-04-14-1200839540 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.187 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Irland unification

Reading an article related to the Ireland Unification door opened by Brexit ( http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2017/04/14/58ef8fa5468aeb75488b45bc.html ), I was wondering if this article should have sme link with another wikipedia article about Ireland unification?

The link between two topics is clearly established by this Irish sentence from Lonodon: «With the Brexit, Unity is not only inevitable but also imminent» ("Tras el Brexit, la unidad no es solo inevitable sino inminente"); «The question is not anymore whether the island will be united, but when» ("La pregunta no es ya si la isla acabará unida, sino cuándo".)

There is also another connection with the question of where the customs (zoll,/aduana) gate will be set up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.187 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 13:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

---

United Kingdom Brexit negotiations → Brexit negotiations – Including "United Kingdom" sounds kind of odd in this article title. Which other country would be carrying out Brexit negotiations? The term Brexit ("British exit") already tells us that it pertains to the United Kingdom, and the main article is at Brexit, not United Kingdom Brexit.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I started the article under the name "Brexit negotiations with the EU" and it was changed to "United Kingdom Brexit negotiations". I still prefer the original name as the UK will have negotiations with the EU (the subject of this article) and will have further negotiations with other countries for trade arrangements (a new article subject). The suggested "Brexit negotiations" is snappier but equally misleading in my view. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Given the current version of the first sentence, which clearly and simply explains that the topic is about negotiation between two parties, initiated by one of them, UK, and the other, EU, the current title is well fitted to article, and better than the one that is proposed would be. Qexigator (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Amakuru rightly pointed out that the current title is a pleonasm / tautology and as such should not stand as an article title in an encyclopaedia.

Thinking of alternatives, then apart from Brexit negotiations one may consider Brexit negotiations between UK and EU and Negotiations related to United Kingdom's exit from the European Union (long!). — kashmiri ^TALK 21:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Precisely, and the proposed title satisfies WP:CONCISE far more than the other alternatives you mention, as well as being more concise than the present title. I would argue that, much like the main article title of Brexit, the proposed title satisfies all of the WP:CRITERIA, and also appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, as evidenced by these sources: [3][4][5][6]  — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment "pleonasm/ tautology"? Given that the inline link in the opening sentence states "Brexit is a commonly used term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal from the European Union", the article could be named United Kingdom's Brexit negotiations for withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit), or more concisely and putting "Brexit" first, Brexit negotiations between UK and EU , as proposed by kashmiri. Less than that has an avoidable ambiguity not suited to Wikipedia titles, and which is not present in the contexts of the official or journalistic sources cited by Amakuru. Qexigator (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I also fear that mere "Brexit negotiations" is too ambiguous - it could relate, for example, to businesses negotiatiog with their suppliers, to political parties internally negotiating a stance on Brexit, and so forth. As to United Kingdom's negotiations..., you need two to a tango - they are as much UK's negotiations as EU's. I support renaming and to me, Brexit negotiations between UK and EU or Negotiations on United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union would sound way better. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes,"Negotiations on United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union" would be OK. Qexigator (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

But that title is basically equivalent to "Brexit negotiations", except that it uses a much longer descriptive phrase in place of the succinct "Brexit", which means the same thing. In fact, "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union" was the old title of the Brexit article, until it Talk:Brexit/Archive_2#Requested_move_15_July_2016 was moved following a request in July last year. So for consistency the child articles should be based on the "Brexit" nomenclature too.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So then, of those being proposed, 'Brexit negotiations between UK and EU' would be acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are we talking about disambiguating this article from hypothetical articles that don't exist (yet)? Even if there did end up being an article on, say, negotiations on Brexit stance between Labour and the Lib Dems if they form a coalition after the election (and even then it'd probably be a section of a larger article) or trade negotiations between the UK and the US (which aren't really part of Brexit, they just result from it), this article would patently remain the primary topic for the phrase "Brexit negotiations" and should reside at that title. 86.130.177.16 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Because noun adjuncts in English are inherently ambiguous, and editors here are trying to come up with something more specific. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The proposed title perfectly describes the subject. Later negotiations after the UK has left the EU will not be Brexit negotiations. Srnec (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. WP:AT mandates conciseness, all else equal. "Brexit negotiations" describes the subject succinctly and adequately and would make a better band name too. Herostratus (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The current title is totally redundant (as was the original title "Brexit negotiations with the EU"); there are no other Brexit negotiations so no need to disambiguate the phrase Brexit negotiations. 86.130.177.16 (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you consider that there are no other negotiations? How can you ensure that the «United» Kingdom (or Northern Ireland) will not have negotiation with Republic of Ireland, for topics such as Northern Ireland, and Friday agreement? How can you ensure that «United» Kingdom (or Gibraltar) will not have any Brexit negotiation with Kingdom of Spain to avoid Gibraltar being out of Europe? How can you ensure that a huge topic such as Brexit will not lead to any other wikipedia article and will not need negotiations with other nations?

• Support. This article will surely encompass all the sorts of different negotiations involved in the Brexit process - negotiations between the EU and the UK, negotiations between the UK and other member states directly, spin-off trade negotations etc.. Negotiations are multi-party affairs and it would be impractical to list all involved in the title; yet inconsistent to single out the UK (as somebody else mentioned). 'United Kingdom' just looks odd and out of place next to the portmanteau already concerning it. As an overarching article about the various negotiations, if later confusion emerges as time is yet to tell what sort of negotiations will ensue, it can be disambiguated accordingly, surely? MatthewJAFields (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This is wrong at least for Qexigator (See it commented change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_Brexit_negotiations&diff=778404587&oldid=778403466 ).

His comment stand that «→‎Ireland Brexit negotiation: undo Ireland's foreign minister's comment. UK is negotiating with EU. There is not enough space for comments from politicians of the 27 member states)». So if the scope of this article is Brexit negotiation with UK and not Brexit negotiation with Ireland, this should be clarified in the title.

• Oppose. The title should be clear to somebody who is coming to this subject with little background knowledge. Brexit is a specifically UNITED KINGDOM phenomenon. Future EU Exits will have their own national orientation (FRANCE Frexit negotiations, GREECE Grexit negotiations, etc.) 62.60.23.66 (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The terms "Brexit", "Frexit", etc., already require certain background knowledge because these terms belong to political jargon, not to common vocabulary. If you want the title to be clear to "somebody... with little background knowledge", then the alternate titles proposed by Qexigator and me above would suit better. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong title

The title is wrong as it states: «Brexit negotiations with the European Union», because the Brexit is not for European Union but for United kingdom. So the right title would be:

• Brexit negotiations with the United-Kingdom.

or

• Brexit negotiations with the United-Kingdom and with the European Union

For instance, in some documents one can read:

• «negotiations with the UK».
• «negotiations on the terms of the UK withdrawal from the EU»
• «negotiation and conclusion of an agreement between the Union and the withdrawing Member State»
• «EU-UK negotiations»

I guess the most explicit is «negotiations on the terms of the UK withdrawal from the EU». — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"United KIngdom Brexit negotiations" will suffice, given that there is no ambiguity about "Brexit". Qexigator (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue with that is the word you used is not well established. For instance, if you search for Brexit in http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brexit , you will get: «Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia. Did you mean: bruxed Grexit Birchist Breit Bargest precast braggest».

This is a very british word, and it is not sure it is understandable for those who use english but who do not use british english.

Additionally spell checkers do not know this word.

The wiktionary considers the Brexit as the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. If we consider that the word referring to brexiting is not well established, that its meaning or it usage might change in the future, it is definition will provide more clarity, and be accessible and understandable by everybody in any place and at any time, at least for a title.

Additionally, wikipedia considers «Brexit is the colloquial term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal from the European Union.» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If the above comment is seen as showing that the current title is ambiguous, let it be clarified. Given that the article is about the negotiations initiated by UK with EU, "United KIngdom Brexit negotiations" will suffice as a title, given also that there is no ambiguity about "Brexit". The "Brexit" page is the article that explains that very word, as being currently "a commonly used term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal from the European Union." It is now so commonly used that we may surmise that only pedantry would feel a need to change it to "United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union negotiations"[7]. There are many connected articles, but they are not grouped by artificially starting "Brexit...", such as 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. Negotiations with other countries would not be Brexit negotiations, and would need some differentiating title. Subject to further comment reponding to those points, I will go ahead and make the change to United KIngdom Brexit negotiations. Qexigator (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why can't the title be known as " Succession of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Brexit) negotiations" rather than simply Brexit negotiations? (94.192.107.174 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

References

• Support I totally agree with this suggested change, Brexit negotiations is to vague a title in my opinion. (Risegate2017 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC))

Ireland Brexit negotiation and scope of this article

Due to a today change ([8] ) with comment «→‎Ireland Brexit negotiation: undo Ireland's foreign minister's comment. UK is negotiating with EU. There is not enough space for comments from politicians of the 27 member states)»,

I was wondering what is the scope of this wikipedia article:

• Should this article be limited to topic of the European union competence, such as for instance, such as for instance UKEU negociations ?
• Should this article consider Brexit negotiation for topics in State member scope, such as for instance Republic of Ireland Brexit negociations?

Any enlightenment welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.42 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

«In these negotiations, Ireland will be negotiating from a position of strength as part of the EU Team of 27 Member States.» (Ireland and the negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union The Government’s Approach May 2017).

«The negotiations Ireland faces are among the most important in the history of the State.» (Ireland and the negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union The Government’s Approach May 2017).

«We need to negotiate hard for the best possible economic outcome from the Brexit negotiations.»

«Ireland then faces the most important negotiations in our history as an independent state.»

«We are firmly focused on winning the argument and on getting the best deal for Ireland»

«For Ireland, the priorities for the negotiation process that lies ahead are unchanged: our economic and trading arrangements, the Northern Ireland Peace Process including border issues, the common travel area, and the future of the European Union» (Ireland and the negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union The Government’s Approach May 2017). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.42 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ireland have just approved the EU27 rules which bans individual countries negotiating with the UK. As and when and if Ireland wants to hold discussions with the UK and the UK then agrees to individual countries discussions, then any formal discussions should be mentioned in the article. To mention every side chat the UK has with every EU27 country would swamp the article. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, EU has put the Ireland border as one of the three main topics of the Brexit negotiation. Doesn't it -- for whatever reason-- make Irish considerations more notable than other issue? And for information, there is an EU position paper on this topic: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Future trade deal between UK and EU

there are no discussions about any trade deal as yet and our article should say that or say nothing about a trade deal. We are not here to forcast the news. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It is unclear how reporting what Barnier and others have said about negotiating policy can be forecasting news. Qexigator (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

there is no discussion about any future trade deal and we should not be reporting anything about that here. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As per the sources, the question of trade deals has been under public discussion on behalf of each of the two parties, UK as the party giving notice of withdrawal and EU as the party obliged by the treaty to enter into negotiation in good faith. Wikipedia should not be disingenuous about this.Qexigator (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that all depends upon what you call a discussion:

• I would have said that the question of any trade deal with UK has been discussed by MEP, and they agree that sufficient progress should be reached on the withdrawal question, so that the question of future can be discussed. This mean that those talks are imminent, as just the only three obvious questions need to be agreed: the border, the citizens, and the financial responsibilities. Even if they are not sure the progress will be sufficient, the MEP hop to be surprised so that such talks begin. From Michel Barnier point of view, the progress are not sufficient yet, but they are working on it.
• If you consider that for a say to be named discussion you need two says, in the same place, in the same time, with the same words, by two opposites parties, I would answer you that Michel Barnier and Theresay May were in the same country in the same week to say both the same words (bold bellow) to discuss this trade deal topic with London Kingdom:
• On the one hand Michel Barnier in the Italian parliament — available both in English and in French — should have said something such as:

  «The future trade deal with the United Kingdom will be particular, as it will be less about building convergence, and more about controlling future divergence. This is key to establishing fair competition.

  «Naturally, if the United Kingdom wanted to go further than the type of free trade agreement we have just signed with Canada, there are other models on the table.

  «For example, Norway and Iceland have chosen to be in the Single Market, to accept the rules, and to contribute financially to cohesion policy.

  «But one thing is sure: it is not – and will not – be possible for a third country to have the same benefits as the Norwegian model but the limited obligations of the Canadian model.

  «And naturally, any agreement must respect the regulatory autonomy of the EU, as well as the integrity of its legal order.

  « (...)

  «The dialogue we are having here today – as in all national parliaments – is essential because our future partnership with the United Kingdom, and its legal text in the form of a treaty, will have to be ratified by you, when the time comes.

• On the other hand, Theresa May somewhere in Italia should have said something such as:

  «So the question for us now in building a new economic partnership is not how we bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what we do when one of us wants to make changes.

  «One way of approaching this question is to put forward a stark and unimaginative choice between two models: either something based on European Economic Area membership; or a traditional Free Trade Agreement, such as that the EU has recently negotiated with Canada.

  «I don’t believe either of these options would be best for the UK or best for the European Union.

  «European Economic Area membership would mean the UK having to adopt at home - automatically and in their entirety - new EU rules. Rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote.

  «Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people. I fear it would inevitably lead to friction and then a damaging re-opening of the nature of our relationship in the near future: the very last thing that anyone on either side of the Channel wants.

  «As for a Canadian style free trade agreement, we should recognize that this is the most advanced free trade agreement the EU has yet concluded and a breakthrough in trade between Canada and the EU. But compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies.

  «Not only that, it would start from the false premise that there is no pre-existing regulatory relationship between us. And precedent suggests that it could take years to negotiate.

  «We can do so much better than this.

  «As I said at Lancaster House, let us not seek merely to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. Instead let us be creative as well as practical in designing an ambitious economic partnership which respects the freedoms and principles of the EU, and the wishes of the British people.

  «I believe there are good reasons for this level of optimism and ambition.

  «First of all, the UK is the EU’s largest trading partner, one of the largest economies in the world, and a market of considerable importance for many businesses and jobs across the continent. And the EU is our largest trading partner, so it is in all our interests to find a creative solution.

  «The European Union has shown in the past that creative arrangements can be agreed in other areas. For example, it has developed a diverse array of arrangements with neighboring countries outside the EU, both in economic relations and in justice and home affairs.

  «Furthermore, we share the same set of fundamental beliefs; a belief in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights, and that trying to beat other countries’ industries by unfairly subsidizing one’s own is a serious mistake. So there is no need to impose tariffs where we have none now, and I don’t think anyone sensible is contemplating this.

  «And as we have set out in a future partnership paper, when it comes to trade in goods, we will do everything we can to avoid friction at the border. But of course the regulatory issues are crucial.

  «We share a commitment to high regulatory standards.

  «People in Britain do not want shoddy goods, shoddy services, a poor environment or exploitative working practices and I can never imagine them thinking those things to be acceptable. The government I lead is committed not only to protecting high standards, but strengthening them.

  «So I am optimistic about what we can achieve by finding a creative solution to a new economic relationship that can support prosperity for all our peoples.

  «Now in any trading relationship, both sides have to agree on a set of rules which govern how each side behaves.

  «So we will need to discuss with our European partners new ways of managing our interdependence and our differences, in the context of our shared values. There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward.

  «There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means. And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies.

  «And because rights and obligations must be held in balance, the decisions we both take will have consequences for the UK’s access to European markets and vice versa.

  «To make this partnership work, because disagreements inevitably arise, we will need a strong and appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.

  «It is, of course, vital that any agreement reached – its specific terms and the principles on which it is based – are interpreted in the same way by the European Union and the United Kingdom and we want to discuss how we do that.

  «This could not mean the European Court of Justice – or indeed UK courts - being the arbiter of disputes about the implementation of the agreement between the UK and the EU however. It wouldn’t be right for one party’s court to have jurisdiction over the other. But I am confident we can find an appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes.

  «So this new economic partnership, would be comprehensive and ambitious. It would be underpinned by high standards, and a practical approach to regulation that enables us to continue to work together in bringing shared prosperity to our peoples for generations to come.

• Anyway, this discussion shows clearly both mindsets: the European one and the third one.

this is opinon presented as fact

proposed an economic partnership between the UK and the EU which respects both the freedoms and principles of the EU, and the wishes of the British people. At the same time she re-affirmed that after the UK leaves the EU a period of implementation would be in their mutual interest, to be agreed under Article 50 for a strictly time-limited period.[99]

that link is a link to the speech in full. A primary link with opinionated comments attatached as if wikipedia said them. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Govindaharihari's comment is unclear, but it does not support the undo of my recent edit, and appears to be a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia voice". There is nothing in the content of the article text which supports or depends on any comments under the cited text of the speech. Of course, if another source containing the speech is or becomes available, that could be used instead. Barnier's cited speech certainly contains mention of trade deal. Qexigator (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

There is as yet no discussion of a trade deal. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see reply below. Let us not be disingenuous. Qexigator (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for "Rhetoric" section

Hi everyone, I have just added a chunk of negotiation details which were overloading the main Brexit page. Some of the detail can be re-used to write an entertaining Rhetoric section. A start has been made by the BBC here.[10]

Ισπανική ομελέτα

Culinary:

• cherry picking (German: Rosinenpicken)
• over-egging demands for money
• having a cake and eating it (French avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre)
• peanuts (Britain's £20bn Brexit divorce bill offer is 'peanuts', says European Parliament president Tajani)
• removing egg from an omelette says former World Trade Organisation chief, Pascal Lamy. 77.199.96.191 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Auditory:

• the clock is ticking (French: l'horloge tourne https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9iYK91IKMU )
• go whistle
• etc

Psychological:

• illusions/deluded
• moment of clarity
• demand for being "creative"
• deep and special relationship with the EU
• magical thinking

Euphemisms for "money":

• beyond money, this is a question of trust (au-delà de l'argent, cette question est une question de confiance)
• need this trust to create a solid relationship in the future (confiance pour bâtir une relation solide dans l'avenir) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.173.4 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sport

• “the ball’s in their court” → Brexit talks are “not a game”

Should be fun to compile, and to read. So keep your eyes and ears open for the repetitive phrases we are going to witness in the near future, and feel free make notes here to extend the list. Thanks. 86.170.123.58 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We might add

• United Ireland (British: United Kingdom ?)
• magical thinking
• flexible and imaginative solutions
• hard border vs soft border
• Putting things in the right order is the best way to deal with the uncertainty

There are also those words which are available both in English and French version of the speech.:

• au-delà de l'argent, cette question est une question de confiance (English: beyond money, this is a question of trust)
• confiance pour bâtir une relation solide dans l'avenir (English: need this trust to create a solid relationship in the future)
• Nous avançons mais il reste du chemin politique à faire. (English: We are advancing, but there is still more political work to be done)
• je m'interroge. Ces questions, à mon sens, ne devraient pas être controversées parce qu'elles visent à protéger nos citoyens, nos entreprises, nos partenaires, la crédibilité des engagements pris ( English: I am asking myself questions. These questions, as far as I see it, should not be controversial because this is about protecting our citizens, our businesses, our partners, and the credibility of our promises.)
• «Dove c'è una grande volontà, non possono esserci grandi difficoltà» (Machiavel)
• Europe globale (in English Global Europe)
• il ne s'agira pas tant de construire la convergence que de maîtriser les divergences (English it will be less about building convergence, and more about controlling future divergence.)
• progrès suffisants (in English sufficient progress)

Sport

• “the ball’s in their court” → Brexit talks are “not a game” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Politic

• "Ireland first" like in “If in London someone assumes that the negotiations will deal with other issues first before the Irish issue, my response would be: Ireland first.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Misc

“Once again Theresa May has come out of Brexit talks with her tail between her legs” Tom Brake, a member of Parliament from the Liberal Democrats, New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.207 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC) New York Times. Brexit Talks Hit Hurdle as D.U.P. Balks at Irish Border Plan. 4th decembre 2017

“exit from Brexit” New York Times. Brexit Talks Hit Hurdle as D.U.P. Balks at Irish Border Plan. 4th decembre 2017

“provides further evidence that Theresa May’s government is completely ill-equipped to negotiate a successful deal for our country.” Jeremy Corbyn, who has positioned himself as a prime minister in waiting, New York Times. Brexit Talks Hit Hurdle as D.U.P. Balks at Irish Border Plan. 4th decembre 2017

“we need to play our cards close to our chest” (Philip Hammond) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Description of withdrawal agreement

Qexigator inserted a description of the withdrawal agreement that I reverted, because I found it biased. We reverted multiple times, and I am bringing it up here now to stop the reversions. Just to be clear, I don't think it is factually wrong, but consider it biased, because the description in the analytical article it came from, was crafted to illustrate a point. Namely that the withdrawal deal is worthless, because it just pushes the problems to the end of the transition period, where it will be even more difficult to solve, instead of "having the showdown" now. Following my last reversion, I sat down and wrote a more neutral description of the agreement, sourced from an article dedicated to explaining the content of the agreement.

Besides that, the description does not belong in the December-section, but in the November-section. Since that now have a better description, the other one should be removed. ― Heb the best (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

As npov editors we are aware that the character of public discussion on Brexit, during the referendum period and ever since, both inside and outside parliament, is such that it is difficult to find any source that is free from bias: for example, the Guardian and the BBC present information selectively to suit the publisher's POV, and so also do other publications. The paragraph I inserted under "December 2018" summarises the contentious features of the proposed withdrawal agreement that had been inconclusively debated in the course of the evolving state of political opinion in and out of parliament, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. Heb's paragraph now added to November 2018[11] may also be retained, but both paragraphs need some minor copyediting. Qexigator (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If the intention with your paragraph was to explain what the contentious parts of the withdrawal agreement are, I suggest the paragraph makes that goal clear. Currently it is just a biased description of the agreement, without any attribution. I guess there are multiple other sources on this topic, so we can use those instead of an analysis mostly on German cars and economy. ― Heb the best (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Heb's comment surmises "there are multiple other sources on this topic". If they are no less factual than the one Heb disputes, please find them. The part of the source relied on for the paragraph in the article is factual reporting, and the question of fair or biased comment is beside the point, and it makes no mention of that writer's analysis of the German position, which could be equally well-founded, but is not to the point here. Given the context, please identify specifically what words or phrases, in Heb's opinion, are either incorrect or "biased" in the paragraph (reproduced here):

"December 2018 On 10 December, May called off the next day's Parliamentary vote on the proposed Brexit withdrawal agreement, saying it "would be rejected by a significant margin" if voted on. The following day, May held meetings with Merkel, Rutte, Tusk and Juncker to try re-negotiate the deal, however Merkel said that the deal could not be renegotiated. On 14 December, the national heads of Government confirmed that there could be no further negotiations.

By its terms the proposed Withdrawal Agreement treaty, inconclusively debated in the House of Commons in December, is a legal contract to pay £39bn, with the Irish "backstop", for which in exchange Britain would secure a transition phase with no veto rights, bound to accept all fresh EU law even when it threatened the national interest, and, on payment of the exit fee, to have an opportunity of starting talks on a deal, the terms of which must be agreed by all 27 EU states (unlike the Withdrawal Agreement)."

Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That assertion (from the Daily Telegraph) is straight from the ERG songbook. We know from the Tory Party's internal vote of confidence in May that the ERG view is very much a minority one, representing no more than a third of the Tory party and (even with the DUP) no more than a fifth of MPs. Furthermore, it represents the view of a small fraction of those who were expected to vote against the deal as it is certainly not the vioew of the Labour Party, the SNP, the LDP or the GP. So to give it without qualifying it thus would grossly contravene NPOV and UNDUE. The onus is on each of us to contribute only balanced material, not add POV text and leave it to others to find the balancing material. If you can't do it right, then don't do it at all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Minimally, the reasons given by each of the opposition parties for opposing the deal must be given proportionate space and precedence relative to the ERG assertion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noted that JMF's above comment is off the mark and fails to address the request: "Given the context, please identify specifically what words or phrases (in Heb's opinion) are either incorrect or "biased" in the paragraph (reproduced above)". Also noted, that the irrelevant ad homines gibe referring to ERG songbook looks too much like a covert bias against the referendum result, unsuited to npov editing here. Maybe it would help to set out the disputed passage point by point:

"By its terms the proposed Withdrawal Agreement treaty, inconclusively debated in the House of Commons in December,

• is a legal contract to pay £39bn,
• with the Irish "backstop",
• for which in exchange Britain would secure a transition phase with no veto rights,
• bound to accept all fresh EU law even when it threatened the national interest,
• and, on payment of the exit fee,
• to have an opportunity of starting talks on a deal,
• the terms of which must be agreed by all 27 EU states
• (unlike the Withdrawal Agreement)."

That looks a fair statement of the known facts as presented by HMG to parliament. Qexigator (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, that is not how HMG presented it to the House. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not imply bad faith. I have followed the debate, as well as taken into account pov press comment. Now, if you cannot support your objection with npov sources, or by citing government publications or Hansard, please desist from misdirecting your efforts in this respect. Qexigator (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Qexigator, you asked for comments on where the text was biased, here it comes:

• is a legal contract to pay £39bn: Ignores the discussion on if UK is obliged to pay to parts of EU budget after brexit that they agreed on. Just build on the premise that they are not and that they only pay it to secure the "benefits" laid out in the rest of the paragraph.
• with the Irish "backstop": No problem here.
• for which in exchange Britain would secure a transition phase with no veto rights: It is unclear what "no veto rights" refer to? What is there to veto, if there is a transition phase or not? If it is related to EU law, it is just a repeat for effect of the next part. Also ignores the fact that a transition phase would also be in the interest of the EU.
• bound to accept all fresh EU law even when it threatened the national interest: "Bound to accept" is a loaded term insinuating that EU holds UK at gunpoint. Also, the reference to national interest is framing the transition period as very very bad. In fact it is contained in the first part, and therefore should be omitted.
• and, on payment of the exit fee: Frames the financial settlement as an "exit fee".
• to have an opportunity of starting talks on a deal: This is just ridiculous. Of course they have that opportunity, as all countries on earth have at any time. Do you expect that no talks at all will happen in the case of a hard brexit? "opportunity of starting talks" is understating the text, namely that both parties must use their best endeavors and good faith to secure a long-term trade deal.
• the terms of which must be agreed by all 27 EU states: Irrelevant as not describing the withdrawal agreement. Used to underlying the narrative that a long-term trade deal is impossible to achieve.
• (unlike the Withdrawal Agreement): Again irrelevant, see last point.

Please, let us end this discussion, so we can focus on being productive. ― Heb the best (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Heb for taking the trouble to give a reasoned response, to which I will respond later, and in the meantime I will undo the disputed paragraph. Qexigator (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the right approach here is to have a short paragraph stating why the ERG-people are against it, why the pro-brexit people are against is and similar for other groups, I don't really have the total overview. This would of course be attributed, which solves many problems. Then we only have to worry about due weight. Also, I think this is what will help the readers the most. ― Heb the best (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The section needs at least something like

"The government's proposal received a hostile response in the debate, mainly concerning the sum of up to £39bn that would be payable by the UK to the EU, and the "Irish backstop"".

That is a mere skeleton, but allows for more to be added. It is barely enough, but may suffice, at least ad interim. Certainly the amount, if any, legally payable for Brexit remains open to doubt to nearly everyone other than those obedient to the government's stated position, and the Irish backstop was/is unquestionably a bone of contention, as the PM herself acknowledged, but we may rely on the inline link instead of elaborating here. Qexigator (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

+ I have gone ahead with this. Qexigator (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted it. I think it is fine as it stands now; more details should be placed in the Brexit withdrawal agreement article. Merry Christmas, I will be off now. ― Heb the best (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Qexigator, you do not wp:OWN this article. The text you want included is supported by a citation from a source that is by its own terms manifestly not neutral on this subject. To include it without context is telling our readers that we editors, using our best efforts to be neutral and detached, regard as a fair and reasonable assessment of the deal. Sorry but 80% of the Commons do not agree (though another 45% of the Commons dislike it for reasons largely at the opposite end of the spectrum. You have two different editors telling you that you do not have consensus to add that opinion without qualification. A third has thanked me for adding the qualification. Please stop and give it 24 hours to think of how to go about achieving NPOV. If you have not already reached 3RR, you are very close. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, to accuse another editor of bias without the strongest possible evidence is entirely contrary to the values of Wikipedia. I invite you to withdraw.

You are well aware that editorial line of The Telegraph is the same as that of the ERG. It strongly favours a hard Brexit. It, like the ERG, has chosen to interpret the referendum result (which never asked that question) as endorsement of that model. The majority of the Commons supports leaving the EU as mandated by the referendum, but 80% oppose a hard brexit. It is unconscionable for Wikipedia to present the view of a small minority has a neutral assessment of the Government's Agreement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see reply above, and make good and sufficient response. Impugning a particular newspaper as a source of information because you oppose its political point of view is not acceptable. This is not the place to argue the merits one way or the other of the opinion of the newspaper's writer. In no way have I nor do I claim "ownership", but nor do I recognise the validity of your oracular comments, or your resort to weaponising 3RR for lack of reply on the merits. The point at issue is not that a majority of the HoC were/are opposed to the proposal, but a npov description of what the proposal was in essence. Please take your own advice: "stop and give it 24 hours to think of how to go about achieving NPOV".Qexigator (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I came here this morning to record (at the talk page, the government's position on the Agreement. Instead I find that you have reinstated your contentious text again overnight, despite my advice that you stand back and reflect. It is clear that you have no interest in reaching a neutral compromise to this dispute, that you would rather impugn my motives. In that case, I must nominate you for wp:editwar sanctions. - --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time to waste on this nonsense. If someone else wants to take this up, let them do so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Given edits [12] and [13], and comment above [14], what is JMF's problem? S/he would be best advised to withdraw povish incivilities and emotive comment on this page ("nonsense" is only the latest) and the edit war complaint, particularly as s/he may not have the time to peruse the edits, the comments or the relevant literature. Qexigator (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think perhaps JMF didn't reached those edits when going through the edit log, before posting here. One should always do that. Anyway, we should focus on improving the skeleton that Qexigator have laid out, to replace the contentious text we are fighting over. I urge you two to sort out your differences on your own talk pages. One should not be mad at each other, or think the other have bad motives, if this is not the case. ― Heb the best (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman I join here. Qexigator has an established pattern of editing without thinking, editing dictionary definitions he doesn't like, editing direct quotations to reflect his own word choice, reverting without comment or talk page, and just being generally disruptive. See Talk page for "Common Law." If a motion were raised to ban him (at least from law topics), I would second the motion. BostonBowTie (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

"Negotiation phase 3: trade relations with EU after Brexit" - misnomer?

Actually it is a good name but the problem as I see it is that most (if not all) of the content is still about the Withdrawal Agreement. Way back, when Davis said that the deal could be done in an afternoon and terms of withdrawal wrapped up a year ago, negotiations on the FTA should have begun over breakfast next morning. As of 13 January 19, the terms of withdrawal have not be ratified and "negotiation on trade relations after Brexit" hasn't gotten beyond the "Political Declaration", which is the contract negotiator's equivalent of a "letter of comfort".

So one option is to just delete this section title and let the content run on from the Phase 2 section, which might be technically correct but very unwieldy. The other alternative is to come up with a new title. First, do others agree with my analysis? Any suggestions for a suitable title? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree, negotiation on trade relations after Brexit has come no further than a contract negotiator's equivalent of a "letter of comfort", which has given little comfort even to the PM, but under current UK legislation and EU law, UK withdrawal will inexorably happen on 29 March, whether or not the House of Commons approves the "Withdrawal Agreement" now under debate. If not approved by that time, Article 50 negotiations will be at an end, but if approved, and approved by EU Parliament, then the UK will at last be in a position to negotiate in a transitional phase in accordance with the WA.

It no longer makes much sense to see the Article 50 withdrawal negotiations as a series of phases with narrative subtitles which do not correspond with the "Phases" described higher up in the article. Instead, let us consider simply re-titling all of the reporting from June 2017 through to January 2019, as "Negotiations for withdrawal agreement", and leave the month by month sub-headings as now in the current version. Qexigator (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

+ I have now gone ahead with this. Qexigator (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A summary of "Negotiation for withdrawal agreement"

For our readers who don't like to spend an hour in order to get the main issues, we could perhaps have a more brief overview of the negotiation problems ? Within this article or in a new one. Possibly in the form of a time line with comments on especially the worst problem as we know of now. For the lazy ones... Boeing720 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead is a sufficient summary for the casual or lazy reader, who is likely to be interested in what is happenning now, 2019, untroubled by the story of the inconclusive goings on in the previous months, which is set out in timeline fashion in section 4, anchored in the Contents list. Who can say what is "the worst problem" from any one of the numerous contending points of view? "No deal is better than a bad deal": true or false? then or now or tomorrow? Qexigator (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ireland with no deal Brexit

What happens with Ireland in a no deal scenario?

Nothing will happen to or within the Irish Republic. But naturally the Irish authorities has to protect the outer borders of the EU, including the border to the UK. (in the "no deal brexit" scenario) Boeing720 (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Norway plus?

At the moment, the article says "In December 2018, Secretary for Work and Pensions Amber Rudd suggested that a Norway-plus model – the membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) – could be an alternative if Theresa May's Brexit deal is rejected. ". Would it offend WP:NOR to point out negotiating EEA membership is in the free trade agreement stage that comes after the withdrawal agreement has been concluded. So it is not an "instead of". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

We report the facts without editorial comment. The fact is she said it, right or wrong. Has any RS pointed out the error? Some might say the supposed Norway option is currently so remote from the possibility of happening as not worth further discussion in the real world. Qexigator (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is true. But in a way we are reporting it as relevant to Brexit negotiations when actually it is about free trade negotiations. But I suppose if the FT reports it as relevant, who are we to argue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

But there is a "hard border" between Sweden and Norway. At least at the larger border crossings, not a Berlin-wall but old-fashion customs and passport control (for "Scandinavian looking" people passport isn't required)Boeing720 (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Article split?

This article is pretty big now, and I was thinking of some kind of split, per WP:SIZE. The obvious starting point (to me, at least), would be to split the Negotiation for withdrawal agreement section by year. What do others think?

Of course, if there's no consensus, I can come back in a week or so, with a tweeked plan, which we can all vote on again... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If the proposal is to remove the whole of the year by year section to date into a new article, that makes good sense. Qexigator (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's my thinking, to have sub-articles such as Brexit negotiations in 2017, etc, with maybe a short summary retained in this article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Prose size (text only): 96 kB (16212 words) "readable prose size" snd References (text only): 2899 B are the current "Page size" figures. I agree that some split is needed.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size Size guidlines says "Readable prose size What to do > 100 kB almost certainly should be divided. 96kB is right up there! What do other editors say we should do?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave this for more comments, and if there's no major issues on doing this, I'll start the split at the weekend. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, then go for it. Qexigator (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Inadequate use or missing use of proper citation and unprofessional use of language

However, the UK would then have an opportunity to control immigration as well as develop its own trade regulations. - The following sentence requires citation and it is written incorrectly. The correct way to write the following sentence in actual British English is as follows: "Nevertheless, the United Kingdom would have expanded opportunities in managing the traffic of peoples (immigration) and goods (exports and imports) that it had previously surrendered when admitted into the European Union." Citation = https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/european-union-critical-assessment ~ Prince of Catalonia

You think that's bad, get a load of this: "a future trade deal with the United Kingdom is the trade deal which will be negotiated after sufficient progress has been made on the withdrawal deal. Barnier commented that the EU will want to negotiate a future trade deal with the United Kingdom, because trade with the United Kingdom will continue.[151] At the same time Barnier said "the future trade deal..." 75.188.224.208 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland border

This is a very long article. But I can't find much on the Ireland border issue and possible solutions. I think the article could mention that the Spanish Canary Islands, the Finnish Åland islands and the Danish (Kingdom of Denmark at least) Faroe Islands all are examples of nations that only partly is in the EU. Why couldn't the opposite be a solution ? Great Britain "brexits" but the UK still has Northern Ireland inside the EU. If Northern Ireland that way remained in EU, a "soft border" could still exist on the Irish island, and everybody be happy ? (And inline with the referendum too). And between Northern Ireland and Great Britain there would be a border that equals for instance Spanish airports with flights from Canary Islands. It seems to me, Mrs May and her Tories can't think !? Boeing720 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Because that would create internal trade barriers within the UK, with different regulatory regimes. This is what the backstop would to, and they are rioting over it. In all those examples you list, the "main country" is within EU, while some far-away islands or autonomous region isn't, and not the other way around. These examples cannot be directly compared to the UK situation. However, if you can find reliable sources that make such comparisons, it might be included in the article, but not before. ― Heb the best (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a whole article about it. See Brexit and the Irish border. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks John Maynard. Will have a look there. To Heb - yes, some problems. But the border would remain open, no return to "past darkness". It's not a big thing in Spain. That the largest part is outside and a smaller part within, should not be more difficult than the other way around. Perhaps the UK even could benefit from having a small part still in the EU ? Boeing720 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The claim that Åland is a nation is not accurate. Rather Åland is an autonomous region of Finland. It is not referred to as a nation in the constitution of Finland, The finnish law concerning Ålands self-governing (Ahvenanmaan itsehallintolaki/Självstyrelselag för Åland), the government of Åland website, the Åland government's information site about Åland, or it's wikipedia article. I don't think the article should mention the claimed because it is both against WP:NOR, but also more importantly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.185.44 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"Possible withdrawal"?

It was my understanding that Brexit will go forward and the UK will withdraw from the EU after passing its referendum in 2016 and invoking Article 50. However, 62.248.185.28 doesn't agree and has added, in the introductory sentence, "possible withdrawal" (from the European Union). I don't want to pass 3RR and I have no wish to start an edit war and could use some feedback here. Thanks! Foreignshore (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor is wrong. The negotiations are over the withdrawal. The current uncertainty is whether the withdrawal will be achieved as negotiated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point and thanks for the feedback. Foreignshore (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The negotiations are over a possible withdrawal, as the withdrawal is uncertain. It is not relevant whether a possible withdrawal will be archived as negotiated, or archived in another manner than negotiated. 62.248.185.28 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach with our IP editor... The UK has invoked Article 50 of the EU treaty and passed their referendum, which indicates Brexit is not "uncertain", as the IP editor has argued above. What is being negotiated are specific issues related to the UK's withdrawal, such as trade and migration. Planned is a better and more accurate word to use in the lead sentence. Would welcome more feedback here. Foreignshore (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The negotiations are in respect of an announced government plan, not a theoretical possibility. It is possible that the plan will change or even be abandoned but for the moment it remains their plan and they have negotiated terms to execute that plan (but which Parliament has declined to ratify). It is contrary to wikipedia principles to speculate on what might (or might not) be (see wp:CRYSTAL) or even on what we as editors might want it to be: we may only report what wp:reliable sources say and for the moment all say that it is a planned withdrawal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback, thanks. Will leave the introductory sentence as is. Hopefully this will resolve things. Foreignshore (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal of no-deal section

I propose that the section Brexit negotiations#The "no deal" scenario be split into a separate page over the re-direct No-deal Brexit. "Brexit negotiations" simply seems the wrong primary hosting page for this topic and can grow better in its own page and contain content outside the scope of the negotiations. (I am happy for elseone to do the split. thankyou). Djm-leighpark (talk)

• @Ânes-pur-sàng, Sudiani, John Maynard Friedman, Straightshoot101, Lugnuts, Heb the best, Scriveners, Derek R Bullamore, and Qexigator: Split proposal of No-deal section from Brexit negotiations.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for proposal : While there is some support I can't see a clear consensus for this proposed action. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

---

• Support Makes sense to me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support yes. Me too based on size and centralising it. Widefox; talk 10:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit, who should then be renamed to "No-deal Brexit". ― Heb the best (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am reasonably certain the existence of an article of the topic "No-deal Brexit" would likely result in Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit (I was creator of said kludge article) being absorbed into it. I'm of the opinion the new article should be structured in the way that best suits its topics and interfaces/links consistently with Brexit#Impacts .. which may not be per Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit. But this merge suggestion certainly supplies some content without attribution/copyright issues. In effect I think there will either be a merge before or merge after and I'll leave it for others to decide unless I become really concerned about something. Hope this makes sense.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The working title should be Predicted outcome of a no-deal Brexit and it should not change its name as suggested unless and until there is in fact a no-deal exit. See my 'reluctant support' below.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree on Predicted being essential, and of course if/when Brexit happens it will no doubt be moved again to a title based on the retrospective. Widefox; talk 10:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • "predicted" can have a spurious implication of certainty when used in respect of what can be no more than "conjecture", that is, supposition based on incomplete information or unproven/ unproveable assumptions. Qexigator (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. The fundamental problem here is that it teeters on the edge of WP:CRYSTAL. It seems to me that we can report "Predicted consequences of a no-deal exit", but if and only if we adhere very strictly to reporting only what reliable sources say. It will be hard to write because the assertions are highly contradictory, even at times self contradictory. [Example: the Irish Government say that they will not establish border controls if there is a no-deal but the Treaties oblige them to do so, just as the Balkan countries must do on the EU/Russia border]. I realise that this is not really helpful in that we already have text on these predictions and readers will expect to find it on WP. Either way it is certainly misplaced in Brexit negotiations. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, both hard to write given the diversity of outcomes, predictions and opposing POVs, but doable IMHO per CRYSTAL. Widefox; talk 10:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose After the opening paragraphs, 'The "no deal" scenario' section has three sub-heads:

• "No deal": possibility and likelihood
• "No deal": adverse consequences
• Contingency and preparedness.

Both the opening paragraphs and the Contingency and preparedness subsection are factual. But the two No Deal subsections are speculative.

A first step will be to move the 'Contingency and preparedness' content up to follow the current opening paragraphs. A second step could be to reword the headings of the other two subsections to make clear their content is speculative, not factual.

However, for the time being, let the content of this section be retained in the article, and review the question of a split when the current negotiating period has expired on 31st October. Qexigator (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Just in case anyone (BJ?) misunderstands, the EU/UK 'negotiation period' ended six months ago. The only negotiations still in progress are between factions of the Conservative Party. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended de jure/ de facto on EU proposal and accepted by UK Prime Minister purporting to exercise royal prerogative. Qexigator (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The withdrawal date ("two years after having given the Article 50 notice") has certainly been extended (twice), but not the negotiations for the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement. Until that is ratified, negotiations on the FTA won't begin. The best that the new PM can hope for is sweet talk in the (non-binding) political declaration. Unless he deletes some of TM's (or the DUP's) red lines, of course. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Given thst the terminal date for completing negotiations under Article 50 is the date in question for Brexit day under EU and UK law, and that the terms and conditions currently proposed by EU for inclusion in a WA treaty for further negotiations thereafter has been rejected by UK HoC three times, the current debate in UK is about whether that draft treaty should be abandoned so that Brexit will happen on a "no deal" basis when the current period ends on 31st October. I see nothing in the article that states that "Brexit negotiations" refers to negotiations, if any, after Brexit day. Qexigator (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Reading the comments above there is at least some possibility consensus for split may not be achievable or may be borderline. I perhaps think back to my original problem. I a lot of people would expect to google search "no deal Brexit" and expect to get a google article high on the research lists. I remain minded this "no deal" scenario section in this article is a not a suitable primary target; (and fiddling with and a simple centralised article provides the best target). Some aspect of "No-deal" Brexit are well defined, and some go toward WP:CRYSTAL. Overall I am somewhat minded to withdraw this proposal as "too hard".10:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fundamentally, all that can be provided is speculation and per WP:CRYSTAL, wikipedia doesn't (well, shouldn't) speculate. My 'reluctant support' above really means that I believe that all our speculative content should be deleted, even it does have a wp:RS. As a minimum, it should come with a serious health warning. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Just rename Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit - everything is covered there already anyway. FOARP (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• I personally believe there are some issues in doing that ... and it isn't a pathway I'd care to take. (NB: I have a coi on that article and I won't initiate that move).Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think I'm seeing a consensus on this proposal so its time to close it. Thankyou for participating and some interesting points have emerged.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename discussion at Talk:Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit

I've opened a rename discussion at the above page which people may be interested in, to rename it to No-deal Brexit. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The "no deal" scenario

As far as I can see, almost all of the material in Brexit negotiations#The "no deal" scenario has nothing to do with the negotiations as such, but is all about the consequences of a no-deal. Before I transfer it wholesale to No-deal Brexit, does anyone have a reason why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The second link appears to be circular? Please clarify the target of the proposed move/merge.Qexigator (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess he is referring to Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit, who is proposed to be moved to No-deal Brexit. I see no problem with content being moved to that article, even though the move discussion is not closed yet. ― Heb the best (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we do need to clarify if the move is to (noredirect) No-deal Brexit or Brexit negotiations#The "no deal" scenarioBrexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit. But I agree with has nothing to do with the negotiations as such; and support No-deal Brexit as the primary article and let everything else flow from that. I am becoming increasing less bothered how that outcome is achieved so concentration can be on subsequent mop-up..Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That'll teach me to take short-cuts! Yes, I did mean Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit, I guessed prematurely that the rename would go through. However I would be very reluctant to create a fork (per Djm-leighpark's proposal) because I think it would muddy the waters even further. As I have said above and in the Immediate Outcome talk page, we are treading (and frequently falling off) the fine line of WP:CRYSTAL. We need to ensure that definite preparations are recorded as facts and only include (and mark clearly as such) speculation/conjecture by the most notable of individuals and organisations. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In view of the confusion over wording, I shall leave this proposal open for another few days. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Material about no-deal moved to No-deal Brexit

Per this discussion (above), I have begun moving material that was about no-deal preparedness and predictions (and not negotiations), to Brexit - immediate outcome of no-deal exit (which article itself was subsequently moved to No deal Brexit). This is the formal record for just the first of phases because the material has to be distributed:

Notice moved to top. ― Heb the best (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If anybody wants to see the material I removed in one place, for the time being it is in my sandbox for at least a month. NB I did not find a home for all of it, as some of the material applied equally, deal or no-deal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Actual negotiating tactic

Assuming for a moment that the transfer of 'implications of a no-deal' to another article happens as above, it will leave an obvious hole – we don't seem to have anything on the assertions by Raab and others that Barnier & Co didn't believe that the UK side really would walk away. This theory is that, had no-deal been stated more credibly, cake and cherries would have been on the table [sorry, heat is going to my head!], because "they need us more than we need them". Anyway, has anybody got any material on that perspective? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

To my mind (personal opinion but editorially NPOV), given that articles such as these are not journalistic running commentaries, what this or that person thought about Barnier's state of mind is no more than one of an excessive quantity of possibly self-serving utterances by politicians and commentators engaging in the fray, in the day to day flux of events and non-events. Perhaps in six month's time there will be perspective enough to see what was decisive, and what has become less than a noteworthy sidenote or footnote to history. If we had information about what Tim Barrow, in the course of his employment, had communicated to or on behalf of the UK government we could consider whether it would be worth including in the article. Qexigator (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Surely page move is controversial

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)

•  Done (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed moves-copying-merges of set of Brexit related articles) Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:29, 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”.

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)