Talk:Frexit

Origin of term 'Frexit'

I removed this wp:OR derivation because the citation given says nothing to support it.

The name is based on "Grexit", a term adopted by the media to describe a hypothetical scenario in which Greece might make a decision to default on its European Union loans, which in turn could have pushed the other EU countries to demand that its membership of European Monetary Union (the euro) be rescinded.

[Actually it was worse, it claimed that a Greek default would mean ending its membership of the EU, which has never been floated by any credible source].

If someone can provide a reliable source for the etymology, please add it. Meanwhile no source is better than a bad source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Peer Review (CP)

SPMChapel, I think your plan for the wikipedia article is thorough and well detailed. However I do find that you might risk being more lengthy rather than with more quality due to time constraints and resources. Furthermore, I fully agree about using properly scholarly sources, this will upgrade your article in terms of its credibility and is definitely a value that the Wikipedia community will pride you on. Overall, I am impressed by these planned as viewed in the talk page and I hope that you are able to focus on a few pieces of the article that you can wholly improve! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadiaalexandria (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

In line with the ongoing discussion at Dutch withdrawal from the European Union, I feel this article should also be merged with Withdrawal from the European Union. Feer 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Frexit is a subject in its own right, discussed in reliable soirces and by politicians in France, and it is worthy of a standalone article.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As said above, Frexit is already a large subject that deserves its own article. If you look at the French article on this subject you will see that it is already quite long, with far too much information to merge into another article without overwhelming it. There is the potential for the English article to be just as long. Oska (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• If this article isn't merged, it should be renamed to Euroscepticism in France like Euroscepticism in the Czech Republic and Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland.--Momods (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  No, it should not be. The current title is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge, but to the Euroscepticism article. The current article, when you take out material relating to the UK, is only a few sentences long and doesn't merit a standalone article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It references Brexit, not the UK. That's completely fine as Brexit is an analogous movement.

There is also scope to substantially increase this article because, 1) a push for Frexit shows no signs of going away (at least in the short to medium term) and thus there will be future developments and 2) if you look at the French wikipedia article, it is already quite substantial. Oska (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The notion of Frexit is too interesting, and potentially a significant subject, to justify merging. Merger would mean you no longer hav a dedicated article on a fascinating notion, Frexit. I don't like that.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

REBUILD THE ARTICLE IN A THEMATICAL MANNER

1. Rebuild the article in 5 sections (Leading section, Historical Relation between France and the EU, Causal Mechanisms of an hypothetical Frexit, positions of Political parties and leaders before and after the 2017 Presidential election and finally the public opinion before and after Brexit).

2. use proper sources, such as academic sources.

Thus: A. leading section will consist of an explanation of the term and the presentation of Francois Asselineau, first politician to introduce the Frexit movement within his party, the UNP.

B. Relationship between the two, will highlight the integration of France, its position on the treaty (Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon), the number of French deputies that are represented in the EP, and the dynamic of the budget between France and The European Union (received and spent).

C. the roots of the Frexit will consist of three sub-parts, the Great recession in 2008 (Economic sovereignty), the Migration Crisis in 2014 (National sovereignty) and the Imperiousness of the EU elites (Policy sovereignty). Numerous scholars will be used in this part like Eatwel, Goodwin, Holman, Alibert, Pirro and Taggart.

D. The presidential election of 2017 and the Brexit outcomes radically changed political positions or what has been called hard-frexit into soft frexit suggestions from parties and their leaders. Dupont-Agnan, LePen, Mélenchon, Hammon, Asselineau and Fillipeau, leaders of parties that promotes Frexit will largely be analysed after and before the 2017 Presidential election.

E. Polls of the French public opinion on whether or not the country should leave the EU and the Eurozone will be examined after and before the Brexit negotiations. And a radically different conclusion comes out, based on graphs/figures from EUROSTAT and STATISTA.

SPMChapel (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Any such rewrite would have to respect WP:Neutral point of view. When you use loaded language like 'the Imperiousness of the EU elites', it seems evident that what you want is a Party Political Broadcast, not an encylopedic article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with John Maynard Friedman, in that you must be careful not to be biased when adding to this article. Furthermore, I think that you should watch out to not turn this into an article that does not talk so much about Frexit, but rather the position of France within the EU. Make sure to focus solely on the possibility of France exiting the EU and the reasons that politicians have brought up in favor or against it. When using graphs and figures make sure to present them in an unbiased manner, do not try to analyze their meaning too much as you would in an academic paper. You're right in highlighting that this article needs an overhaul of the sources used as they are mainly news articles. --User:Polscidam20 10:32, 14 May 2020‎

(Peer Review CP) I think that J. M. Freidman has a good point when he mentioned that such changes should be carefully done in a neutral way. You have some great ideas and your goals seem feasible. For the explanation of the term "Frexit" you could also explain how this term was intensely used by the media (especially during the 2017 presidential election) and its true meaning was often forgotten by the electors. The section where you make the distinction between hard and soft "Frexit" could be extended by explaining how the politicians were creating division among the voters based on that distinction.

You are right about the use of proper sources, this article needs improvement in that manner.

Overall you seem to have proper sources to edit this article and have plenty of options to work on. However, because you have so many possibilities, make sure to focus on one or two sections in-depth in order to make them as relevant as possible instead of only changing the surface of the all article.

Good Luck! Halton0310fields (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

peer review

I would suggest to not dive into as many sections and only keep the most relevant ones. Maybe remove the "positions of Political parties and leaders before and after the 2017 Presidential election" - I think the rest of the article would be arguably more important. Keep in mind Wikipedia is accessed by people who are not informed about the subject. Providing detailed opinions of Frexit by different politicians is not as relevant as explaining what the phenomenon is and how it came about. Support it with facts, opinions only come after that. Make sure you have quality arguments > quantity as well, as I am assuming we are graded on the value of the page, rather how long it is. Gabz11 (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)