Talk:No-deal Brexit/Archive 1

Should this be its own article? (vs disambiguation or redirect)

I'm thinking "No-deal Brexit" deserves its own article here. Although it's currently addressed in pieces under Brexit#Managed no-deal, Brexit negotiations#The "no deal" senario, and Operation Yellowhammer, none of them bring together all the elements of no-deal Brexit---its role in political rhetoric, positions, and policies in both the UK and EU, its role in UK-EU negotiations, and of course the forecasts and preparations for it. If No-deal actually happens, I'm confident the coverage in sources will get more extensive over time. If it doesn't happen, I think the current coverage in sources is already sufficiently extensive to justify breaking it out into an article. Thoughts? Krubo (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In some way "no-deal" is arguably not part of "Brexit" negotiations. (In other ways it is because negotations have occurred for what happens if "no-deal" happens ... I think we are to a degree lacking on content with regards to no-deal preparedness (Arguably Operation Yellowhammer can to expand to cover that) ... However something like in the event of No-deal UK Citizens will need pass through lines at customs for non-EU nationals is outside the scope of Operation Yellowhammer. In fact what has happened is various changes have already occured, some legislation changed ... and the in the event of a No-deal Brexit lots of things will change and Operation Yellowhammer will intervene where preparedness is incomplete and something has ceased to work ... and continues until BAU is reached. IF you want to do this perhaps a way might be to prepare a draft article covering the scope of what is needed. I have noted some preparedness notes at User:Djm-leighpark/sandbox-P if anyone is interested .... but actually there isn't one there. The real issue can be to define the intended scope of the article. You could do Brexit preparations but that might have a lifetime of less than three weeks ... or one could do: Brexit: changes in the event of a no-deal Brexit. These are only my random thoughts .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• You could probably create "Draft:Brexit - Scenario following no-deal exit, which would possible work ... having said that you look more interested in the politics rather than practical impact.Djm-leighpark (talk)

Redirect to Brexit negotiations#The "no deal" scenario

I regard this as poor choice to direct this as primary topic ... there may arguably not currently a better place.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Related pages

• No deal Brexit
• No-deal Brexit
• No deal brexit
  • • Of the three I believe No-deal Brexit is the printworthy one. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Creation notes

This article is about concrete steps and how things and planned/will operate in the event of a Brexit. WP:CRYSTAL and speculation are inappropriate, however the state and contingencies of official preparations and specific legislation passed (or prepared) is in scope. I have put this badly an may re-phrase. Thankyou. This work may eventually merge to another article but it may well have to go to draft. Alternative names may prove better. The article is structured around the areas of risk identified by Operation Yellowhammer. Please ensure any information added is cited (this does not apply to myself in initial bulking up stage of this draft ... but I dont want to be trying to sort the referencing of others. The article may not, of course, pass draft. Thankyou.11:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

This page was recently curated with notes left on my talk page [[[User talk:Djm-leighpark/Archives/2019 1#A page you started (Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit) has been reviewed!]] with comments and suggestions. At present I do not wish to commit to the time to initiate that follow that through. I also note with the leadership elections and comments from civil servants that published items are a little dynamic. I have therefore chosen to place an Update template on the talk page. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I will comment there has been quite quantity of "no-deal" material published in the past couple of weeks due to both Conservative Party leader candidates (ie British PM candidates) indicating a willingness to countenance it. The political opposing No-Deal also seem to be planning obstacles against it. And some information from the Civil service has also emerged. So there are more sources for this article. However perhaps of more relevance is the proposal at Talk:Brexit negotiations#Splitting proposal of no-deal section] where a merge to and rename of this article has been suggested.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit → No-deal Brexit – Proposal: rename this page to No-deal Brexit or another similar name consistent with policy.

Reasoning per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA:

-Recognizability: The current name is overly long and complex, whereas no-deal Brexit is a familiar term at this point.

-Naturalness: No-deal Brexit is the most natural search term.

-Precision: The present name is imprecise as the "immediate outcome" is not the only thing discussed here, instead no-deal in general is discussed here.

-Conciseness: Enough said.

-Common name: Also enough said.

FOARP (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. My concerns about wp:CRYSTAL apply no matter what the title is, so let's at least make it an accessible one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support:Neutral:Weak support: (NB: article creator) ... I am in favour of a "No-deal Brexit" article and made the proposal at Talk:Brexit negotiations#Splitting proposal of no-deal section. Will require re-work and re-purpose on rename. I am not convinced this rename is the best way of achieving such an article though this article would likely be absorbed by such an article and I would likely support that. So actually this may be the best way forward as the end result should be the same. Not sure if rename will actually technically work here without admin support but that is a relatively minor point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Following the comment from Qexigator below and a quick discussion with the nominator I see no prospect of and reasonable consensus for this move. I really wish people well in this endeavour but I am now reasonably certain consensus cannot be achieved per procedure unless someone gets positive support from Qexigator. The comment is disruptively placed out of alignment, the name is effectively under challenged and discussion is likely to led off prime topic and back on negotiations and legislation.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I am uncertain if you are changing your own position, or trying to assess consensus. I see no problem with a move being performed, even though Qexigator might be against. ― Heb the best (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear I have no intention of trying to assess consensus for this discussion. (OK if its stalled after an amount of time I might take it up but I'd likely simply be calling for a neutral to close it). I have one foot on neutral and one foot on weak support. My main concern is utilisation of the with possibilities at No-deal Brexit. How that is achieved, whether this way or some other way ... probably doesn't worry me overmuch. Strictly speaking on procedure this way needs discussion to run to 28 July 2019 but I confirm I wouldn't personally revert a bold move. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Qexigator has neither offered support nor opposed: see Comment below. Qexigator (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think people are rather over-thinking this and assuming opposition where none is actually apparent. I'm OK with letting the process run to the 28th just in case someone does come up with a good reason not to move that I haven't spotted, but the case for moving seems fairly straight-forward. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@FOARP ... I assume from the comment your referring to me as one of those people. The discussion is set to run for 7 days and is advertise on a number of project alert boards such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for example. Some people monitoring such an alert may be waiting towards the end of the period before commenting. Failure of people following procedure has turned me into a worse more grumpy Wikipedean. I am now certainly in over-thinking mode ..... make of that as you will. I'd prefer the move happened now but I'd caution against it. Patience is a virtue. Virtue makes a Saint. Saints are a ........ .... and some Parkies aint. 14:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I've made a WP:BOLD move and placed a Template:Under construction on the article which given the balance of opinion so far seems a pragmatic move that can hopefully help things move forward.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I have re-examined my position in the light of various discussions and others comments elsewhere and here and for practical purposes have begun to assist this change ... it is therefore appropriate to move to a position of formally supporting this change rather than neutral.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment For accuracy and NPOV the article and its name must be consistent with the current law of UK and EU, that exit day is 31st October 2019. The date cannot be altered except by changing the law of both parties. There is no current change under discussion or negotiation between them, regardless of any political kites being flown in the meantime. Qexigator (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what the legal position in either the UK or the EU is: what matters is the common name of this phenomenon in the English language. The common name by any measure is "No-deal Brexit". To take a common measure of these things, the GNews search results right now for "No-deal exit" are 128 (not all of which are Brexit-related), but the GNews results for "No-deal Brexit" are 188. FOARP (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I seen nothing in the proposed title that is inconsistent with UK or EU law, as it does not refer to any specific date. I am uncertain what the purpose of your comment is, but it doesn't seems to be an oppose to the move. ― Heb the best (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Suggested title is accurate and more concise. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as stated earlier ― Heb the best (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support, current title is essay-like. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: As there has been an attempted closure and move backed out as needing admin assist I have raised a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2019 (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.

Draft sections

This material has been copied to the article and is only given here to show provenance

Motor industry

On 28 July 2019, Groupe PSA (owners of Vauxhall Motors) told the Financial Times that a no-deal Brexit would probably result in the closure of its Ellesmere Port plant, with serious consequent impact on local suppliers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sheep farming

On 30 July 2019, Helen Roberts of the National Sheep Association in Wales told The Guardian that it would be "absolutely catastrophic" to leave with no deal and could lead to civil unrest among sheep farmers. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers Union, said there would be no market for 40% of the UK’s lamb meat in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Guardian also reported research commissioned by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and Quality Meat Scotland that found that combined beef and sheep meat exports to the EU could decline by 92.5%, with the lamb export trade "almost completely wiped out". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Having just seen the TV I seem to recall (hopefully correctly) 40% WTO tariff for sheep and that 95% of sheep exported were to the EU (That's headline figure but for me to understand it fully I'd need to know what proportion of sheep are exported and also numbers or value involved). Some of detail on this are covered in the specialist articles and perhaps impact and there may be issues with avoid WP:CFORK.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that the figures are in the Guardian report. Which "specialist articles" do you mean? Perhaps, like the material that was incorrectly located in the Negotiations article, the material needs to be moved here? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Don't read too much into my comments. I am mainly focused elsewhere ... ah ... I see ... I was thinking as specialist (wikipedia) articles such as those under Brexit#Impacts but actually there is mention of Fisheries (no specialist articles) but nothing on Agriculture ... I assumed there was. I need to shut up when I don't look down deeply enough and my mind is elsewhere. Perhaps the best we have is UK food and water supplies in this article and that is a very bad section. I am now more minded there is simply a big gap in this area .... it isn't a problem in a deal exit as things initially just carry on ... in no-deal this is an immediate impact. Imports to UK aren't hitting this issue immediately as no apparent tariffs .... AFAIK ... exporters are hit. I think I've confused myself.13:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Removal of Under Construction Template

The Under construction template has been in place since 24 July 2019 and its purpose was to give opportunity for the article to grow following the move from the new name and also to help readers appreciate it wasn't the finished article. But I'd now suggest time has come for its removal albeit likely the article is still subject to improvement. I will remove the under construction template myself in three days unless anyone objects. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed FOARP (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done (By elseone about 3 days ago).Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fix the Syntax

Someone has kindly reverted my edits and broken the syntax and said I'm edit warring. Can someone fix stuff please and mark Non English cites appropriately. language=fr is good and also provide trans-title. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone also check the WP:COMPETENCY of that the reversion ... whether the Template:Update needs to be in place and whether IAbot had an issue ??? thankyou. The revert is certainly wrong as its gone from Syntax good to syntax broekn and I dont believe there's a content change. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Done .. Slightly bold and put it back .. I check out (most of the IAbots archives and there good (apart from paywall where they may of lesser value). I've put back the update template and I'll add a section below.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Creation notes

This article is about concrete steps and how things and planned/will operate in the event of a Brexit. WP:CRYSTAL and speculation are inappropriate, however the state and contingencies of official preparations and specific legislation passed (or prepared) is in scope. I have put this badly an may re-phrase. Thankyou. This work may eventually merge to another article but it may well have to go to draft. Alternative names may prove better. The article is structured around the areas of risk identified by Operation Yellowhammer. Please ensure any information added is cited (this does not apply to myself in initial bulking up stage of this draft ... but I dont want to be trying to sort the referencing of others. The article may not, of course, pass draft. Thankyou.11:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

This page was recently curated with notes left on my talk page [[[User talk:Djm-leighpark/Archives/2019 1#A page you started (Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit) has been reviewed!]] with comments and suggestions. At present I do not wish to commit to the time to initiate that follow that through. I also note with the leadership elections and comments from civil servants that published items are a little dynamic. I have therefore chosen to place an Update template on the talk page. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I will comment there has been quite quantity of "no-deal" material published in the past couple of weeks due to both Conservative Party leader candidates (ie British PM candidates) indicating a willingness to countenance it. The political opposing No-Deal also seem to be planning obstacles against it. And some information from the Civil service has also emerged. So there are more sources for this article. However perhaps of more relevance is the proposal at Talk:Brexit negotiations#Splitting proposal of no-deal section] where a merge to and rename of this article has been suggested.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Percy resignation

This morning I added a sentence to Andrew Percy#Third term to say On 22 July 2019, Percy resigned from the Trade Envoy [to Canada] role in protest over Liam Fox's planned no-deal policy that he believes would threaten the UK's annual £800m business with Canada, attacking what he called the "cack-handed" proposal to scrap or slash tariffs on almost all imports – blaming it for Ottawa’s refusal to give the UK its existing deal with the EU.

I can't see how this would easily fit in the article as it stands so will just leave it here unless and until someone else sees a place for it. (It may just be too detailed). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it may seem to some who study world trade closely to have some relevance to current or prospective Brexit negotiations or clean break Brexit, it is too far off topic for the contents of the aritcle. Qexigator (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, as I surmised. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

References

UK participation in EU governance ends

I removed some material from the lead that noted (correctly) that Brexit means that UK membership of the Council, the Commission and the EP will cease. I did so because this is not a consequence of no-deal in particular but of Brexit in general. I don't understand why Qexigator reinstated it. Rather than edit war in the article, we should discuss here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, your latest revision (16.40, 22 July)[1] is acceptable, retaining my version, but part moved down to "Recasting of EU institutions". To my mind, that may suffice for the better information of readers or editors who are less well-informed (present company excepted) than some others, perhaps due to confusions, obfuscations and uncertainties arising from public utterances by POV politicians and commentators. Qexigator (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyedits

I got as far as EU Preparedness before losing the will to live. Perhaps another editor will carry on from there? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"winked"[2] new to me: nice one, like "Brexit" - Test question: which came first the Brexit or the winked? Qexigator (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Qexigator:, was that a subtle WP:TROUT? It ought to have read wlinked. Not my fault if you are a Nudge Nudge man person. [!] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

JMF: Well, I could make use of the inimitable Francis Urquhart's "You may think so. I could not possibly say",[3] but no, neither subtle Trout nor Nudge on my part. I truly hoped that "winked" had been or would be adopted and become as much part of common usage as "Brexit", which may be attributed to Peter Wilding (15 May 2012) [4], who you may know of as the otherwise unremarkable solicitor (of Church Stretton, Shropshire),[5]and MD of The Influence Group[6] who founded British Influence "in 2012 to make the case for the European Union amid increasing calls for British withdrawal from the EU....In 2016 the group changed its name to the "The Influence Group" which advised UK businesses on the single market." Glad to see that you have revived the will to live. Qexigator (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Material about no-deal moved from Brexit negotiations

Per talk:Brexit negotiations#The "no deal" scenario, I have begun moving material that was about no-deal preparedness and predictions, to this article. This is the formal record for just the first of phases because the material has to be distributed: --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Requested move 21 July 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit → No-deal Brexit – Proposal: rename this page to No-deal Brexit or another similar name consistent with policy.

Reasoning per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA:

-Recognizability: The current name is overly long and complex, whereas no-deal Brexit is a familiar term at this point.

-Naturalness: No-deal Brexit is the most natural search term.

-Precision: The present name is imprecise as the "immediate outcome" is not the only thing discussed here, instead no-deal in general is discussed here.

-Conciseness: Enough said.

-Common name: Also enough said.

FOARP (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. My concerns about wp:CRYSTAL apply no matter what the title is, so let's at least make it an accessible one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support:Neutral:Weak support: (NB: article creator) ... I am in favour of a "No-deal Brexit" article and made the proposal at Talk:Brexit negotiations#Splitting proposal of no-deal section. Will require re-work and re-purpose on rename. I am not convinced this rename is the best way of achieving such an article though this article would likely be absorbed by such an article and I would likely support that. So actually this may be the best way forward as the end result should be the same. Not sure if rename will actually technically work here without admin support but that is a relatively minor point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Following the comment from Qexigator below and a quick discussion with the nominator I see no prospect of and reasonable consensus for this move. I really wish people well in this endeavour but I am now reasonably certain consensus cannot be achieved per procedure unless someone gets positive support from Qexigator. The comment is disruptively placed out of alignment, the name is effectively under challenged and discussion is likely to led off prime topic and back on negotiations and legislation.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I am uncertain if you are changing your own position, or trying to assess consensus. I see no problem with a move being performed, even though Qexigator might be against. ― Heb the best (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear I have no intention of trying to assess consensus for this discussion. (OK if its stalled after an amount of time I might take it up but I'd likely simply be calling for a neutral to close it). I have one foot on neutral and one foot on weak support. My main concern is utilisation of the with possibilities at No-deal Brexit. How that is achieved, whether this way or some other way ... probably doesn't worry me overmuch. Strictly speaking on procedure this way needs discussion to run to 28 July 2019 but I confirm I wouldn't personally revert a bold move. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Qexigator has neither offered support nor opposed: see Comment below. Qexigator (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think people are rather over-thinking this and assuming opposition where none is actually apparent. I'm OK with letting the process run to the 28th just in case someone does come up with a good reason not to move that I haven't spotted, but the case for moving seems fairly straight-forward. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@FOARP ... I assume from the comment your referring to me as one of those people. The discussion is set to run for 7 days and is advertise on a number of project alert boards such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for example. Some people monitoring such an alert may be waiting towards the end of the period before commenting. Failure of people following procedure has turned me into a worse more grumpy Wikipedean. I am now certainly in over-thinking mode ..... make of that as you will. I'd prefer the move happened now but I'd caution against it. Patience is a virtue. Virtue makes a Saint. Saints are a ........ .... and some Parkies aint. 14:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I've made a WP:BOLD move and placed a Template:Under construction on the article which given the balance of opinion so far seems a pragmatic move that can hopefully help things move forward.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I have re-examined my position in the light of various discussions and others comments elsewhere and here and for practical purposes have begun to assist this change ... it is therefore appropriate to move to a position of formally supporting this change rather than neutral.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment For accuracy and NPOV the article and its name must be consistent with the current law of UK and EU, that exit day is 31st October 2019. The date cannot be altered except by changing the law of both parties. There is no current change under discussion or negotiation between them, regardless of any political kites being flown in the meantime. Qexigator (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what the legal position in either the UK or the EU is: what matters is the common name of this phenomenon in the English language. The common name by any measure is "No-deal Brexit". To take a common measure of these things, the GNews search results right now for "No-deal exit" are 128 (not all of which are Brexit-related), but the GNews results for "No-deal Brexit" are 188. FOARP (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I seen nothing in the proposed title that is inconsistent with UK or EU law, as it does not refer to any specific date. I am uncertain what the purpose of your comment is, but it doesn't seems to be an oppose to the move. ― Heb the best (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Suggested title is accurate and more concise. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as stated earlier ― Heb the best (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support, current title is essay-like. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: As there has been an attempted closure and move backed out as needing admin assist I have raised a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2019 (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.

Projected consequences

Because of the antecedence of this article, we have a lot on contingency planning but nothing (or at least nothing structured as such) on projected consequences. So I'd like to use this section of the talk page to draft something and we can move it to the article space when it is halfway respectable. General comments here please, comments specific to the sector only that subsection. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• A major part of the reason I have left an Under construction on the article is it has never particularly been designed to cover the topic "No-deal Brexit" in a structured manner. So I expect the need to try sections like this very reasonable. The issue is to avoid individual speculation. We may have simply to try something and rework it if necessary.. someone may need to risk a responsible WP:BOLD edit.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think we can report informed speculation. The people quoted here are such as to be taken seriously. Politicians, who inevitably have a conflict of interest, should be left out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Where I'm stuck at the moment is how to write a lead for this section. Ideas welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"Informed speculation"? The long history of the topic, from at least the 1950s, shows that there must be few media or other ostensibly independent available sources that can be relied on to be untainted by some kind of blinkers or vested interest: commercial, academic, careerist, solidarity, institutional, promotional, funding, party-political etc. A business or institution or spokesperson may have reason to use Brexit as a cover or excuse or feint or decoy concealing actual motivation. How would we know? Wikipedia content should not be uncritically influenced in presenting projected consequences. If we are to avoid furthering alarmism, the material should be introduced with something like: "Various public institutions, corporate interests, and bodies representing particular sectors or activities have expressed concerns about possible adverse effects of Brexit, that may later prove to be exaggerated or underestimated." Qexigator (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. How about Various public institutions, corporate interests, and bodies representing particular sectors or activities, have expressed concerns about possible effects that a "no-deal" Brexit might have, that may later prove to be exaggerated or underestimated. This section reports some of these projections. (I deleted the word 'adverse' as it just invites counter-arguments. I inserted "no-deal" before Brexit because that is what this article is about and because the predictions about a generic Brexit are much wilder, both positive and negative. I've added a brief "This section ....". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, and let's call this bit "caveat". Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

+ Propose tweak caveat to read: This section reports some of the projections about effects of a "no-deal" Brexit, made by various public institutions, corporate interests, and bodies representing particular sectors or activities. Some of these projections, positive or negative, may later prove to be exaggerated or underestimated. Qexigator (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Next question: does this go before or after that existing 'preparations' material? My inclination is to put it after. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the beginning of existing p-.m-.? The first section "The possibility of no-deal Brexit" needs a re-write to remove forecasting outcomes, alarmist or not. The caveat should introduce any post-Brexit forecasting. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done it. Feel free to edit at will, usual rules of engagement apply. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This section reports the more informed projections, aiming to avoid speculation[7] This begins to look like SYN. "More" than what, by what criteria? And anyhow, unavoidably "speculative". Qexigator (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

+ Only time will tell us. Qexigator (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair comment. Please feel free to reword or even delete. My aim was to report the statements made by people who have direct experience and involvement and so may reasonably be assumed to be credible – like Vauxhall and the Welsh sheep people saying "our business model does not work at these tariffs" (as opposed to the OpEd speculation in the Guardian suggesting it won't happen because the ERG have taken over the Cabinet). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft sections

This material has been copied to the article and is only given here to show provenance

Motor industry

On 28 July 2019, Groupe PSA (owners of Vauxhall Motors) told the Financial Times that a no-deal Brexit would probably result in the closure of its Ellesmere Port plant, with serious consequent impact on local suppliers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sheep farming

On 30 July 2019, Helen Roberts of the National Sheep Association in Wales told The Guardian that it would be "absolutely catastrophic" to leave with no deal and could lead to civil unrest among sheep farmers. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers Union, said there would be no market for 40% of the UK’s lamb meat in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Guardian also reported research commissioned by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and Quality Meat Scotland that found that combined beef and sheep meat exports to the EU could decline by 92.5%, with the lamb export trade "almost completely wiped out". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Having just seen the TV I seem to recall (hopefully correctly) 40% WTO tariff for sheep and that 95% of sheep exported were to the EU (That's headline figure but for me to understand it fully I'd need to know what proportion of sheep are exported and also numbers or value involved). Some of detail on this are covered in the specialist articles and perhaps impact and there may be issues with avoid WP:CFORK.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that the figures are in the Guardian report. Which "specialist articles" do you mean? Perhaps, like the material that was incorrectly located in the Negotiations article, the material needs to be moved here? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Don't read too much into my comments. I am mainly focused elsewhere ... ah ... I see ... I was thinking as specialist (wikipedia) articles such as those under Brexit#Impacts but actually there is mention of Fisheries (no specialist articles) but nothing on Agriculture ... I assumed there was. I need to shut up when I don't look down deeply enough and my mind is elsewhere. Perhaps the best we have is UK food and water supplies in this article and that is a very bad section. I am now more minded there is simply a big gap in this area .... it isn't a problem in a deal exit as things initially just carry on ... in no-deal this is an immediate impact. Imports to UK aren't hitting this issue immediately as no apparent tariffs .... AFAIK ... exporters are hit. I think I've confused myself.13:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Mentioning "Clean break brexit" in the lede is undue

There are many alternative names for no-deal (e.g., "car crash brexit") and mentioning any one of them in the lede, unless they are really common and not just POV-pushing, is WP:UNDUE FOARP (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely proper to include the economic forecasts made about no-deal Brexit

WP:CRYSTAL allows "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" to be included in an article. So long as the prediction comes from a reliable source (e.g., IMF, HMT, OBR etc.) it should be included, so long as we indicate properly the limitations of their analysis. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to state (without supporting reference) that these predictions may not come to pass. It is inherent, when discussing multiple predictions giving differing results, that at least some of them will not come to pass. Further more it is simply not true to say that the contents of the predicted results section are "not factual", they are indeed perfectly factual - it is factual that these predictions have been made, as demonstrated by the supporting references. FOARP (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Leaving bare URLs

If there is a repeat of what happens todays of a major edit session leaving a bundle of bare URLs for people to be called in to clean up I think I shall consider it disruptive and revert without question. I haven;t checked the overall content of the additions but I reverted one quote that looked to have WP:UNDUE weight. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

For those we consider that as unclear, here is the explanation:

bare URLs, "While this is much better than leaving articles unsourced, it does expose the references to link rot." but it can be solved with "the reFill tool for resolving bare references semi-automatically". Read Wikipedia:Bare URLs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.235 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Under Construction Template

The Under construction template has been in place since 24 July 2019 and its purpose was to give opportunity for the article to grow following the move from the new name and also to help readers appreciate it wasn't the finished article. But I'd now suggest time has come for its removal albeit likely the article is still subject to improvement. I will remove the under construction template myself in three days unless anyone objects. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed FOARP (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done (By elseone about 3 days ago).Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fix the Syntax

Someone has kindly reverted my edits and broken the syntax and said I'm edit warring. Can someone fix stuff please and mark Non English cites appropriately. language=fr is good and also provide trans-title. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone also check the WP:COMPETENCY of that the reversion ... whether the Template:Update needs to be in place and whether IAbot had an issue ??? thankyou. The revert is certainly wrong as its gone from Syntax good to syntax broekn and I dont believe there's a content change. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Done .. Slightly bold and put it back .. I check out (most of the IAbots archives and there good (apart from paywall where they may of lesser value). I've put back the update template and I'll add a section below.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

freedom of movement immediately stopped.

There has been some debate exactly what was meant by " freedom of movement immediately stopped." ... and how it differs to what was expected. Presumably means no changes to Apply to the EU Settlement Scheme (settled and pre-settled status) ? and may just mean standard border/passport controls (UK/Irish citizens exempted). Section probably needs careful improvement from someone and to include information on [8].Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be cautious about wild statements by over-promoted politicians. There was an immediate challenge - what about the NHS nurses who go back to the old country to look after their dying mums, will they be blocked from returning? Cue backtracking. So let's wait until there is an actual policy rather than just mouthing off. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Appreciate it if a neutral will do some archiving. The first 3 sections in my opinion need to archive as those discussions are now historic. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to set up an automatic archive, as at some other high discussion traffic pages?

(Meanwhile, Djm-leighpark, I suggest that you just be bold and continue what you have been doing. I agree that the sections you identified are all suitable for archiving. If we had automatic archiving, they would have gone by now in any event). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman I appreciate your support for archiving but I have been dissuades due to my previous efforts with Archy McArchface so the burden now lies elsewhere. As you may appreciate I have real fear of being reported to WP:ANI or being blocked if anything went wrong and the archiving transaction I performed was not backed out fully so the result is inconsistent. On that basis I leave it to elseone to clean up the mess and sort archiving. Please also appreciate I have recently been rebuked on a potential archive associated template on another by someone else on another article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have set up some automated archiving. MPS1992 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

French citation problems

I am having some issues with the French language sources supplied by an (the?) IP recently. Sources are being supplied as bare URLs, not marked as French language and no translation of the title. To top it I am very concern how Transport between UK and the Union will benefit from delays? I have spent some time on this am no wiser. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• I believe action has been taken on Transport between UK and the Union will benefit from delays have been undertaken and I give appreciation for that. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Relative position of the 'Predicted consequences' section

I think it would be appropriate to move that section above all the preparedness sections. We should state the problems and then the possible mitigations. It is possibly controversial so I wanted to check first that no-one objects? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support: On balance for reasons given. Good engineering/Help desk practice. Akin to "tell me what your problem is (first), not what you think the solution is".Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Mangling of reference in Spain section

Between these hidden edits circa line 185 a bare URL reference was seemingly mangled converting to a cite. Unfortunately interim revisions are not visible. I believe the URL was introduced by 81.185.254.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at this edit on 17:13, 13 August 2019. @RJFJR ... you did a reFill at 18:31, 15 August 2019‎ if I am not mistaken which may or may not have been the involved. @Diannaa you did the blanking and may be able to shed more light. I think I've now fixed it but I'd appreciate a peer review check. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your fix looks good. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Projected consequences

I have added a new section: Budget contributions. This cuts directly across the 'hidden' Note to editors sitting at the top of the Projected consequences section, which appears to be based on the fairly obviously false premise that the only consequences of a no-deal Brexit can be trade-related. That cannot be true. Please can that note either be removed in its entirety or re-worded. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 23:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC) PS. I added in a mention of the current net budget contributions, "citation needed". I have a citation ready, but it's sitting on my smartphone, with which I'll be reunited in three days.🙄 Boscaswell talk 23:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who inserted those notes asking people not to insert politicians wild speculations etc, let me make clear that there is no objection to NPOV additions. If their effect is to suggest that I believe that the only effect will be on trade, nothing could be further from the truth. So if you consider that the wording is inappropriate (or inappropriately placed) you are of course perfectly entitled to change it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Borders: Delivery of services

In the Borders section, we don't have anything on cross-border service delivery. WTO terms don't include services so I guess the answer may well be total standstill? It would be unambiguously WP:SYN to say so though! I have only seen political assertions. Does anyone have anything more definite? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thirty days

There is a difference of understanding on what exactly Merkel said to Johnson, the famous "thirty days to come up with a solution", which the British press turned into a deadline. Merkel subsequently clarified her remarks by saying that it was a figure of speech to underline the urgency. So it is WP:UNDUE to highlight it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

The boxed quote in the “The possibility of...” section and its relevance to NPOV vis-à-vis this article

With huge barriers to agreeing and ratifying a deal by the end of October, the prospect of a no-deal exit is rising. But no deal would not be the end of Brexit. The UK will be out of the European Union, but the all-encompassing job of adapting to the new reality and building a new relationship with the EU will still be incomplete. The biggest questions Brexit will still need to be settled. The difficult choices that have been unresolved for the last three years will not evaporate overnight on the 31 October.

Institute for Government, July 2019

...why is it there at all? It doesn’t relate to the title of the section and IMO is nothing less than another negative statement about Brexit, in this case the no-deal scenario. It’s a POV. Can it please be deleted?

Many would argue that one of the main benefits of the no-deal scenario is the ability to make laws independent of Brussels and the freedom from laws made there. But curiously, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of this anywhere in the article. How can this be? Why is there no quote for it? Where is the balance?

Surely it can’t be the case that quotes and statements negative to no-deal are to be prioritised, eg. the Speaker’s comment being given top billing in the “The possibility of...” section. I sincerely hope not. Boscaswell talk 12:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The above having been sitting there for nigh on four full days (perhaps 2 hours short of that) and there having been no comments to the contrary, I am removing the boxed quote mentioned. It has no direct relevance to the section. Boscaswell talk 08:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I missed this notice, not sure why. The quote certainly isn't POV as it is indisputable, multiple sources on TV recently have been saying that exit day (in whatever form) is not the end or even the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning. So I do think that the quote is highly relevant and was intent on reinstating it. The problem is more a procedural one: which section does it relate best to? There isn't an obvious place for it except beside the lead - which is already occupied by the side box. So, unless anyone else wants to pursue it, I'll let it drop since it will all become obvious in a couple of months' time either way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

The section it was in was The possibility of a no-deal Brexit. How exactly is a quote about what would need to be done with regard to various trade agreements relevant to that? Clearly it’s a quote relevant to the whole subject of a no-deal Brexit, but not relevant to the section it was in. Boscaswell talk 08:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It isn't, which is what I meant by "procedural problem". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)