Talk:Brexit

"Blog like" articles in Ingenpedia
This article is overwhelmingly anti Brexit, it shows much more arguments against Brexit than the inverse, looks like the important and popular parts showing the reasons for Brexit were deleted, and which includes: 1. The bureaucratic system currently entrenched at EU harms the liberal economic tradition that is common to every major Anglophone country (Specially USA and UK), and this system is expressed in UE and it's laws, that imposes a lot of restrictions in fishing and farming. The model is French, 'heavy', it's like Macron's paradise. 2. Of course Britain will be fully independent, and the migration to UK is forced by EU policy regarding migration, it is based on political correctness, ignores the religious, etnics and cultural conflicts that are common in countries like UK and US, countries that receives a massive number of migrants every year. And that unskilled workers will compete with the local blue collar workers in unequal term (They are more likely to accept receiving less money for the same job, with is still considerably a higher sum than the money they were used to make in their home countries). 3. The article says that the lack of a liberal voice like that of the UK in the European Union will harm the efforts from other liberal countries to modernize the UE. But, the inverse is also true, the UK will be free to turn itself a more liberal country, taking by example the United States, Singapore or Hong Kong, not France, Germany or Denmark. 4. A more independent aproach to global affairs will not harm UK's prestige, as the article says, but it will put more emphasis in the British identity and point of view, it will not be a part of the UE, but a entity that can disagree and chalenge Brussels resolutions and it's global ambitions independenly. 5. If UK move forward to a system like that of Singapore, based on economic freedom, and exporting oriented economy it can achieve a high degree of economic progress. And that can affect the economy positevely balancing the harm caused by the lack of econonomic integration with UE (It can sign bilateral trade deals all over the world and make the country more competitive, actually, Mercosur and India are important players at the global stage, but even more important is the topic of the trade deal with the United States of America).

I think a lot was ignored here, and it's not coincidental, even "Remain" voters are criticizing the article for it's one sided style. I think it's important to show contradictory opinions, and that can be found all over the internet, in pro Brexit documentaries and journals.

It hardly seems worthwhile to include (and discuss) the results of public opinion polls taken after the results of the Referendum were announced. They were not definitive at the time and are of decreasing interest and value with the passing years P R Hastings (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers from Brazil, and i am sorry for the neglecting of the English language, possible at some extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.182.33.246 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any pro-Remain bias in the article. Merely pointing out (with citations) the consequences arising from Brexit according to people with expert knowledge of the relevant areas does not in itself constitute bias. MFlet1 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lay of any PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The question of bias has been raised multiple times now and should be taken seriously. I understand why it can be perceived bias towards remain. The articles does a very bad job of explaining why UK voted to leave EU. The background says there areurosceptics, but fail to say what that belief is based upon. It presents a number of events that happened many years ago, but fail to explain the underling causes behind them. The referendum-section does not mention the arguments the two sides gave in their campaigns, instead only presenting the results. There is a voter demographics section, but it mainly consist of statistics about who voted what. The lead contain no information about causes, instead having a too detailed focus on process. There seems to be something good in the referendum article and the causes article, perhaps we can integrate something from those articles here? ― Hebsen (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When I read you, I understand there is bad here and good elsewhere, but that is rather vague and not specific. Element to add in this article should be facts and should be sourced.
 * The reason why the parliament chose Brexit is because the parliament tried to comply with referendum result. That's a fact, isn't it?
 * The anti-Brexit bias from this article comes from the fact there is no clear pro-Brexit plan, but if the Tories, the SNP or the Labor have a clearly documented pro-Brexit strategy, of course, wikipedia could document it... Could we document those plans? or May plan? or Johnson plan?
 * The first argument is strange: 1/ Macron was not president when Brexit was voted 2/ Migration provides workers in unequal term (working poor) in UK, USA, EU and French Guyana. This is not related to Brexit 3/ Just means Brexit is Brexit 4/ Council resolutions (...) have no legal effect but they can invite the Commission to make a proposal or take further action, and the UK is (was) part of that Commission 5/ The UK now has FTA with South Korea, Switzerland, Israel and South Africa part of Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom. No agreement yet agreed with Mercosur, India, the United States of America or even more import for the UK: the EU and the EEA... wikipedia is not a crystal ball but the link to Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom could be provided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.221 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree this gives an unbalanced view and fails as an encyclopedic article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To the “User talk:88.136.208.221“;

Well, first of all, i did not said Macron was president when Brexit was aproved. You misunderstood most of the text. I said it looks like Macron’s paradise (The EU and it’s system). I cited a well known politician, and said he likes the bureaucratic system that the British rejected. 2. The fact that the migrants will compete with the local blue collar workers in UK and can make the things more competitive for them is absolutely related to Brexit, it is a reason why blue collar workers voted “Leave”. It’s a reason for people to vote “Leave” and that was ignored here, that is the point. 3. You worked well in your support of the one sided style of the article, but even if it was true that there is no “plan”, the article can be provided with FACTS, about the reasons why people voted “Leave”. There is some pools that were made and that should help in sourcing this assumptions and social issues that concernes the British people and made them vote for Brexit. The article can be sourced and be unbiased, at least everyone should take that as a goal (Writing, or trying writing unbiased articles). 4. Again i didn’t said it has a FTA with USA, or the other countries that i cited, i mentioned it SHOULD have, now that Brexit is done. You said my text says “Here is bad, there is good, but vague and not specific”. But the reasons why people vote doesnt need to be specific, the text is not vague, you just wasnt able to understand it, and interpreted it in a vague way. I am not being literal everytime, you should not interpret it this way. We Brazilians have this same issuea while talking to the Portuguese, cause they are known for interpreting everything literally, the other users got what i mean, i am sure is the way you talk and interpret, it’s only a cultural incident. 5. I disagree that the FTA with UE is more important, and i only mentioned it (FTAs) as a good prospect now that the Brexit is almost complete, i did not said anything more than that. Nor that it should be in this article or that “Ingenpedia has crystal ball”. You should work on that, cause you interpreted most of the text poorly, my apologies if my type of writing contributed in this sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.77.70 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page to discuss the article, not a forum. If you have any sourced content to add to this article, you can either do it directly or suggest it on the talk page. Your comments read like an argumentative essay rather then specific suggestions as to how to improve the article, which is what I believe the other editor was getting at. Caius G. (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Everyone here knows what Ingenpedia is, an argumentative essay is exacly what the article is, and as I am in a TALK page, i don’t need to source it, until I decide to put it in the article, everyone can search for it and then add to the article, it’s about showing REASONS, and popular OPINIONS that were neglected in the article, and that is what i am exposing here. I don’t need to change the article, this is a TALK PAGE where people can discuss about mistakes in the main article. I did not asked your opinion about what should i do. Almost everyone here got what was the point. I am not concerned if you don’t want to read it. Even those who disagreed answered to the specific parts of my text that were related to the neglected informations in the article. The article itself contains similar assumptions but supporting the Remain cause. Once more i am explaining that the text is about the bias present in this article, and what should be added, with it’s respective sources. Indeed, if anyone just has to get a sourced information and add to the article unilaterally, this talk page should not exist. So there is a reasonable motive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.202.87.236 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were responding to my comment: Please re-read it. I am not asking for you to source your arguments, I am telling you that this is not the place to discuss Brexit in general, but the article. Your comments on it have been very vague and more related to Brexit in general than the article in particular. If you believe that any of the supposed benefits of Brexit you mentioned deserve entry in the main article, you can either do so directly or suggest ways to do it on this talk page instead of engaging in a debate on the merits of Brexit. Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Brexit a few years on; public intellectuals and changed minds
Several years after the referendum, some public intellectuals have made public statement about changes to their positions on Brexit. Don't know whether it will come to warranting a mention in the article, but seems like might be a good idea to begin to just collect notable people changing aspects of their position on Brexit here.

Here's an interesting one I read this morning, with extensive rationale provided on which parts have changed, and why.

I no longer think Brexit is a bad idea. I’m not ready to endorse it, because I don’t feel comfortable with the nationalism and populism surrounding so much of the Leave movement, but I no longer wish the referendum had gone the other way.
 * Maybe Brexit Isn’t So Bad After All : The events of the last year should prompt a reassessment of the European Union’s virtues, Tyler Cowan, an economist. Formerly pro-Remain; now considerably more nuanced.

To be clear, I still believe the pro-Remain arguments I and many others made four years ago. Even two years ago, I would have argued that the U.K. is better off as part of the European Union, for all the well-known pro-trade, pro-migration and pro-cooperation reasons. The problem is that, especially in the last year, the EU has become a less workable political union, especially for the U.K.

It seems that we should simply be aware of sources on the historical shifts as time moves on; and we will have some corpus that might improve the article over time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Agriculture and Fisheries Acts (No mention in article)
There is currently no mention or articles for the Agriculture and Fisheries Acts 2020 that have now received Royal assent and are currently on the statue book, please can we create articles and also put a mention into the main Brexit article as they both major pieces of Brexit related legislation. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC))

Brexit
The economic outlook was varied depending on which economy expert asked. Since Brexit the economic impact is impossible to measure due to Covid. You may want to update your info. Jleel (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Jleel, please make specific and sourced suggestions as to how the article can be improved. This article's talk page has had a lot of editors complaining about perceived biased without making any suggestions as to how that should change and needs no more of it. Best, Caius G. (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Cultural references
You’ve stated that in “general” those from the arts voted to remain in the EU. This is an assumption and not a fact. You will need to provide evidence of this otherwise the million plus more votes in the UK would suggest otherwise. Jleel (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jleel, your point is well made. It is a very broad statement and one which is hard to quantify. Perhaps we can change this statement to say "there was public support from the those in the arts to remain in the EU" as this supports the idea without creating the impression that all or most in the arts supported to remain in the EU. This statement could be supported by citations to those in the arts who publicly came out in support of remaining in the EU. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And likewise, support for Leave. Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Ingendata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Ingendata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nicola Sturgeon addresses journalists over Brexit.jpg

Dates
The article seems to use "31 January 2020" and "31 December 2021", but these aren't quite accurate dates for the UK's exit. It's either 11pm on the respective dates in UK time, or 12am, i.e. 0:00 the following day in EU time (Central European Time is one hour ahead of UK time).

I think it would be clearer to say the UK left the EU at the beginning of 1 February 2020 Central European Time, and the transition period ends at the beginning of 1 January 2021 Central European Time. &mdash;ajf (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've clarified this. I know it's a bit ugly, but I think it's worth mentioning the timezone to avoid confusion over 31 versus 1. &mdash;ajf (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)