| Revision as of 00:03, 21 April 2024 editHarryboyles (talk | contribs)Administrators153,037 editsm removing unsupported b-class parameters in {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom}}Tag: AWB← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:26, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,051 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
| Line 44: |
Line 44: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Primacy == |
|
==Article length exceeds guidelines== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
This is presented early on in the article: |
|
This is certainly an interesting article, but is > 12,000 words. The ] states: |
|
|
⚫ |
"Following Brexit, EU law and the Court of Justice of the European Union no longer have primacy over British laws." |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
The fact someone feels this needs to be asserted is troubling. The CJEU never had primacy over British law, and European Union law only had primacy as far as CJEU case law. The jurisdiction clauses in the treaty make this very clear, and supremacy is only a political assertion in a protocol. It really sounds like a childish understanding of the EU. The kind you would read in a British tabloid. I wonder if Misplaced Pages is supposed to be dumbed-down in this way? ] (]) 19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Regions and Cities voting Remain == |
|
That said, it does go on to say... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''"The electorate voted to leave the EU with a 51.9% share of the vote, with all regions of England and Wales except London voting in favour of Brexit"'' |
|
: {| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style="background:none;" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! colspan="2" | Readable prose size{{efn|Each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters}} |
|
|
! scope="col" | What to do |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| > 15,000 words || > 100 kB || Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| > 9,000 words || > 60 kB || {{highlight|'''Probably should be divided or trimmed'''|#00FF00}}, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| > 8,000 words || > 50 kB || May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| colspan=3 | {{notelist|title=}} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is factually incorrect as Monmouthshire, Vale of Glamorgan, Gwynedd and Ceredigion voted remain as did several cities other than London. ] (]) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
I am completely unfamiliar with this topic, so I am not the person to edit this and create new articles, but I'm sure one of you knowledgeable editors is perfect for the challenge. |
|
|
⚫ |
:Source? ] (]) 17:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The problem is the word "region". The underlying assumed model is the ], with Wales treated as a tenth region. Nothing new there. Subdivisions of "regions" are not considered. --] (]) 17:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove "Inpact" section? == |
|
] ]) 08:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:The topic caused very high attention in the United Kingdom between the referendum and Brexit. More text than in this article has been written in linked side articles. However people seemed to got tired of Brexit, and not much has been added after 2021.--] (]) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::As someone uninvolved in this debate, arguably one could say that {{highlight|'''although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.'''|#00FF00}} would be the applicable part of this guideline. Brexit was widely covered internationally and was a major event, so one could just as easily argue that this is one of the cases where the scope of the topic does justify the added material. The guideline says that 15,000 words should "almost certainly be divided or trimmed"; this article is not quite there yet. I am going to remove the tag for now, as this page is at 11,000 words, but I do agree some text would benefit from being condensed. ] (]) 18:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section is unavoidably OR because the assertions in it, although cited, are subjectively selected. It seems to me that if the section is to stand, it must be based on npov and rs assessments which, imo, won't and can't exist before 2036 at the earliest, 2091 <s>is</s> if Rees-Mogg is correct. |
|
== retained EU law vs assimilated EU law == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the difference between retained EU law and assimilated EU law? ] (]) 18:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
I propose that we delete it. ] (]) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I would assume Assimilated implies that the rules were changed, rather than left unchanged. ] (]) 18:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:UNsure but agree we should not use any sources published within (say) 10 years of Brexit, as this should be a historical overview of its impacts. ] (]) 15:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I know that there are many aspects of Brexit that are not yet clear, but even so, many people will want to know immediately what the impact is already. Therefore, I think we should leave this section for the time being and discuss it again once about three months have passed. ] (]) 15:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Indeed, explanation is given by the British "Explanatory memorandum to Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023": |
|
|
::;Assimilated law: {{quote|will be domestic law, which was previously REUL, but without the application of the EU law interpretive features applied to REUL by the ] (“EUWA”), namely supremacy, general principles of EU law and rights retained under section 4 of EUWA|Explanatory memorandum to Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023}} |
|
|
::Does this mean that the British Retained EU Law keep kind of "supremacy" with application of the EU law interpretive features? |
|
| ⚫ |
:::We do not interpret the law, we are to a court. ] (]) 11:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How would you explain to a non-native what that means? ] (]) 20:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== Primacy == |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
This is presented early on in the article: |
|
| ⚫ |
"Following Brexit, EU law and the Court of Justice of the European Union no longer have primacy over British laws." |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
The fact someone feels this needs to be asserted is troubling. The CJEU never had primacy over British law, and European Union law only had primacy as far as CJEU case law. The jurisdiction clauses in the treaty make this very clear, and supremacy is only a political assertion in a protocol. It really sounds like a childish understanding of the EU. The kind you would read in a British tabloid. I wonder if Misplaced Pages is supposed to be dumbed-down in this way? ] (]) 19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
This is presented early on in the article:
"Following Brexit, EU law and the Court of Justice of the European Union no longer have primacy over British laws."
The fact someone feels this needs to be asserted is troubling. The CJEU never had primacy over British law, and European Union law only had primacy as far as CJEU case law. The jurisdiction clauses in the treaty make this very clear, and supremacy is only a political assertion in a protocol. It really sounds like a childish understanding of the EU. The kind you would read in a British tabloid. I wonder if Misplaced Pages is supposed to be dumbed-down in this way? 2A01:4B00:9004:EB00:85C6:3454:F264:B207 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This is factually incorrect as Monmouthshire, Vale of Glamorgan, Gwynedd and Ceredigion voted remain as did several cities other than London. 86.1.53.178 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This section is unavoidably OR because the assertions in it, although cited, are subjectively selected. It seems to me that if the section is to stand, it must be based on npov and rs assessments which, imo, won't and can't exist before 2036 at the earliest, 2091 is if Rees-Mogg is correct.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
