| Revision as of 16:17, 24 January 2024 editGoingBatty (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers637,479 editsm →top: General fixes per WP:Talk page layoutTag: AWB← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:26, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,188 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (17 intermediate revisions by 10 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 13: |
Line 13: |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject European Union|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject European Union|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=top |
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=top}} |
|
|B-class=pass |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} |
|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} |
| Line 21: |
Line 19: |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 46: |
Line 44: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Primacy == |
|
==Article length exceeds guidelines== |
|
|
|
|
|
This is certainly an interesting article, but is > 12,000 words. The ] states: |
|
|
|
|
|
: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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
That said, it does go on to say... |
|
|
|
|
|
: {| 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=}} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] ]) 08:10, 26 November 2023 (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? ] (]) 19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Adding new polling data == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Regions and Cities voting Remain == |
|
I recently added information regarding polling in the Section "Public opinion since the Brexit referendum", (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brexit&oldid=1166454093) which was removed. I believe up to date polling numbers are an important addition to this article, especially considering that the poll in question had a differently worded question than the older poll. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''"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"'' |
|
I would be happy for some feedback so I can come up with a revised edit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
<nowiki>Thanks in advance ~~~ </nowiki> ] (]) 19:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
: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? == |
|
:@], I removed it per ] as I think it needs mainstream reliable sources reporting it to give it due weight. -- ] (]). 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank your for your quick response. I added the aggregate poll on purpose because it is more representative than individual polls and the last survey cited was also an aggregate of six polls from the same source six months prior. |
|
|
::I could also add this poll instead (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-referendum-rejoin-eu-b2250813.html). It is included in the initial aggregate polling I cited, but was specifically cited by the Independent(^), the Express (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1716280/poll-second-brexit-referendum-spt), Politico (https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-brexit-fail-new-poll-nigel-farage/ ) and the Economist (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/07/19/brexit-was-wrong-say-57-of-british-voters). |
|
|
::<nowiki>~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::WinkingWikiWiking, the Express is deprecated, not a reliable source. The Economist is solid and could satisfy DeFacto's request for "mainstream reliable sources reporting it". --] (]) 20:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't agree that it is undue of itself, it is factual and there is no reason to question the reliability of the source. It is not obvious what "mainstream reporting" could do other than attach an OpEd. |
|
|
::What is more of a concern is that the whole section ] is a muddle of two different ideas (a) was the UK right or wrong to leave? and (b) should the UK rejoin?: they need to be separated. (The three graphs in the first section dealt logically with the separate concepts but have not been updated since 2020. Two of those graphs should really have closed in June 2016. with just the right/wrong going forward.) |
|
|
::So perhaps the way forward is to contact the author of the original graphs to ask the right/wrong graph be updated and an additional graph created for rejoin. |
|
|
::Does that help? --] (]) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yep, fair comment. -- ] (]). 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, thank you that was very helpful. Especially your point regarding the confusion between the different sets of questions. |
|
|
:::I would suggest, that we add the polling sourced by mainstream media (citing the Economist, not the Express), if that's alright by @] and we can also bring in this graph here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Opinion_polling_on_the_whether_the_United_Kingdom_should_rejoin_the_European_Union.svg), which gives a really great overview of up to date polls on the question how people would vote in a potential second referendum, so we get rid of some of the mess, you pointed out @]. I think that would be a decent start to overhauling this section of the article. |
|
|
:::How does that sound to everyone? ] (]) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is very important to distinguish between opinions on whether the decision was right or wrong (on the one hand) versus whether the UK should rejoin (on the other). So we really need to have both graphs. --] (]) 10:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I have added the graph on the rejoin question for now. Unfortunately I don't have the technical know how to create a similar graph for the other question. But I could gather the polling data for that and create a table similar to the one used ]. I am not sure where we exactly this table should go though. The Brexit article seems long enough already, and ] one is specifically about the rejoin question, so it would not be ideal either... |
|
|
:::::<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 10:27, 25 July 2023 (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) |
|
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}
