Talk:Brexit

	This British politics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Requires updating. Tagged since 2021-02-02

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

"Now", "currently", present tenses

This article is a prime example of why it's not a good idea to cover ongoing stories. It's really all over the place time-wise. People should have at least put dates in when they added stuff rather than update the article like it's a news story.

But, in fact, it needs to be radically reworked, the blow-by blow details need to be removed, and it needs to focus on the issues and any conspiracy-related debunking in order to make it a RW article.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is poorly constructed and has very little conspiracying. I will try to rework it.Tuxer (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent idea.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Parliamentary votes

From memory there were 12 Parliamentary votes to try and get something agreed, with moderates on both sides trying to get something their own extremists would agree to. I think I've purged my memory of the experience, I'm sure I tore my hair out when a Labour/Conservative/Europhile/Eurosceptic compromise was defeated by just three votes.

If ever mainland Britain wondered how politics worked in NornIrn they certainly knew now.

I agree the article needs rewriting to flow better, but I curl up under the table when I try it. Jgharston (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

AFD

I am sorely tempted to suggest an AFD on this. It's a chaotic mess and is only tangentially related to the mission.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

its still an ongoing event that we still dont fully know how it is or will impact the uk. especially combined with covid.

i doubt our ability to get even past events down without being distorted by disparate agendas or make every edit a fight to the death. i doubt my own objectivity on the subject nor do i feel like i would be able to graciously consider differences of opinions. i'll not touch it. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we don't know the consequences - but we are not likely to know them for several years as it will really need a fair bit oh hindsight to decide on what was relevant. Maybe we should just shift it to another namespace for the interim.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's chaotic, and perhaps a bit bloated in places. But I think Brexit is an important-enough political topic for an article. It's one of the biggest developments in the 2010s surge in right-wing populism across the world. However, I don't have any firm views on how the article should look.

Before voting on whether the article should stay or leave, it may be good to discuss some serious reforms for its structure or emphasis. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is an important event. What I'm doubting is how much this important event is important to our mission statements. I agree that right wing populism can get close to authoritarianism. But the article does not seem to be talking about that.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thinking further, yes, the article is very thin on what matters more for RW's mission. The space is almost entirely taken up by a blow-by-blow account of the events that can be expected to be done better elsewhere. (Currently the chronology requires updating, too.) I think the topic could be covered in a worthwhile way, if space was given to analysis of ideological and other currents involved, and a little on how Brexit relates to other and later events. If the chronology is not a keeper, maybe it could be edited down to a short-enough summary. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is conceivably an RW article to be written about logical facilities, bad argumentation, populism, the Good Old Days and the desire for simple solutions to complex problems - but this article really goes nowhere near that.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is very obviously missional, but I would be okay with deleting it so that somebody could start a new draft, keeping the flaws that hold this article back in mind.-Flandres (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

On a quick skim through, there's a load of stuff that can be ripped straight out. See here and here for an example hack n' slash. I'd encourage others to do similar, and then see what's salvageable from the remains. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

pretty sure the 'brexit lexicon' is wank thsat shant be missed. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

hard borders

this has been a problem for brexit from day one. its what brought down theresa may's government and boris lied about having a solution - an obvious lie from day one - there is no solution to where the hard border should. i think is false to assume the end of the good friday agreement will mean a return to violence, 2 decades of peace has taken away any appetite for that, at worst it would galvanise republicans push for a political means for a reunification. the agreement seems to matter more to the americans more than anyone else.

A hard border in the north sea, separating ni, a constituent part of the uk, from the rest the uk, seems to me a more viable flashpoint. it can ignite a feeling treachery, easily a strong radicalising factor, while pushing ni closer to the the republic of ireland adding a sense threat to unionist to that treachery. the good friday agreement will mean shit then.

Boris has lied and fucked it up every step of the way but lets not pretend there is an easy or good answer to the question when there is none. there never was to begin. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I would be nice if the UK government were to accept the new EU offer. An 80% reduction on checks on food sounds nice to me. But I doubt Boris will take it and the hard-liners in Ulster probably won't like it either.

I also agree that there is no obvious answer to squaring the circle when you have two irreconcilable demands: that Northern Ireland be treated like an integral part of the UK; and that there be no hard border in Ireland. You can have one or the other - but not both. I also agree that reunification would be the best fix.

It also make me wonder about what would happen if Scotland were to leave the Union. Because if Northern Ireland is a problem then Scotland would be even tougher.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The NI border issue remains insoluble. The Quitlers promised it would be solved with “technology” in the same way as the border between Norway and Sweden but more than six years after the referendum there’s still no sign of any such project even starting, still less being delivered three years late, four times over budget and not actually fulfilling the users' requirements, just like practically every government IT project since the need to break Nazi military cyphers suddenly evaporated. Mr Larrington (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Shitpost

Why don’t Brexiters wear condoms?

They prefer to pull out. CorporateBrinjal (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

We need more EU workers, admits leading Tory Brexiter

*splutters*. 98.128.228.59 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)