The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
"A bitter turf war is raging on the Brexit Wikipedia page". 2019-04-29. While Westminster remains mired in endless Brexit deadlock, over on the Brexit Wikipedia page things are even less amicable. Editors are parrying death threats, doxxing attempts and accusations of bias, as the crowdsourced epic has become the centre of a relentless tug-of-war over who gets to write the history of the UK as it happens.
This is certainly an interesting article, but is > 12,000 words. The Wikipedia:Article size 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 Wikipedia:Summary style.
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.
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.--BIL (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone uninvolved in this debate, arguably one could say that although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. 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. Epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between retained EU law and assimilated EU law? 77.193.104.36 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume Assimilated implies that the rules were changed, rather than left unchanged. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, explanation is given by the British "Explanatory memorandum to Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023":
Assimilated law
will be domestic law, which was previously REUL, but without the application of the EU law interpretive features applied to REUL by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“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. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you explain to a non-native what that means? 77.193.104.36 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia is supposed to be dumbed-down in this way? 2A01:4B00:9004:EB00:85C6:3454:F264:B207 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
