Talk:Glossary of Brexit terms

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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glossary of Brexit terms article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Glossaries List‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles
List	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Brexit was copied or moved into Glossary of Brexit terms with this edit on 14 October 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Attribution[edit]

This page was created based on text used in this version of the Brexit article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Brexit day"/"Exit day"[edit]

@Hebsen: I don't think the distinction between these two terms is quite as straightforward as you say. "Exit day" is fixed in law - and changed each time the Article 50 deadline changes - which it is currently set as 11 pm on 31 January 2020. "Brexit day", on the other-hand, has never been fixed, and is not tied to "Exit day". With the original Article 50 deadline of 29 March 2019, although "Exit day" was set in law as that date, "Brexit day" could not be predicted as it could have been earlier if an agreement was reached, or not at all if the UK revoked its intention to withdraw. Similarly under the extensions. Even today, although "Exit day" is set in law as 31 January 2020, the actual "Brexit day" still isn't certain as the Article 50 agreement has not yet been ratified by either the UK or the EU. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But while the day of Brexit itself have not been fixed, the deadline has. And all media coverage I have seen have ignored the possibility of leaving prior to this deadline. I guess it is because the withdrawal agreement will not come in force immediately, but set to start after such a deadline. Revoking seems irrelevant, as that would cancel all of Brexit. So you are right on a technical point of view. I would say that the actual information about the extensions should remain under "Brexit day", but perhaps reworded to deal with this uncertainty. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple meanings of Brexit[edit]

@Qexigator: Thanks for adding a source to the material you've added, but it's far from clear to me that the BBC piece supports the specific claims made. Could you point to the specific part(s) of the source that supports these claims? Your other reference also doesn't seem to support the claims (nor, frankly, does it make any sense). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too have difficulty seeing how the citations support the claim. It seems to only support that UK left on 31 January 2020, and that something will happen on 31 December 2020. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breturn[edit]

Apparently there is such a term as Breturn (according to this from The Times. I mention this because the term was added to the article, but removed earlier today. I'd not heard of it either. This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not new and was yet in a French Internet site (huffingtonpost) in 2016: https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/jean-luc-sauron/le-breturn-ou-la-mort-de-leurope-politique_b_10800168.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.155 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing[edit]

I see we are missing "Liechtenstein model" (1) and, more importantly, "WTO rules". Does anyone fancy having a go at these? It might also be worth defining "sovereignty" which is in the Brexit context is often a confusion of national sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Location of {{wiktionary}}[edit]

@BrownHairedGirl: do you actually think the {{wiktionary}} link to wikt:lexit ought to be at the bottom of this article (you moved it in this edit), rather than adjacent to the entry for the term, or is it just something AWB does automatically that you missed? If the former, why? It seems much more likely to be of use to the reader in section on the term, and much more likely to be missed elsewhere. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: that was no conscious decision of mine. It was done automatically by AWB's WP:GENFIXES.

GENFIXES includes only items which are so clearcut that they can be automatically included without question in many thousands of edits every day. So it is very rare for any of them to be debatable.

In this case, MOS:LAYOUTEL is very clear about where such boxes should go. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for (sort of) clarifying. What I'm saying above is that I think this is precisely one of those rare cases when AWB's suggested/made an edit that's to the detriment of the article (and where we'd want to apply common sense rather than the letter of the guideline). You haven't said whether you agree with that or not—should I assume you disagree? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]