Talk:Withdrawal from the European Union

message: an IP has raised the issue of whether East Timor was de jure part of the EU or not. Now I seem to remember, as the article states, that it was excluded however I looked at the accession treaty and it makes no reference either way.- J.Logan`t: 11:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Timor 

message: I propose the removal of the phrase which reads "The majority of Britons now favour withdrawal[1]". On the grounds that the poll was not at all large enough to make such a conclusion. this page shows how many were polled, and it states that only 1'000 were polled, this is roughly 0,001% of the total populace, and not at all enough. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd  Talk 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a normal sample size for polls. You could put "according to polls..." before it if it really concerns you but it is valid.- J.Logan`t: 08:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propsal for removal of a phrase 

message: Given the current hysteria in the UK, it would be interesting if some experts could list some of the possible effects of withdrawing from the EU. Perhaps with respect to the following areas:
* Common agriculture policy
* Fisheries and shared resources
* Free movement of EU citizens through the EU
* Right of EU citizens to reside in an EU member state
* Right of EU citizens to access another member states welfare systems
My understanding is that were the UK to withdraw, then all EU citizens living in the UK could be required to leave, and any non-UK citizens claiming welfare would no longer be eligible. But how would this factor into UK domestic law ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNoBrainer (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More detailed analysis of effects of withdrawal ? 

message: From the first source in the article (its abstract): "unilateral withdrawal would undoubtedly be legally controversial; that, while permissible, a recently enacted exit clause is, prima facie, not in harmony with the rationale of the European unification project and is otherwise problematic, mainly from a legal perspective;" and the text of this page it seems you can withdraw, but would have to wait at most 2 year, right? If this is a non-member now (let's say Iceland), and would join and want to end it later would the same apply to Iceland as older members? comp.arch (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawal for new members 

message: Hi, anyone here who could create German, Polish, Portuguese, Greek and other language versions? Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations/other language articles 

message: To expand on the discussion above, Section 3.2 of this article has two lists of parties, one on "Parties which advocate for withdrawal from the EU" and a second on "Parties seeking reform of the EU and considering withdrawal if other options are exhausted". The more I consider this section, the more I feel it is a bad idea in general. It comes across to me as the sort of badly-maintained, context-free list that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I see 4 problems in particular:
1. WP:CFORK: much the same content is covered in the Euroscepticism article, and it is covered better there because that article doesn't just present a bald list, but explains and gives context. As we know, having the same sort of content in two places on Wikipedia is generally a bad idea: it is better to focus our efforts on one good quality article. So, I suggest dropping these lists and replacing them with a link to Euroscepticism.
2. WP:NPOV: this is a list of parties supporting withdrawal from the EU, but of course other parties -- indeed many more parties -- oppose EU withdrawal and these get no mention here. This is not an unbiased presentation. At least, we should have some explanatory text here explaining that context.
3. WP:UNDUE: this list lumps everything together. We've got, for example, the UK Conservative Party, the governing party, and then we've got the National Independent Party (Ireland) and National Movement (Poland), tiny parties that have never won an election. Just sticking everything willy-nilly into one list gives undue weight to minor parties. At least, we should have some sort of threshold for inclusion (e.g. representation in the national legislature).
4. WP:SYNTH: the first list is pretty clear, but the second section lumps together a diverse set of positions. Trying to describe the UK Conservatives' position on the EU is difficult: heaven knows, we have many column inches every week in the British press trying to work out exactly what it is! All these parties in the second list have equally nuanced and different views. Trying to group them together on the basis of what they believe about a hypothetical situation (they are only considering EU withdrawal if other options are exhausted) is misleading. That sort of complexity is better described in prose, as in the Euroscepticism article. At least, I propose dropping this second list.
In conclusion, we have a list with far too few citations that doesn't work for multiple reasons, and we have an existing article, Euroscepticism, that covers the same material better, so let's drop all this and just have a link to that. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First, NPOV is only violated by you. Why do you say "of course" (as EU brings nothing good) and if you look e.g. to England or Poland, most parties are Anti-EU (which does not mean, they want immediately a withdrawal), and that's "of course". It are simply facts. Most parties in Europe are Anti-EU, but even if not, why would that be a reason not to mention the parties who speculate about withdrawal?? And why would non-winning in elections be a reason not to mention them?? They seek EU Withdrawal or a major reform or opt-outs for their nations. But as you say, you don't want they have weight, because you simply do not tolerate other opinions about the EU and wanna have your LibDem-Pro-EU-Opinion (which is anyway evil) in the article and undermine the parties who want real freedom and independence (though in fact, we Anti-EUists do not have opinions, but knowledge). Second, all that would give WP a very bad name, which you don't wanna, though it has anyway a bad name yet as WP is a non-neutral center-left pro-EUSA propaganda platform. But you may be right with the fact, that the party-lists are already better explained in the article Euroscepticism (while "Euroscepticism" is also rather a pro-EU valuating name, better would be "Eurocriticism" or "Anti-EUism") which would but not be a reason to delete the lists, but to delete this whole article and simply redirect to Euroscepticism and transfer the other information. But I would say, it's better to have two seperate articles and this one with both lists. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: List of political parties

message: It's ridiculous to include Swabia, a region in the South West of Germany, in the list of regions under the heading "break-up of a member state". Who ever did this is either a joker or does not have a clue. 
For those who can't understand the source in German or can't make head or tail of their Google translate version: 86% of the more than 1000 readers who participated in an online survey of a provincial newspaper called Schwäbische Zeitung said that they would hand in their German passport and apply for a Swiss one; the whole thing dates back to July 2014. That's some 860 online jokers out of a population of some 2 million. And it was in reaction of some phony proposal made by some Swiss politician that didn't go anywhere and this in turn was in reaction to some OECD study on standards of living in various regions. And if you had bothered to look up Swabia you'd know that it is not even a political entity of Germany: "like many cultural regions of Europe, Swabia's borders are not clearly defined". But I guess that is the kind of information level that decides the outcome of a referendum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:522:6A00:91D2:577E:FC99:3FC2 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swabia 

message: The section suggests that any desires of the population of the Austrian state of Vorarlberg to join Switzerland are or more less code for wanting to leave the European Union, which is certainly not true and it is also not supported by the linked source.
Vorarlberg is culturally rather close to Switzerland, most importantly they speak an Allemanic dialect of German, the likes of which are found in German speaking parts of Switzerland, that is not spoken anywhere else in Austria.
At the end of WWI there was a serious attempt to become part of Switzerland, and according to the source, apparently in a 2008 survey of the Austrian state broadcaster half of the people answered they would rather be part of Switzerland than Austria. Neither are there any serious political movements in Vorarlberg that want to split off from Austria, nor to secede from the European Union in one way or the other.
I want to simply delete the part, but maybe somebody wants to state more clearly what the point of the section with regards to Vorarlberg is, and maybe in a way is not as wrong as it is now. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break-up of a member state - Vorarlberg 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The article says nothing about whether the withdrawal process is likely to remain much the same, be widened, narrowed or removed. I know that this can introduce speculation, but surely there are some reputable sources where this has been discussed. 86.150.161.18 (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Developments 

message: While it is technically correct that the Left Party (Sweden) want Sweden to leave the EU “as a long-term goal” (whatever that means), it just looks odd that we list them under the subsection “Parties in the EU advocating or considering withdrawal”. Because, they are not actually actively campaigning for withdrawal, they never, ever talk about it voluntarily, and if a journalist asks directly they shuffle their feet and try to get back to a more comfortable topic. In other words, all prominent Left Party politicians are clearly deeply uncomfortable with official Party policy on EU withdrawal. In such circumstances it just seems highly misleading for Wikipedia to represent them as standard-beaters for EU withdrawal.Mais oui! (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish Left Party - “Parties in the EU advocating or considering withdrawal”? 

message: It seems a little over the top to have two articles on withdrawal, not counting all the Brexit specific stuff. I propose Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is merged into this article;
* They both discuss the exact same thing
* Process/procedure sections exist in both
* pre-lisbon sections exist in both
* Brexit sections exist in both
* Neither are particularly long
As for which is kept;
* "Withdrawal from the European Union" is clearer as to its topic than "Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union"
* The title is broader, not everything on Withdrawal could be comfortable on Article 50 but it would the other way around.
* There are no other EU articles titled after specific treaty articles, where as there are loads about specific concepts, so for consistency, Withdrawal wins.
Any objections? - - J.Logan`t: 10:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Article 50 into this article 

message: Greetings, everyone. It has been suggested that "Dutch withdrawal from the European Union", "Frexit", and "Greek withdrawal from the eurozone" be merged into this article. A discussion is due on the suggestion. Your input is invited. -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: *Thanks. Typo amended to avoid confusion. -The Gnome (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: *User:John Maynard Friedman, can you explain what you meant with 'a diversionary tactic'? Can't wrap my head around that one... Feer 15:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The emerging consensus at talk:Nexit was that the article should be deleted as wp:FRINGE and Not WP:NOTABLE when suddenly this RtM popped up. I plead guilty to failure to WP:assume good faith and will be happy to withdraw if the outcome is to change Nexit to a simple redirect into this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge other Euroexit articles into this one 

message: * Lexit redirects here, but there is no clue as to why!
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lexit
* https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/11/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-lexit-in-five-minutes
--90.207.122.68 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting 'Lexit' is unhelpful 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lexit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexit listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Saint Pierre and Miquelon was never part of the EU, and not just because the EU didn't technically exist at the time. 72.12.108.35 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Pierre et Miquelon