Talk:Brexit withdrawal agreement

Diffs between January & March agreement versions

As I understand it, the difference lay in the Irish backstop. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

the difference lay in the Irish backstop Most of the lawyers tasked with publishing reviews of the legally binding "changes to the withdrawal agreement" (basically, 3 additional documents, rather than changes to the WA itself), including Geoffrey Cox, found that the "changes" don't materially alter the WA. So, talk of a "difference" between the "two versions" would arguably be misleading, because the actual WA was the same in both cases. Zazpot (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The march changes does not change anything within the withdrawal agreement. However, it does supplement it with a new protocol, defining how it should be interpreted. Under the Vienna Convention, such a protocol is legally binding. This is a significant difference, that needs to be explained. In law, almost anything comes down to interpretation. ― Heb the best (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

However, it does supplement it with a new protocol, defining how it should be interpreted. Under the Vienna Convention, such a protocol is legally binding. This is a significant difference, that needs to be explained. Thanks for the reply. However, it is up to the ICJ to decide how to interpret the Withdrawal Agreement, irrespective of the protocol. Moreover, in relation to the matter that prompted the creation of the new protocol, it is pretty clear, in the light of long-standing precedent, that the protocol changes nothing. As such, I have removed the "missing information" template. Zazpot (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"but the EU refused to accept any further changes."

Which change exactly was refused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.81 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Massive duplication of Brexit negotiations article: RFC on proposal for wholesale clear-out.

Anybody visiting this article to find out about the withdrawal agreement will instead find themselves hopelessly bogged down in blow-by-blow details. Accordingly, I invite comments on a proposal to delete the Events and Negotiation sections. At least. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I now realise that this extraneous content was the result of an undiscussed mass copy, which is being reverted. The change may have merit but it must be after an RFC and consensus. Meanwhile, I have deleted it.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have also been working to undo all these changes. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Other talk page

As I have merged the article Declaration on Future European Union–United Kingdom Relations into this article, I will just leave a link to that article's talk page prior to merge: [1]. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Need to split this article into May's BWA and Johnson's BWA

It is not at all obvious to me that it makes sense to edit this article to shoe-horn in today's draft BWA. It would be far better to move the article as it stood at 23:59 BST 16/10/19 (or perhaps 9/10/19?) to something like Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (2017) and start a new Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (2019?) article. Doing this will preserve a clear explanation of what happened first time round in an article that is barely short of being too long didn't read. Starting again for the second time round creates space for the twists and turns of the next few months. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have considered how best to deal with that as well. However, we should take into account that only the backstop have been changed, so most of it stands as in the original deal. Currently, this article is mostly about what the deal says, and only little about reactions and other things. It seems that we would have much duplicate content, if we split it out now. Only reactions and votes and such should be different. Also, I think perhaps those other things, except reactions, are better dealt with in other articles, and that is perhaps the reason these are so short here. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Details still coming out so hard to say. But if a split is needed, the sooner it is done, the less reworking will be needed. BTW, it is not just that the backstop has gone (because in effect it applies from day one, which is why the DUP oppose it) but GB leaves the customs union sooner rather than later (as per December 17 deal) and the 'level playing field' stuff is going into the 'political declaration' (meaningless letter of intent), which is why the Labour Party opposes it. This one will run and run. Some commentators consider that Johnson would actually like Parliament to reject it so that he can have his People v Parliament GE. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I am not really into the details. In the long term, I think the difference might warrant two different articles. But that depends if people will see the two deals as different, or view the new one as the old, but with modifications (I am inclined to do the former). It also depends on if it will be passed or not. I would probably wait some days to see what happens, but then again, I probably won't do anything big about this article anyway. But I think a split will take som work to get right, and also needs some thoughts about naming and links and such (this article have 200+ incoming links). If you feel for doing all of that, I would not stand in the way. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, um, well, er, I have this sudden appointment I find I need to go to :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The deal is broadly very similar to May's, so I would be in favour of keeping it as a single article for now, perhaps with a subsection detailing Johnson's ammendments, but I'm aware that it's a situation that may evolve very rapidly in the next few days. --ERAGON (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I've set up a section detailing the revisions. According to the Guardian only 5% of the text is actually altered, so I think the little section with the amendments is sufficient for now.--ERAGON (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to split: The difference are not large enough and should be explained in the same article. The earlier version of the agreement did not get anywhere in practice. – Kaihsu (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

What are the differences?

The Guardian has produced a digestible list if anybody feels like summarising?

The Guardian has added a more detailed graphic display of differences. Last night's BBC 'Brexitchat' agreed that it is about 95% the same so doesn't seem worth splitting.

RtS withdrawn

I am persuaded by the arguments above and withdraw the proposal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Implementation period

Brexit implementation period redirects here, but has no obvious target. Would anyone care to do the needful, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I assume the good link should be to negotiate a bilateral Post-Brexit trade agreement between the UK and the EU, because the reason for such a transition period is to give time for the negotiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.235 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I added a transition period and implementation period section. This section was reverted as the topic is yet covered. The description of the link between the implementation period and the implementation period does not appear outside of this section. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Brexit_withdrawal_agreement&diff=995492660&oldid=995490434

Also, during the transition period some lorries in Kent queued to cross the Channel. Is this related to the withdrawal agreement or to some kind of negotiation or to any trade agreement? or is it just Brexit?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.121 (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's because the French authorities have closed their border for 48 hours from midnight 21/12 due to the outbreak of a novel Covid-19 variant in the SE of England. Nothing to do with this article. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Brexit

moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC))

You sure?? James Parker Tom (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

James Parker Tom, certain. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but as it's a closely related subject, I suggest we keep the short part here and the longer bits on the relevant article. Thanks for pointing it out and I appreciate your good faith edits. James Parker Tom (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal that is relevant to this article

There is a WP:SPLIT proposal at talk:Brexit and the Irish border#Split out the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol that may affect this article. Please use that talk page for any comments. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to wrap up, this split went ahead and there is now an article called Northern Ireland Protocol. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Signatories to the Treaty

The current infobox has UvdL as an additional signatory on behalf of the EU. Is there any evidence for this? It seems obvious that it would only need to be Charles Michel on behalf of the European Council? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It surely looks like her signature on the document... L.tak (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You peeked! That must qualify as wp:original research! :-D

Thank you, resolved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

EEA EFTA Separation Agreement

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eea-efta-separation-agreement Kaihsu (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)