Talk:hard Brexit

yes, we don't add politically charged examples. we have gone over this before with you, don't start it again.

In fact, the word Brexit or hard Brexit is by itself politically charged. For instance, some says: "Like so many political metaphors, the distinction between “hard” and “soft” is misleading. Any Brexiteer wanting to perform machismo will reach for the “hard” option."

By forbidding adding some examples as you do, you limit the meaning of the word: the word could not have bad effects, and only Brexiters would have the right to use it. So doing will present an obvious pro Brexit ideology bias, which does not reflect the reality of its usages, by various people.

Also, you create a double standard. For instance another wikipedia page says I really think most socialists and socialism is pure evil. That also might be seen as politically charged examples.

In wikipedia a NPOV way consists in providing the various approaches. I assume this makes sense.

To be pragmatic, it looks like the hard brexit notion is not accurately defined in this article. This is the reason why examples are the best way to show how the word is used.

Also, the example is not more charged than the word itself. It might be the opinion of its author, but it is published by a well known American newspaper, that we known as The New York Times, neither specifically involved in the UK-EU negotiation, nor in any referendum or local election.

A real example that says "the ministers discussed Brexit" is fine. An example that says "Mr X slammed Brexit as the worst idea ever" (or, conversely, praised it) is a poor choice, especially if you add dozens of them everywhere to push a view. Equinox ◑ 12:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That is what this editor has been told over and over again: there are better examples to add, but they keep adding specifically examples that show off a political opinion. Once they have been told off, they stop for some time and then come back to do it all over again, pretending that they have never been told to stop doing this. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If we consider there are better examples to add, we should also consider that this should be done with method: Before adding example, we should understand what the reader is expecting to read here. I assume he or she wants to understand what Hard Brexit means. And he or she wants to understand accurately based on an accurate definition. Currently this article pretends that hard Brexit is The withdrawal of the United Kingdom both from the European Union and from the European single market.

If this is true, I do not want to change it, while if it is a pushed view it should be fixed. This is why I suggest to take into account as appropriate, if relevant, the following considerations in the definition:

• "The Federal Trust’s director Brendan Donnelly argues that the ambiguous and variously defined terms “soft” and “hard” Brexit have outlived their usefulness" This is questionable, because the TEPSA might have a pro-EU view. [1]
• The Rabobank imagined the ‘Hard’ Brexit as "negotiations between the EU and the UK break down in this scenario and the UK leaves the EU without any trade agreement. The WTO agreements will form the basis of the hard Brexit scenario. It is assumed that the UK will be able to copy the EU’s WTO schemes for tariffs and quotas." This is questionable, because Rabobank being in various EU countries might have a pro-EU view. [2]
• Some consider that "It remains to be seen whether the two parties will even be able to strike a deal or whether Britain will end up with a so-called “hard” Brexit." which might mean that a hard Brexit is a Brexit with no deal. This is also questionable as Vox Europ might be pushing its own views [3]
• Other considers that "If the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union (EU) single market (“hard Brexit”), London-based banks would lose their ability to do direct business with their clients located in the other 30 European Economic Area (EEA) countries" which might mean that a hard Brexit is a Brexit with no "single market" (whatever is understood by single market goods/services). [4] This is also questionable as losing ability to do direct business is politically charged.
• Others consider that "Whether it aims at a “hard Brexit”, i.e. an exit from the EU Single Market and the EU Customs Union, and a refusal of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) authority, or some form of “soft Brexit” with some continued participation is, however, still very much unclear." which might mean that a hard Brexit is a Brexit without any of the three concepts. [5]
• Others consider hard Brexit as "it cannot be excluded that the UK may leave the EU without an withdrawal agreement, a transition deal and the framework for future EU-UK relation (hard Brexit)" [6] This view might also be pushed as both European and British MEPs might be around such document.
• And last but not least: "But as has become increasingly plain over the past two years, and especially over recent weeks, nobody has any idea what “hard” Brexit actually means in policy terms. It is not so much hard as abstract" (Opinion of its author) [7]

After all, might be one country might leave the single market with a deal, and might be one country might without deal not leave the single market. Who knows?