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.
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 was copy edited by SshibumXZ, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 6 December 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
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 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 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
I don't think "Agreement" should be in the name of the article, of several reasons. First of all, It seems that "Chequers plan" or "Chequers deal" is much more common (se this link). Also, it is a confusing name, since while it might be an agreement within the UK government, it is a proposal/plan for how the relation should be, and this is currently being negotiated. The word "agreement" gives the expression that the negotiations are over.
Heb the best (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's 'agreement; or 'plan', it's important not to formalise the name by using capitalisation. I have just changed 'Agreement' to 'agreement' throughout the article. Not a single cited source uses a capital 'A' anywhere within them, and neither 'agreement' nor 'plan' is a legally recognised name for this significant proposal by the UK prime minister, agreed over by her cabinet at the time. That said, I find find 25,000 Google News returns for "Chequers agreement" and 260,000 returns for "Chequers plan". The unfolding story is one of a plan put forward by the Prime Minister and agreed within the Conservative Cabinet, but which has rapidly unravelled following the resignation of two key Cabinet members who were leading on Brexit. Mrs May thinks its an agreement within her Cabinet, but the Conservative party as a whole clearly seem split. Time will tell. But one thing is clear: it is definitely not a formal agreement of any sort, there's no evidence cited for the public at large calling it an 'agreement', so 'Chequers plan' seems, on balance to me, the better choice for the article title. The assertion within the article establishes 'agreement' as a recognised common name is flawed, based upon the source cited. See the 2nd lede paragraph whose single sentence uses this source to wrongly claim justification for public common usage of the name 'agreement'. Whilst verifying the date of the meeting, any further conclusion is not even WP:OR; it's plain wrong. (pinging @Harfarhs: who inserted it with this edit) Either way, lower case agreement or plan please, per WP:MOSNick Moyes (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my edit, Nick, although that may be the fault of my phrasing. I was using the Guardian article to justify "Chequers", not to justify "Agreement"/"agreement" which I had thought uncontroversial. See the standfirst of the Guardian piece, though: "Theresa May and her cabinet have reached agreement on how to approach final Brexit talks". To which part of WP:MOS do you refer? Harfarhs (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Harfarhs. I didn't misunderstand your edit, per se, though I think I did misunderstand your intent. So I think we can agree to delete the second half of that sentence, thus leaving the citation to verify the first part, as you intended. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now moved the page and changed the lead accordingly. I added two alternative names 'Chequers deal' and 'Chequers'. This last one includes agreement, proposal and such. Heb the best (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the name for the article should actually be the official title for the white paper. If you google "chequers plan" you find a lot of newspaper articles but if you google for "The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union" you will find reliable official information. Of course Chequers Plan would have to redirect to the article.Tharos (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a section about the reception, both within UK and in the EU. The tories are tearing themselves apart, and EU are rejecting it. Heb the best (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs to set out the substance of the plan
Article needs to set out the substance of the plan.
The current article amounts to a Boris Johnson criticism footnote, blown up to cover half the space, all at the expense of any description of the plan itself. Ocdcntx (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Chequers is dead, and the political declaration is the new (common) basis for negotiation of the future relationship. But it is wrong to say that the new declaration is just an update of the first draft, as the second is a common document. I think the mixture of the two here will blur this important distinction. Chequers is notable in its own right, so I think this article should be kept. I think the new declaration should be covered in the (non-existent?) article on the withdrawal agreement, as these two are closely linked. Heb the best (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
