Talk:Withdrawal from the European Union

East Timor

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)

Propsal for removal of a phrase

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)

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)

Withdrawal procedure

Doesn't international law explicitly hold that any nation can immediately and unilaterally withdraw from any treaty? Thus, if a nation wanted to skip the withdrawal procedure and leave immediately, wouldn't there be nothing the EU could do about it? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the short answer is: no. There would be little point in making treaties if any party could unilaterally decide not to honour them with impunity. But, of course, it is a bit more complicated. --Boson (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and No. It is very complicated due to the half-way integration of the EU and conflicting legal interpretations. Long essay short though, I'd say yes (check out TEU Art. 50). But they'd use this procedure in order to make it orderly as states are heavily tied into the EU and they'd only hurt themselves by making it a brutal exit.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Since the question uses the words "any nation" and "any treaty", I presume it implicitly refers to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 56 of which states

A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless: (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty . . .

--Boson (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I did say long essay short and I don't think an academic debate on the matter would be fruitful but I'd say the question centres around when a treaty becomes a constitution and where the power of the treaties originate. However Article 50, paragraph 1, does spell out quite clearly the right to withdraw, even if procedure is then elaborated on. If the right is stated as clearly as that then I doubt it could be suppressed if a state wished to leave without following the full procedure (for instance, if they think it was being artificially protracted).- _J.Logan`^t: 08:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we are answering two different questions. The first question suggests (erroneously) that international law permits any party to any treaty to withdraw immediately. I don't know where this view came from, but it came up occasionally before Lisbon. The Lisbon Treaty appears to permit withdrawal without any further serious negotiations, by merely waiting the two years, but that would be a real can of worms.--Boson (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

More detailed analysis of effects of withdrawal ?

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)

Withdrawal for new members

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)

Translations/other language articles

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

Parties which think about an EU withdrawal (closed)

We have a section entitled "Parties which think about an EU withdrawal". I've removed nearly everything from it as no citations were given. Perhaps more problematically, I'm unclear what the heading means. Can I ask for some clarity to be added to the text if we are to keep this list? Bondegezou (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It means, that the parties speculate about a withdrawal, but first hope to reform the EU somehow before exiting it. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

How does a party "speculate" about withdrawal? What does that actually mean? Are all these parties' views actually equivalent? Do they want similar reform of the EU or not? Or is this just a vague list of vaguely Eurosceptic parties? Without citations or explaining text, this is unclear and unhelpful. Meanwhile, WP:PROVEIT is crystal clear: a citation is needed for material that has been challenged. Bondegezou (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

All listed parties have following in common: "If we do not manage to reform the EU for more democracy and national rights, we withdraw from it.". It's not a listing of Anti-EU-Parties. Law and Justice e.g. is EU-critical, but wants to stay in the EU yet. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add that explanation, along with the citations that this section requires under WP:V. Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, there are countless of'em. But I can see, that you've deleted some parties, because they "do not support leaving the EU". And that's exactly the point: they don't support it yet (otherwise they would be listed in the paragraph above), but meanwhile want only to leave the Euro and reform the EU. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I searched around and could see nothing to suggest those parties were even thinking about an EU withdrawal, only discussion about those parties' views on leaving the Eurozone. This is why we need reliable source citations to be given in each case. We cannot have material in Wikipedia based merely on your say-so. If there are "countless" citations, then it won't take you long to find and add them.

WP:PROVEIT is very clear. If you want material in an article, the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence. Verifiability is a basic pillar of how Wikipedia works.Bondegezou (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The material was already there. For months. You wanna delete it, so you have to look for sources which state the parties think or don't think about an EU Withdrawal. Note, that you are the only user who wants to have them removed and note, that many of the parties in the paragraph above also aren't cited. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I refer you and User:TheHeroWolf to WP:V, which is Wikipedia policy. I quote: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

And: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

Wikipedia policy is unambiguous here. If material in an article is challenged, the onus is on those who want to keep it to demonstrate verifiability.

I have tried myself to look through the parties concerned. I have added a cite for one party, the UK Conservative Party. Two others, I looked but couldn't find anything to support their inclusion, so I removed them, but User:80.108.153.176 just added them straight back in.

If there are other parts of the article without supporting citations, then I would like to see those either removed or, preferably, citations found in support. My particular concern with this section is that it is less clear what it means and, thus, harder to make a simple decision whether a party should be in or out.Bondegezou (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I also note that much of this material has not been here "For months." 6 of the 17 parties listed were added in the last month. The section itself was only created on 5 March: [1]. Bondegezou (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know it, but we have July. That means, the paragraph is there for months. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Note, I have started a related discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you tell me that? You know, that I already knew it before. I suggest you look onto the data, when what was written. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

List of political parties

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)

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)

Swabia

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)

Break-up of a member state - Vorarlberg

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)

Definition

I notice that this article does not begin with a definition, which might be confusing for those arriving here with little or no knowledge of the subject. The first sentence is currently:

Withdrawal from the European Union is a right of European Union (EU) member states under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Perhaps the article should begin with something like:

Withdrawal from the European Union is the legal and political process whereby a Member state of the European Union ceases to be a member of the union.

We could then cut smoothly back into the existing text by following it with something like:

Withdrawal is a right under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Any thoughts? Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done as no objections raised. Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What confusion are you expecting? Someone not knowing the meaning of the word 'withdrawal'? FNAS (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit which "shortened the first few sentences, which were repetitive to the point of tautology." I've added back the definition at the beginning per WP:BEGIN and left your work intact. On the subject of confusion, I am imagining a reader from a distant part of the world who knows little or nothing of the EU. "Withdrawal" is indeed an odd word in this context. The new template that has been added refers to "European Union secession", a term which has its own WP entry and which might provide us with a better title for this article. The term "independence" is commonly used by those proposing secession, while "rebellion" is often used by those opposing it. "Withdrawal" was used when this page was first created in 2006, possibly in an attempt to achieve WP:NPOV. It does have some currency within the UK, though "leave" and "exit" seem to be more common. As far as WP is concerned, withdrawal leads to a disambiguation page without a direct link to an article on political departure. It does, however, link directly to withdrawal (military) which seems to be the most common form of withdrawal in a political context. Hence we have articles on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Someone who knows the meaning of "withdrawal" but does not know about the EU might infer that it is occupied by foreign military. The definition is intended quickly to inform the reader that we are talking about the negotiated departure of a member of a voluntary confederation.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal is a common word, and the meaning is perfectly clear. Secession implies that the UK is fully absorbed into the EU, which it is not- it is a member of the EU. If you want to no longer be part of your local book club, you withdraw from it or leave it- you don't secede from it. As you say above, those proposing or opposing secession use independence and rebellion- this is not the language in whichntondescribe Brexit. Try again.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

German article

Cheers, this needs a German article. de:Austritt aus der Europäischen Union -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• There's information about how to request page translations into English at WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. I guess you'd need to do a similar procedure on the German WP to request a page translation into German:

1. Create the article on German Wikipedia as a stub article, explaining or defining the subject of the article in a sentence or two;
2. Then immediately tag your stub article with a translation template on the new German article page. The template would need to be one from within the German WP, like the English ones found in the category Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates.

Alternatively, if you have a Requested articles Project in the German WP like the English one that exists here you could place your request there.

Best of luck

Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Future Developments

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)

Swedish Left Party - “Parties in the EU advocating or considering withdrawal”?

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)

Merge Article 50 into this article

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)

• support - It makes sense as there is significant overlap. I suggest you be bold and just do it.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Aye, you're probably right there but I wanted to be sure.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to merge other Euroexit articles into this one

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)

• Oppose merging for the following reasons.

1. This article is about the general, overarching issues about withdrawal from the EU. The other articles are about subjects that possess significant, perhaps extraordinary, independent notability of their own.
2. It's telling in this context that we do not have for every EU country articles in Wikipedia about their potential withrawal from the Eurozone. Grouping them all together would create the impression whereby every EZ member contemplates an exit.
3. Withdrawal from the EU is not going to be a group withdrawal (or has not yet been shaped as such). The politics and the conditions of each country can be and actually are very different. Merging everything under one, generic- title article would be significantly misleading: every country's specific situation and considerations must be adequately presented.
4. The economic crisis in the EU is a multi-year crisis that has been taking place since 2009. We can confidently expect notable events to continue to unfold in each of the various EZ/EU countries, as well as in the EU structure and its policies as a whole. Having a single article would evidently shape a very unwieldy text, at the detriment of its encyclopaedic value, or alternatively loss of useful information.

-The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose with particularly strong oppose to Grexit which has nothing to do with leaving the EU. This whole RtM is a diversionary tactic from the proposal to delete at least NLEXIT as a piece of blatant POV-pushing. The fact that it does not have a counterpart in nl.wikipedia tells you all you need to know. I agree with The Gnome's arguments (except that this article is about withdrawal from the European Union, not the single currency).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

• Support for merging "Dutch withdrawal from the European Union" and "Frexit" into this article and oppose for mergin with Greek withdrawal from the eurozone. Either we have *exit articles for each member state where such names exist (basically all 28 of them), or we gather the information about all of them in this article and have a more general discussion about withdrawal from the EU (besides brexit). Swexit, Oexit, Itexit, Spexit, etc. are already redirected to this article. The idea to leave the EU is not new in any member state, the only thing that has changed the past years is that people have started to invent all kinds of words ending with "exit". I don't think that these words deserve separate Wikipedia articles just because of the names. --Glentamara (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone is unrelated. Other articles about possible withdrawals from the EU can exist for each nation where there is sufficient material. Bondegezou (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, and propose to close this discussion. First of all, adding Grexit to the mix was obviously a mistake of mine, as also pointed out by others above. Second, Nexit and Frexit are both clearly hypotheticals. Initially I proposed adding this qualification to the article titles, to make this fact clear. Then a merge with this article was proposed, and I just went with that. But... looking closer at the content of said articles, there really isn't anything there content-wise that isn't already covered in Euroscepticism. Withdrawal from the European Union already links there, so there's really no need to add more content here on either Nexit or Frexit. Feer 15:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Concur with opposing comments above. Qexigator (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Concur with opposing comments above. Leutha (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as above and concur with closing this discussion - there is almost unanimity. Wikiain (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, for all the reasons listed by The Gnome (as well as others), and also concur with closing this discussion. Oska (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting 'Lexit' is unhelpful

• 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)

Lexit listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Secession from a member state

I deleted this section:

===Secession from a member state===

See also: Future enlargement of the European Union § Internal enlargement

There are no clear agreements, treaties or precedents covering the scenario of an existing EU member state breaking into two or more states. The question is whether one state is a successor rump state which remains a member of the EU and the other is a new state which must reapply and be accepted by all other member states to remain in the EU, or alternatively whether both states retain their EU membership following secession.

In some cases, a region leaving its state would leave the EU - for example, if any of the various proposals for the enlargement of Switzerland from surrounding countries were to be implemented at a future date.

During the failed Scottish independence referendum of 2014, the European Commission said that any newly independent country would be considered as a new state which would have to negotiate with the EU to rejoin, though EU experts also suggested transitional arrangements and an expedited process could apply. Political considerations are likely to have a significant influence on the process; in the case of Catalonia, for example, other EU member states may have an interest in blocking an independent Catalonia's EU membership in order to deter independence movements within their own borders.

My reason to do so is that this topic is incidental to the question of withdrawal from the EU. There is nothing to suggest that any of the territories want to secede from their current polity so that they can withdraw from the EU, indeed in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the reverse is true. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Treaties that says that, if a member state divides, then one or even both must withdraw. There has been a lot of sabre rattling towards Catalunya but it is not backed up by actual EU law, So if this text is to remain in the article, it needs a convincing introductory text to say why it is relevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations to say that a new country created by secession from an EU member would not automatically be an EU member. Thus there is relevance here. Whether they'd want to or not, withdrawal from the EU could be a result. Bondegezou (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

How is that in any way relevant to an article about withdrawal from the EU? For this reason alone, the material belongs elsewhere, not in this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

All the citations that I have seen are merely assertions made in the interest of mutual solidarity, but none actually base that assertion on any specific clause of any of the Treaties of European Union. It is just so much hot air and so fails our WP:RS test (in this case).b --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

But let's for a moment extrapolate from the premise that one element of a dividing member state would retain membership but the other element would lose it (again, show me the Treaty that says that), then that outcome would be an expulsion from the EU, not a withdrawal. So again, wrong article (as well as blatant WP:SYN and WP:OR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the semantic distinction you are seeking to make between expulsion and withdrawal as being useful. This article is about countries leaving the EU, whether that be by their own design or some other mechanism.

There are RS given that state a clear interpretation of the Treaty. Your demand for a specific clause in the Treaty is prioritising your WP:OR of a WP:PRIMARY source over those reliable sources. We don't do that.

There is debate about what would happen to an independent Scotland or Catalonia, debate that generally follows along predictable political lines in terms of whether people want an independent Scotland or Catalonia, in terms of EU membership. We should cover that debate and use a variety of reliable, secondary sources advancing different positions and/or reliable, secondary sources that discuss the debate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the article is about countries withdrawing from the EU, see title. Being expelled is an entirely different ball-game. I am not arguing that this section should not exist anywhere, only that it does not belong in this article. (I accept your argument that it is not for us to argue with the sources, so my second two points lapse). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked up a dictionary definition of "withdrawal" and got one definition of "the action of ceasing to participate in an activity". You are making a distinction between voluntary withdrawal and expulsion, but that definition covers both. One ceases to participate whether one chose to withdraw or were expelled. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that this is incidental to the subject of this article. I don't see how whether these regions intend to withdraw or not as part of their independence movement is relevant. An unintended withdrawal is still a withdrawal, and naturally warrants discussion on this page. I agree with Bondegezou, the distinction between withdrawal and expuslion is not really meaningful. They are considering willingly choosing to withdraw from a member state, and as such could lose any rights they have as part of the member state. That's not expulsion. Finally, on the point about language in the treaties, while is there is legal uncertainty on what would happen, that's not a good reason to ignore the subject as it remains notable. We have cited statements from notable figures who give their views on the matter, and the subject is framed in the regard. TDL (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Per my reply to Bondegezou, I have accepted that it is not for us to argue with the RSs. But take a simple thought experiment: suppose that Czechoslovakia had been a member before it divided into Czechia and Slovakia rather than after. Could anyone seriously assert that an arbitrarily chosen one of the two successor states had the right to stay but the other one gets kicked out? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

In that case, legally both were considered successor states so neither would have retained membership automatically. For example, both had to re-apply for UN membership as neither continued the originigal Czechoslovakia membership. Contrast that with the USSR, where Russia continued the USSR membership in the UN. See Succession of states for more details. Ultimatley it's up to the international community to decide the legal status of successor states. Our job is to document and report that, not to arbitrariy choose ourselves. TDL (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Saint Pierre et Miquelon

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)

Algeria again: WP:BRD

@Potymkin:, I think that Danlaycock's edit (partial rvt - the source does not say that Algeria remained an "active" member, it simply cites legal text in the treaties that predates independence which had not been revised. also Algeria was not established in 1976, it was the relationship which was formalized on this date. must be taken seriously. We have a WP:PRIMARY source that does indeed explicitly record the unique (v the other overseas Departments) of Algeria. What we don't have is any evidence of continuing active Algerian participation. But nor do we have anything that says it was excluded. So I think we need to find a phrasing that is more circumspect. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @JMF for starting this talk page to discuss the recent edit, it is important that you did to clarify the recent action on reverse edit. The text provided by the editor Danlaycock using some words that designates certain meanings that are ambiguous such as:

-it has been argued that Algeria : here the user uses his own terminology to cast doubt over the matter which is considered WP:SYNTHESIS against the sources in the text which explicitly show otherwise. it is possible for the user to add this between brackets with a direct quote from a reliable source mentioning this statement.

-"when a new treaty was agreed between Algeria and the EEC": here the user removed the word "new", for whatever reason the user believes that "the cooperation agreement between the european economic community and the people's democratic republic of algeria held on April 22nd 1976" is not new but a pre-existing cooperation agreement that he fails to source. the publication of 1978 EUR-Lex - L:1978:263:TOC - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) mentions that this indeed was a new agreement that was initiated by Paris in 1972 to establish a final treaty on the status of Algeria as a member of the community after Algerian wine stopped being recognized as French made in 1971 which sparked a trade crisis.

-"which for Algeria to be establishedmalized the relationship with Algeria as a neighbouring country in association with the Community and no longer a membernot a part of the Community." here the user believes the text speaks of algeria's independence, it is a misinterpretation that stems from lack of reading on the status of the départment de l'algérie française. the Algerian people's democratic republic gained independence in 1962 but remained part of the EEC, this means that for the period between 1962-1976 algeria was treated as a part of the community and not a neighbouring country, when we talk about establishing algeria as a neighbouring country here we are talking about its status vis à vis the EEC not the UN which the text clearly states.

Special thanks for @M.Bitton, @JMF for cooperating in unison with yours truely @Potymkin to reach a final concensus on the final version of a text that is both readable and expresses all the relevant points clearly.

If you require discussion on a deeper level via Telegram or discord please do not hesitate to email me to provide you with my relevant username to talk the matter through more personally. I would be happy to provide some of my personal time for the betterment of legibility of wikipedia articles. Potymkin (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I certainly had no intention of reverting your reversion. WP:WEASEL phrases like "it has been argued" jerk my chain every time.

Nevertheless, we do have a problem with the word "active", especially given that Algerian wine was not allowed to enter the Common Market tariff-free. So your assertion that that for the period between 1962-1976 algeria was treated as a part of the community and not a neighbouring country must be dubious.

So no, we don't have a final version. We cannot allow to stand a statement that we know not to be true (nor, of course, may we replace it with another statement that is not true either). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man I'm happy with removing the word active and keeping the rest of the statement 'thus algeria remained active in the EEC until 1976'. we also should ask @M.Bitton about his opinion about the change to reach a concensus that is more appropriate. Potymkin (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of the quote (source 35) which mentions Algeria's duties in the EEC? M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It would help to see the quote in context but what it seems to me to be saying is that Algeria was still de jure a participant, if only because the treaty had not been revised to exclude it (as happened later). But, as the wine example shows, de facto it was not a participant. Source 35 merely repeats what we say already: the participant status of Algeria was recognised explicitly in the treaty and continued so to be until the 1976 revision. So if we are to put this beyond doubt, we would really need someone to read Source 35 in more detail, to see if the question was ever litigated at the ECJ. But unless and until someone is really keen to do that, I suggest that simply to remove the word 'active' is enough for our purposes. Any more detail belongs in the History of Algeria article, not here. IMO anyway. Does anyone dissent? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to get hold of it, but I don't understand why the details need to be mentioned somewhere else. The Algeria section is small (compared to the others). M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Algeria section is so small and any change made in that section destabilizes the meaning of the text, it simply is not big enough to even change or remove words with freedom, the current version is carefully shaped to be as brief as possible with the ability to still convey information. Potymkin (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

referring to the book The Seventh member state in the sources the word active is justified because of algeria's active integration attempts in the EEC and I quote :"Offcials in independent Algeria pursued a range of inte- gration possibilities, including not just their ties with the EEC but also a type of Maghreb Union and an active participation in the Non-Aligned Movement" which shows algeria's active participation to integrate in the EEC.

Algeria is clearly and definetly a member, but their relationship with the EEC appears to be a relationship of a bitter France trying to get algeria out of its buisness and an economy hungry italy that wants the money that algeria receives from the EEC so the book talks about this in much greater detail but in the intro it summarizes it as follows and I quote ;"Because the treaty named Algeria, European officials were at a loss as to how to extricate the country from the EEC after its inde-pendence. Not until 1976, when the EEC and Algeria signed an accord outlining a new, pared-down relationship". so clearly here we know that Algeria is a member and especially in the same page we know that the EEC provided Algeria with benefits as a member.

so the word active is not an exaggeration from this peer reviewed source AlgeriaThe seventh Member state. Potymkin (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording I chose was not my own wording, but rather reflected what the single book you're citing to claim that it was a member actually states. It does not say definitively that it continued to be part of the EEC, but rather "after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion 'was a matter of debate." I can add this cite to the article if this helps, and specifically reference the author.

Additionally, there are many sources which state that Algeria left the EEC in 1962. For example, the EU claims there were 9 EU member states in 1973 [2], at a time when you claim that there should have been 10 with Algeria. Other academic sources point to a 1962 exit as well, ie [3]. Ignoring those sources to present the view of a single fringe WP:POV source as uncontested is not neutral.

You have misinterpreted my edit wrt "new". Of course it was a new agreement. I removed the "new" not because I disputed that, but rather because it's a Tautology (language). Obviously Algeria and the EEC could not have agreed to an old treaty in 1976. If it were an old treaty, then it would have already been agreed to. Including the "new" is poor English and makes the Encyclopedia sound unprofessional.

That Algeria remained a part of the EEC from 1962-1976 is your opinion based on a WP:SYNTEHSIS of sources. However, as demonstrated above this is not actually supported by the sources, which clearly show that this is a matter for debate at best. Wikipedia cannot make claims that are not supported by source. My text softened the claim to align with what can actually be sourced. I didn't claim that it wasn't a part of the EEC during that time, I simply stuck to the facts.

I'm happy to discuss revisions to the text to align with the facts and sources, but as you can see from the discussion above there clearly is not a consensus in favour of adding the text that you've proposed as written. TDL (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I made another attempt to update the text to align with what the sources say. I've avoided making any statement about whether it was or was not a member or a part of the EEC, and just stuck to the fact that the implications of independence on it's relationship with the EEC was unresolved until 1976. I think that's all that can be concluded from the sources. TDL (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

the written text above is discussing whether or not to keep the word active or not not redically change the text all together, Algeria is an active participant in the EEC from "the cooperation agreement between the european economic community and the people's democratic republic of algeria held on April 22nd 1976" this publication of the EEC in 1978 EUR-Lex - L:1978:263:TOC - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) mentions Algeria as part of the EEC until 1976 and discusses in detail tarrifs, deals, and the activities Algeria partook in as a trading member of the EEC. this publication is from the time when the event occured and it is official.

what you claim to be WP:SYNTEHSIS , WP:POV is in fact brought from the original source of the era, we are using the treaty papers.

-it is important to note that the book the Seventh member state mentions "Because the treaty named Algeria, European officials were at a loss as to how to extricate the country from the EEC after its inde-pendence. Not until 1976, when the EEC and Algeria signed an accord outlining a new, pared-down relationship" word for word, the book talks about algeria was extricated in 1976.

-"Offcials in independent Algeria pursued a range of inte- gration possibilities, including not just their ties with the EEC but also a type of Maghreb Union and an active participation in the Non-Aligned Movement" in pages 15 and 16 of the same book this quote shows algeria's active participation to integrate in the EEC.

I can't keep going with quoting this in a wikipedia page but if you take time to read the book you can clearly see why its impossible not to include active from the sources provided.

Again, the text on algeria's exit of the EEC is already very small, please find time to contribute to it differently by adding more information to it instead of changing the already agreed upon text, its impossible to narrow it any further without rendering the text completly useless, you could choose to discuss trade between algeria and the EEC trade or other relevant matters such as labor and economy and perhaps even politics between EEC and algeria.

Email me and I will share my telegram and discord for a book reading session to talk about the book the Seventh Member state Potymkin (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@DanlaycockI am unable to reply to the last comment that you made because the reply button is not included, I have taken the freedom to email you personally to discuss this to seriously try to reach a concensus. check out your email and let me know what you have decided Potymkin (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Repeating the claim that the text is agreed to, does not make it so. You've proposed some additions, it's been reverted. Per WP:BRD the obligation is on you to get a consensus for the addition, not continue to edit war to force the changes in.

Can you please provide a quote from the 1976 agreement to support your claim that it was a member until 1976? I can't see anything from a quick read.

We don't disagree on the fact that the 1976 agreement was the legal formalization of the EEC-Algeria relationship outside the EEC, which is what the quotes you provide speak to. But that does not imply that they were a member until 1976. Keep in mind, the EEC treaties continued to refer to Algeria until the 1990s [4], but clearly they were not part of the EEC until then.

Also, you've ignored the quote from the book you cited which I shared above, which shows that this claim was not definitive, but rather a matter of debate: "after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion 'was a matter of debate." Why selectively quote the book, and not consider context of this quote? Also, why ignore the other sources which refute this claim [5][6].

I would much prefer to be editing other content, but unfortunately if you keep edit warring errors and fringe views as facts into the article we will have no choice but be stuck debating that. TDL (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with TDL that is entirely unacceptable to pretend that source we are using does not make that important qualification (quote="Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate.") This is a critical quotation and it is essential that it be reinstated and it consequences worked through. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The party forcing changes in the article page is you with the ridiculous notion that the book Algeria the seventh member state considers Algeria a non member state, if you are talking about the following quote:

-"Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate." I cannot find this quote in the book, refer me to the page.

The 1976 agreement highlights that it was not until 1 January 1973 that Algeria aligned "third country" treatment (instead of EEC member state) on that applied to the Community, thus doing away with any preferential treatment. here the text of the treaty considers Algeria a full member.

your claim 'But that does not imply that they were a member until 1976.' is not the initial basis of this talk page, @𝕁𝕄𝔽's contention point is the word "Active" in the text and @M.Bitton and Me and @𝕁𝕄𝔽 are trying to figure an alternative word for that.

@𝕁𝕄𝔽 in this talk page (read above):

"I certainly had no intention of reverting your reversion. WP:WEASEL phrases like "it has been argued" jerk my chain every time.

Nevertheless, we do have a problem with the word "active""

Concerning the debate with you which is not the topic at all of this talk page which is about the active or inactive role algeria played as a member until 1976, but you go one step back ! to deny algeria's membership until 1976, the role of the book Algeria the seventh member state it goes to:

-Establish that Algeria was a member of the EEC until 1976 according to the already provided source Algeria the seventh member state.

-Establish that Algeria was an active member of the EEC until 1976.

I will start off with the book Algeria the seventh member state :

-"As I demonstrate, Algeria was very much a part of the European project and remained so well after its independence from France in 1962" The author shows clearly that his book demonstrates Algeria being very much an active member of the EEC well after its independence in 1962.

-"As this book makes clear, even Algeria’s independence from France did not spell the end of its imbrication with integrated Europe. Algeria’s leaders quickly lobbied EEC officials, hoping to obtain assurances of the continuation of favorable trade and aid regulations." here the author of the book states clearly that Algeria continued to engage in trade and receiving aid from different EEC programs and lobbied for it as much as other EEC officials as any member lobbies for such.

-"Algeria’s hard-won independence did not preclude Algerians from potentially benefiting from EEC membership, either through development aid or even the free movement of labor and its attendant social security regime" Algeria gained independence in 1962 and even after this event Algerians continued to benefit from EEC membership through development or aid including social security or even free movement of labour.

-"Algerian diplomats approached Brussels bureaucrats with confidence, certain that the EEC owed their citizenry some of the benefits of European membership. It would take a new diplomatic accord, in 1976, to pry those rights away from them." the benefits of EEC membership were not taken away from Algeria until 1976 despite european officials' dismay.

-"When the reality that Algeria was named in the Treaty of Rome no longer served French or European interests, European officials not only wrote Algeria out of the EEC; its history as a part of its foundational territory was erased from memory" the author here talks about people like @TDL and his sources, quote from @TDL: "Additionally, there are many sources which state that Algeria left the EEC in 1962. For example, the EU claims there were 9 EU member states in 1973"

here @TDL is considered by the author one of those fooled due to lack of knowledge and extensive reading through the use of first hand sources from the same authors who relinquish all memory of Algeria being a member of the EEC through the treaty of Rome in article 227 of the treaty. and as such, the territory of Algeria which used to be part of the EEC is erased from memory.

-"this book challenges the perniciously persistent tendency in scholarship to divorce Algeria from histories of Africa’s relationship to integrated Europe or only to highlight how regions of Africa beyond the Maghreb experienced European in- tegration" the author himself states that the book challenges the perniciously persistent tendency in scholarship to divorce Algeria from histories of Africa’s relationship to integrated Europe, here the author acknowledges Algeria's integral role in the EEC as a member outside the european continent.

-"This book emphasizes Algeria’s place at the core of French diplomatic efforts with the Six, spurred by the war but facilitated by decades-old assumptions and laws dictating Algeria’s Frenchness. Irwin Wall’s contention that “Algeria was at every step of the way from 1954 to 1962 central to French diplomacy” rings true in an examination of France’s strategies in EEC negotiations, although it became more central as the war intensified and remained so for over a decade after Algerian independence." the author quotes Irwin Wall to show that Algeria did not cease to be a member of the EEC until more than a decade after its independence in 1962.

-"Algerian development projects continued to receive EEC funding, and the Six struggled to explain how its status should change. It took a full fourteen years after Algeria’s independence for its leaders and EEC offcials to cement a new treaty that definitively excised Algeria from the EEC", here the Author talks about how Algeria's membership in the EEC ended in 1976 lasting fourteen years after independence.

-"With the 1976 treaty, Algeria’s status within the EEC was erased, and with it, integrated Europe recast itself as a wholly continental endeavor. As the con- clusion suggests, the legacies of Algeria’s European years lived on in later European border flashpoints" again the Author talks of Algeria's membership in the EEC ending in 1976

-"French offcials actively argued against including Algeria, despite its departmental status, because they feared doing so would threaten French sovereignty there. As the Algerian War intensified in the late 1950s, they changed course and insisted Algeria be named in the Treaty of Rome, the foundational text of the EEC signed in 1957. This meant that for five years, until Algerian independence in July 1962, the EEC’s regulations for trade and social security extended to Algeria and—possibly—Algerians. Because the treaty named Algeria, European offcials were at a loss as to how to extricate the country from the EEC after its independence. Not until 1976, when the EEC and Algeria signed an accord outlining a new, pared-down relationship, did the Mediterranean serve as the border of Europe." here the Author mentions that Algeria's membership status did not change until 1976

-"In the 1950s, 1960s, and possibly even 1970s, European citizen- ship appeared accessible to Algerians because they, like Savoyards and Alsatians, had lived in departments of the French Republic. That potentially all Algerians, regardless of their race or religion, could hold those rights underlines the significance of the French decision to include Algeria in its plan for European integration" here the author mentions another active part of integration from Algeria into the EEC in which he highlights Algeria's EEC citizenship status that of a member state and not of a third country.

conclusion: the author himself directly talks about Algeria as a member and he himself argues time and time again that Algeria was a member of the EEC until 1976 and he gives us aspects not only of the membership but also one that of ACTIVE membership and integration that Algeria worked through including Labour Movement, citizenship, trade, economies of scale, political lobbying and other factors.

@TDL take time to read the book or any book of that matter, then when you finally manage to reach the conclusion that Algeria was indeed an EEC member until 1976 then you can discuss the active status of Algeria with us in this talk page. Potymkin (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather than personally attacking my reading abilities or calling me a fool, perhaps you could read and respond to the substance of my argument and quotes from the book I've cited for you? Repeating the same talking points without responding to my points will not move this debate forward. I've summarized the sourced facts and opinions below.

Sourced facts:

1. France was one of 6 founding members of the EEC.
2. Algeria, as an integral part of a France, was a part of the EEC by virtue of France's membership.
3. The EEC founding treaties referred to Algeria by name as a territory of France, to which the treaty applied.
4. After Algerian independence, there was no formal agreement between the EEC, Algeria and France on the implications to Algeria's legal relations with the EEC.
5. In 1976 an agreement was reached between the EEC and Algeria, which formalized their relations outside of the EEC.
6. The EEC treaties continued to list Algeria by name as a territory of France to which the treaties applied until the 1990s.

Unsourced opinions:

1. Algeria was an EEC member: Beyond sensationalist headlines, there has been no evidence provided to support this. Numerous authoritative sources (including the EU itself) do not list Algeria as a former member. None of the quotes you cited above actually say that it was a member, your are attempting to WP:synthesis them to conduct WP:original research and draw your own conclusions. For example, you confuse statements such as "a part of the European project", "potentially benefiting from EEC membership", "some of the benefits of European membership", and "status within the EEC" as evidence that it was a member. They are not. All of those, for example, could be used to describe the status of the UK during the Brexit transition period, when it was no longer a member state.
2. Algeria actively participate as a EEC member post independence: No evidence has been provided to support this. Sure they continued interactions with the EEC, but there has been no evidence that definitively demonstrates that this was as an active constituent part of the EEC. Even the one source you cited which you claim supports this includes important qualifications (describing this position as "a matter of debate"). Ignoring this nuance and the vast majority of other sources is not a WP:neutral point of view.
3. Algeria withdraw from the EEC in 1976: Again, your sources do not support this. You've confuse "definitively excised Algeria from the EEC" with withdrawal. Again to draw an analogy with Brexit, the UK was only definitively excluded at the end of the transition period not on the day it withdrew, so this is not evidence that Algeria withdrew in 1976.

As you can see above, your proposed changes are not supported by the community. Claiming there is a consensus in the face of unanimous objections does not make it so.

Your proposed changes attempt to oversimplify a complex situation, making unsubstantiated definitive conclusions that are not sourced. We need to stick to what sources actually say, not your interpretation of what they say which is WP:OR.

My edit attempts to stick to the facts as summarized above. I'm happy to discuss improvements to the wording that stick to these facts, or alternatively review sources which support the unsourced opinions. But in the absence of sources we can't publish unsourced opinions on wikipedia, so it needs to be removed per WP:BRD. TDL (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Having not seen any support for the proposed additions for a couple weeks, and with the editor who was attempting to add it being indefinitely blocked, I will go ahead and remove the dubious content. TDL (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)