This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands

I feel this article should be renamed. As it stands, it suggests that Dutch withdrawal is something that either already has occurred, or is in some stage of preparation. But, at this time, this subject is and will remain clearly a hypothetical. All article content is sourced, so I won't call for outright deletion of this article. But the title should be changed, at least to the extent of clarifying it's all hypothetical at this moment in time. I propose adding something in the line of "proposed" or "hypothetical" to the article title, and would appreciate your input on this matter. Feer 16:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we really have an article about every hypothetical withdrawal? I think this article should be deleted altogether. It would be better to include the information in some more appropiate article like the one about Withdrawal from the European Union. --Glentamara (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to me that it breaches WP:CRYSTAL. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no equivalent article in the Dutch wikipedia speaks volumes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article should be merged with Withdrawal from the European Union. The question is if this would also apply to the Frexit article? Feer 13:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course Frexit should also be merged with the same article. --Glentamara (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also in regards to the Grexit article. Feer 14:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is wp:CRYSTAL and doesn't belong anywhere, it is just POV-pushing. Delete. The same is true of FREXIT - there is a long way from FN puffing and it actually a credible proposal that as a minimum gets debated in the National Assembly. GRexit has nothing to do with leaving the EU! (it was about leaving the €). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article should be merged, it's with Euroscepticism. But I wouldn't oppose outright deletion as well. Feer 06:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete it. --Glentamara (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for delete too but that has practical complications in wikipedia process. Easiest is just to change it to a redirect. In that case, it has to be to the withdrawal article. IMO. Feer, as you opened the RtM, you just volunteered to do this instead! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a Dutch term 82.217.148.216 (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]