Talk:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum/Archive 3

Requested move 25 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Nothing moved per overwhelming opposition — JFG ^talk 07:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

---

• United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Brexit referendum
• Issues in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Brexit issues
• Campaigning in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Brexit referendum campaigns
• Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Brexit referendum endorsements
• Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum → Brexit referendum opinion polling
• Results of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Brexit referendum results
• International reactions to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → International reactions to the Brexit referendum

– WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Note that WP:SLANG is merely an essay, of infinitely less authority than the two policies named. The vast majority of sources—nay, virtually all sources—use the term "Brexit". Even when searching Google News for "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union" most articles use 'Brexit' in the title, and the few that don't always use it in the article body itself. This shouldn't be too controversial. Keep in mind WP:NOTVOTE. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. Common names in news outlets doesn't mean it's the common name for an encyclopedia. Jolly Ω Janner 02:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Which is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE: "Brexit" or these other messes that pass for titles? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

They are both recognisable. Jolly Ω Janner 03:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

But which is more common and recognizable?

• "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used..."
• "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

The clear winner here is "Brexit".Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Brexit is of course most common, but we only have news sources to go on. Our guidelines are just that, guidelines. A more descriptive name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia in my opinion. Jolly Ω Janner 04:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses natural language titles according to WP:AT. These names are far less natural than "Brexit". Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: I just added "Oppose" to your initial post to clarify that it's a vote. Hope you don't mind. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Jujutsuan: I made an update to your request to match the contents in the template you provided. The last entry was repeated. FYI, a technical note. United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 has an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, which would need to be moved as well if there's consensus to move. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Thank you, Andy. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - As above, this is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. Reading an encyclopedia I would expect a more formal name, that, for example, hints me to the year and what it is.--Robertiki (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my rationale at Talk:United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union – Far from a mere buzzword, Brexit is a neologism which quickly gained universal adoption, so WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE policies support the move. Commentators all over the world use this term and most readers search for it. Additionally, after the vote to leave, Brexit is turning into a tangible process, not merely an idea. Long-term significance is likely to remain^{pun intended} on this name. However I would keep the 2016 date in all affected articles, e.g. "Brexit referendum, 2016", to avoid confusion with previous votes and ideas. — JFG ^talk 06:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It would be better to place only one move request, at the parent article United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. In case of consensus there, all the rest could be moved automatically. Brandmeister^talk 08:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Brandmeister and Andy M. Wang: The only relevant move requests are here (with notices automatically placed on the named articles' talk pages) and at Talk:United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union. If anything this discussion should be merged with that one. How can we make that happen, technically speaking? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: Maybe remove this section, paste it to Talk:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, make appropriate template fixes above. Strangely, I don't see a "move discussion" notice on that talk page, hmm. But, given how this RM is panning out, a RM replacement may not be necessary. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. I think it would be better together. The notice is here. I had to place it manually because I edited this RM after the bot got to it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The current names are the correct titles. There's no harm in creating the Brexit redirects back to them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• oppose Brexit is linked to the main page and this is standard naming for election articles.Lihaas (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• oppose Formal name is explanatory and more appropriate, both now, and in the future going forward, as the event starts to recede into the past and loses its news currency. Jheald (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support per my rationale in nominating Talk:United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union#Requested move 24 June 2016 for a move to Brexit. The guidelines do not get more clear than this. People are objecting based on it not being an 'encyclopaedic name', or being an 'informal name', or it being 'slang', or it being 'only in news outlets', which is no argument at all. Either it is the most commonly used name, or it isn't, it isn't up to us to decide if we like the most commonly used name, it is up to us to identify the most commonly used name, including in the news. WP:COMMONNAME is extremely clear on this and I would suggest that the person closing this discussion keep in mind that the above arguments to the contrary are not in line with WP policy and WP:NOTAVOTE applies very strongly in this case.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We have a naming guideline specific to election and referendum articles (WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums), which the current title is in line with. As Insertcleverphrasehere says, "The guidelines do not get more clear than this". Number 57 09:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While "Brexit" may be the common name for UK withdrawal, the term "Brexit referendum" has not been used as much, as far as I can see. I can see arguments to change United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union to Brexit, but leave this article under its current title. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – while United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union should definitely be moved to Brexit, Bondegezou raises a good point. While the proposed titles are more concise, I'm not sure if they are as accurate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is what redirects are for. We should avoid using tabloid press type terms.Charles (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The key is to have a redirect from Brexit as Charles said above.... If someone searches for Brexit, he should find this article. I suspect that many people do search for Brexit but the referendum and petition are not often referred to as Brexit (that was the campaign to exit the EU.) Britain is well beyond the Brexit phase; IMHO, that phase ended on June 23, 2016. The subsequent phase is the Referendum and the Petition for another referendum. Peter K Burian (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Brexit is not a tabloid term. It is used by the highly respected media, including the BBC https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=bbc%20brexit and the Times of London. https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Times+of+london+brexit and The Guardian https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=the+guardian+brexit Peter K Burian (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Brexit is an informal and rather tabloid term, and it's not understood by everyone outside Britain (Donald Trump until recently didn't know its meaning). Therefore we should stick with descriptive titles. --Tataral (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So now Trump is the standard for normal intelligence and knowledge? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that truly is a frightening thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC) p.s. oppose "Brexit" - sounds too much like some kind of kitchen cleaning product

We write Wikipedia also for those who are not very knowledgeable:[1]

• “And Brexit? Your position?” Mr Woolf asked.
• “Huh?”
• “Brexit.”
• “Hmm.”
• The New York tycoon was then told what the abbreviation meant.
• He replied: “Oh yeah, I think they should leave.”

--Tataral (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this what they term the "great transatlantic dialogue"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, Brexit is a tabloid and informal term as already stated above, but also for us to use it for this article's title might suggest the article is non-neutral. The current title is fine, since it does what it says on the tin, so to speak. This is Paul (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons as 'This is Paul'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a tabloid term and my crystal ball tells me it will fall into disuse very quickly. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Is the term Brexit referendum commonly used? The use of "Brexit" to mean the (proposed or actual) exit of the UK from the EU is common. But I'm not convinced that the referendum itself is commonly referred to as the "Brexit referendum". "EU Referendum" seems more common (examples from BBC and Guardian. Iapetus (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It wasn't a "Brexit-referendum" it was a membership-referendum, and "Brexit" was only one of two possible choises. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "Brexit" is too colloquial and informal. It's a perfectly valid term to redirect to the series of articles on the UK leaving the EU. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UNDUE info (?)

In the section entitled "Reactions to the result", under the subsection entitled "Political", I think the entire section "Immigration policy" should be removed, as it only speaks about what some politician thinks about UK immigration going forward. This section seems like undue commentary/opinion from a MEP rather than a notable reaction to the Brexit vote. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily undue because so many people voted Leave to stop immigration, and Daniel Hannan is not a marginal player. Perhaps we could create a "Misleading promises from the Vote Leave campaign" section though. So far there seems to be immigration, NHS funding, etc, all of which explain the widely reported voter remorse.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the more relevant question is whether the quotes are specific to the Brexit reaction, or are general quotes on immigration we are using to show thought process. The latter is not Undue but is likely original research unless you have a source specifically linking the two.Jbower47 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The context is that many British people voted for Brexit thinking immigrants would be forced to leave immediately, but the Vote Leave campaigners are now admitting that's not the case. Hannan is responding to the referendum result. So it's very relevant indeed to the Brexit reaction. The problem is nobody seems to know what will happen to immigrants already living in the UK, or British nationals who live in Spain, etc. In other words, this "Immigration policy" subsection is not undue at all, but nobody knows what the policy is.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that only one major Leave campaigner (Hannan) has said this. If only one person has said this (and there are many figures who are more important than him, such as Johnson, Gove, and Farage), and I don't see why it is not undue to put the opinion of one person in a subsection. I'm not saying that we should whitewash this article, but is this really the best way to present this information?

Also, it would probably be much worse to create a section entitled "Misleading promises from the Vote Leave campaign" (btw, it's not like the Remain campaign is innocent of this as well). I have to ask you, with full politeness and respect, whether your goal here is to objectively present this referendum or to negatively portray one side of the campaign when doing so is unnecessary and pov. I guess I should leave this for other editors, but I am a little concerned about the neutrality of this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. But I am still worried about the neutrality of this article. I agree that this material should not be entirely removed, but I also think that there must be a better way of presenting this info than this. We could just put this info in Hannan's article (I don't know if it is already there) and leave it out of this one, as this info only concerns one person. What do you think? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think the subsection will have to be expanded, once the government has found an immigration policy.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Once the government has an immigration policy, then this section would be necessary, but now, it is completely unnecessary, as it only displays the comment/opinion of a single politician, one who probably does not even have the power to affect immigration policy one way or another. As it is now, this section definitely violates WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, and possibly WP:NPOV and should be removed or moved to another place in the article, at least until this section can be expanded with better info. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. He's admitting he campaigned to leave the EU but had no plan if the UK left. That's not undue; that's a lack of leadership we shouldn't redact.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Because both of us have two completely different views on what to do with the content in question, I think it would be best to request a Third Opinion to clear up this dispute. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

More info has been added that largely has calmed my concerns. However, my Third Opinion request will still stand. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree with you both. There is currently no government policy on immigration once the UK leaves the EU. I also agree it is undue weight for the comments of just 2 politicians to be included to represent the UK case. I agree this section should be deleted until the UK has a a stated immigration policy for after it leaves the EU. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I object. Looks better now anyway, and Wikipedia is a work in progress...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, I renamed the section so it would better represent and summarize the corresponding info, which has more to do with immigration concerns or concerns about potential/future policy, rather than actual policy. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Good edit - thanks. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

March for Europe and other demonstrations

Just wondering is this is worth a mention somewhere. There have been a few pro-Europe rallies and demonstrations since the referendum, and I don't think we've covered them so far (though I haven't spent the two hours or so reading the whole article would require so could be wrong). Any thoughts. This is Paul (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

An estimated 30,000 people, says The Grauniad, so I think yes, the march deserves a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Effect of excluding underage voters

The article currently says "Opinion polls conducted during the votes for the referendum show that the excluded voters would have voted with an overwhelming majority to remain and that an inclusion of the age-group of 16–17-year-old citizens would have led to a win of the Remain campaign". This is sourced to an Independent article which says "With 1.46 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK - and with that 82 per cent voting Remain - the number would have matched the 1.2 million difference between Out and In, potentially changing the result completely." The logic of the Independent article seems seriously flawed however. Even if we assumed 100% turnout among 16/17 year old and they voted 82% for Remain, this would only have reduced the gap with 900,000 to about 300,000 and not changed the result. If we more realistically assume a turnout of about 36% in this age group (similar to other young voters according to exit polls), the gap would solely have been reduced with 300,000+ and Leave would still have won with more than 800,000 votes. I suggest we remove the above sentence I quoted. Iselilja (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The article already discusses the demographic variation in voting patterns by age. I think that is sufficient and this Independent article is flawed and does not inclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Evening Standard as an independent source

Given that the Evening Standard is a local paper for London (please correct me if I am wrong) and London very markedly voted to remain in the EU, I am wondering whether it is an independent source for this article. I was also getting this feeling during discussions/edits about the increase in racist abuse and crimes. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is, although it's edited by Sarah Sands, not by the people of London. I'm not sure what Evgeny Lebedev would have to say about any EU bias. I think you should start a new thread for this, Dr. Chrissy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy's comment makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. The Standard is a reliable, normal newspaper, used extensively as a source across Wikipedia. Take it to the RS noticeboard if you want, but you'll be laughed out of there! Bondegezou (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Crikey! I only asked a question! Many National newspapers in the UK (and other countries) show a clear support for one or other of the political parties, and also for the remain/leave arguments. I was simply asking whether anyone else was detecting bias in the Evening Standard in their reporting of racist incidents after the referendum and their polls on whether there should be a second referendum. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A. C. Grayling

Should Professor Grayling's open letter, to all 650 MPs, published in the Evening Standard, urging Parliamnet not to trigger Article 50, be mentioned: New College of the Humanities, Evening Standard? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? Is he notable? Did you read his letter?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A. C. Grayling has his own article on WP - I think this makes him notable. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it and I think it is very well-considered and sensible. Did you read it? I thought this part was particularly telling: "Referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time. Government by referendum is government by crowd acclamation: not democracy, but ochlocracy." But my personal view of his argument is irrelevant. I think it's notable because it's an eloquent and insightful analysis by a leading academic. Something that would be well-suited to an encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Mishcon de Reya

Mishcon de Reya is taking pre-emptive legal action against the government, following the EU referendum result, to try to ensure article 50 is not triggered without an Act of Parliament. Many sources for this including The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, BBC News. This seems a significant development. But not sure if it belongs in this article or in United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

...Or perhaps in the "Aftermath..." article? We need a little rationalisation here. What about 3 articles, i.e. pre-referendum, post-referendum and United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union which only applies once article 50 is invoked. Technically, we still might not be leaving the EU. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Splitting out Reactions to the result section

This article is getting very long, and some of the reactions section is quite secondary - the Conservative leadership election was certainly caused by the referendum, but Boris being knifed by Gove is quite tangential to the referendum itself. Therefore, I will split it out to Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, unless anyone has any objections. Smurrayinchester 11:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is getting way too long. Is the intention to create 2 articles, one pre-referendum and one post-referendum? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A good idea. No objections, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we've not got a messy situation where material is repeated across both articles. We should drastically cut down aftermath coverage here and point people to the separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think you mean "now". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I did indeed mean "now"! I've done some more chopping of the article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Petition for a new referendum

YouGov: "British public opposes a second referendum by almost 2 to 1"

"The latest research from YouGov/Channel 5 Shows ... that most British people (58%) oppose holding a second referendum. This includes not only 91% of Leave voters, but also 29% of Remain voters. 11% don't know.Even in an extreme situation, such as the break up of the United Kingdom, most people (51%) still oppose holding a second referendum. In the event of Scottish independence, only 30% of people would support holding a second referendum."

--77.10.21.166 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait for the press to pick it up (probably tomorrow) and we'll insert it somewhere into the section. This is Paul (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Referring to 51% of an unspecified polling sample as "most people" seems a strange choice of words. Makes me wonder about the quality of this poll.Charles (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"Most" as a quantifier: One uses most to refer to the majority of a group of things or people or the largest part of something. --77.10.28.236 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this is acceptable usage for the organization producing the survey, because if the sample is designed to be representative, they generally assume that statements about the sample apply to the population (depending on the confidence interval and statistical significance). I don't think the usage would be appropriate for Wikipedia, because most tends to imply a (very?) significant majority (significant as used in common parlance), and would therefore be misleading.. --Boson (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"shows ... most British people"? What a ridiculous claim. What was the sample size and how was it selected? To find out what "most British people" want, you'd have to ask them, wouldn't you... using, I don't know, maybe a national referendum? And even then millions might not vote, and you'd be left wondering is if it was a fair representation, wouldn't you? 217.38.93.131 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"The latest research from ..." You do understand the concept of survey methodology, don't you? --77.10.28.236 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So what was the precise methodology employed here? A great deal of political opinion polling is regarded as unreliable. If this was a particularly robust study, that could be made clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not for us to question the methodology of this survey result. This YouGov survey must be added to the article, otherwise please also remove the YouGov results that are used in the opinion polling section, as well as in the Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum article. --89.204.130.21 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

We actually question methods all the time, even in areas such as science. This is part of responsible editing. However, I take your point about content from the same organisation being included in some sections but not others. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I would imagine that sample sizes vary widely, even for polls taken by the same organisation. I'm not very convinced by the argument that if an organisation has one poll included in an article, it should therefore have all its others reported too, in whatever section they best fit. The full results page here shows that the sample size was "1760 GB Adults". There seem to be figures by region, although they total 1759! I don't see any explanation of "weighted sample", so I assume there was no weighting. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Come on, folks ... seriously?! You don't want to add this YouGov survey to the article, because it does not reflect your personal opinion?
A wp:rs that is used all over the wp?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often misattributed to Voltaire) --82.113.99.217 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but wasn't it Evelyn Beatrice Hall who originally attributed it (or the thought behind it) to him? --Boson (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This might be of interest. Yougov write "we publish a margin of error of 3% on most polls, which we encourage media to make reference to", so we should perhaps mention that. --Boson (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure S. G. Tallentyre would be proud of you. So, YouGov tell us that "only the online polls revealed the true state of the race". Was this one on-line too? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans - I was actually imagining the opposite to you, i.e. an organisation such as YouGov would use a similar number of respondents. I have no evidence to support this. I would have thought there is a minimum number of respondents to be considered representative of a population and going above this would simply be a case of diminishing returns. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what is meant by "we publish a margin of error of 3% on most polls"? Are they saying, "our results may be 3% wrong in either direction"? i.e. three out of every hundred people we ask may have given us the wrong answer? How do they test for that? (by the way, the margin of difference in the actual referendum result was 3.78%) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I take this to mean that (if you assume that the sample was truly random) there is a 95% chance of the sample results correctly predicting the population results within 3% either way. That would probably hold true for a sample size of 1000. Assuming that the sample is half male and half female, that would probably mean that the margin of error for predictions about males or females is 4%. Since we can assume that the sample is not truly random, we can assume that the margin of error (at 95% probability) is higher. --Boson (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC) PS: If you used a sample of 2000, the margin of error would probably be more like 2%. If the respondents gave false answers, I don't think you can say anything about the margin of "error". --Boson (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

To what does that "error" refer? That a response given was inaccurate or that a response, correctly given, was reported wrongly? I don't see "YouGove" make any mention of a 95% confidence value. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no error in the sense of a reply or report being wrong. "Margin of error" refers to the extent to which the result for the whole population can deviate from the result for the sample, based on statistics, usually assuming that the sample is random. The figure is not very meaningful without the confidence level, which is conventionally 95%. Yougov explain the margin of error: "It is, of course, important to note that all polls have a margin of error of around plus or minus three points. This means that 95% of the time we can be confident that the real figure is within three points of what polls show ...".--Boson (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But there is error, isn't there. A poll respondent may not answer truthfully, for whatever reason. I've not looked to see in the relevant article(s), but do you know if we present those studies that support this "three points" claim? I think the public perception (certainly mine) is that polls may be much more inaccurate than this. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Margin of error is a specific statistical concept that describes the uncertainty in the result due to sampling error. It does not cover other possible sources of error, of which there are many. Thus it is an underestimate of the true uncertainty in the result. It is, however, the only bit that we can calculate explicitly and it is a standard term. I think we should thus include it, but with internal links to the relevant Wikipedia articles on what it all means. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So there is no need for any specific study that proves that a given poll exhibits normal sampling error? Every poll will show a three point margin? I thought that depended on the size of the sample - a 100% sample would show no sampling error. Or Are YouGov saying that for all their polls they choose a sample size that will mean a 3% sampling error? I'm not sure that's correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Each poll with have its own "margin of error" based (normally) on the sample size. Polling companies often pick a sample size to give a 3% "margin of error", so we see lots of polls with that "margin of error", but may not. The polling company's published report of the poll will give the exact figures. Some Wikipedia articles on polling results, e.g. Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016, give margins of error for each poll. Presuming the poll has been carried out to certain standards, the "margin of error" will be correct and other sources of error should be minimised. However, recent elections have shown that polls can get it wrong and that they're not successfully minimising other sources of error as much as they should: this probably reflects problems in sampling, although that debate is ongoing. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

slightly off-topic discussion about sample sizes and statistical distributions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1760 doesn't look like a very large sample to me. Not when the population of referendum votes was 33,577,342. In fact that’s a sample size of 0.0000524%. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) You'll have to trust me on the maths, but the size of the population doesn't matter much (if the sampling is done randomly). Indeed, we assume the population is infinite when we do the "margin of error" calculations. 1760 is a pretty big poll. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC) If that's "pretty big", what is the smallest sample size that would ensure a 3% margin of error (for this population, or indeed for an infinite one). Looking forward to your statistical proof. Sorry if this is considered "off topic". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC) A sample size of about 1000 delivers a margin of error of about plus or minus 3%. The requisite maths is in the margin of error article. A larger sample size gives a smaller margin of error, following an inverse square root rule. We are getting off topic if we're discussing your personal understanding of statistical theory: we follow reliable sources, the margin of error article is replete with citations and I am unclear at this point what editing changes you wish to see here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I am amazed that "a sample size of about 1000" is large enough to ensure that the margin of error for any population whatsoever including an infinite one is acceptable. It seems somehow counter-intuitive. But, as you suggest, the article does say: "A random sample of size 1600 will give a margin of error of 0.98/40, or 0.0245—just under 2.5%." So that's just the way statistical theory works, I guess. Perhaps a link to "margin of error" would be useful somewhere? Not just for my benefit, but for that of the general reader. I must apologize for my ignorance, but would a normal distribution equate to a 50/50 split of yes and no votes and does the actual result mean that the population distribution is actually 51.89/48.11 (notwithstanding non-random error)? Does this make any difference? Would that help a reader here at all? Thanks for your clear replies. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Martin, I think these data would not be analysed using a normal distribution. The normal distribution requires a continuous variable such as age or shoe-size. Here we are faced with a choice of only Leave or Remain, so I think it would be analysed using a binomial distribution and the associated statistics. DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC) But people can vote only once, so not a Hypergeometric distribution instead? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I suspect Bondegezou has now given up with me in disgust. Where shall we hat this as off topic? I thought that this was a distribution I had not heard of before, but our article says the Fisher's exact test is based on this. Whatever, the non/replacement is clearly critical and you are correct to make the point. I'm happy to have this hatted if you are. DrChrissy (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Hoorah! I always use a fisher's exact test, it's so much safer. I have now asked a question over a WP:RD/MA, for my sins, where I expect to totally be baffled by an expert answer. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So let's chuck a few more stats into this discussion. This report from The Independent tells us about an Opinion poll suggesting that 7% of those who voted to leave the EU (an estimated 1.1 million) now regret their decision, while this article from the Evening Standard cites a BMG poll that claims it is 13%. However, the latter poll says that most people are against a second referendum. I suspect there are a few polls floating around at present, all of them giving differing results. If we were to mention the YouGov poll I would suggest including the others as well. This is Paul (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You know something is wrong, when this YouGov poll would have been included in the article no questions asked if it suggested "most British people support holding second referendum". Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice logical proof there, Antiochus the Great. Comforting that you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The "Independent" opinion poll has already been (indirectly) added to the article: "Labour MP Geraint Davies has also suggested that a second referendum would focus on the terms of an exit plan, with a default of remaining in the EU if it were rejected. Citing a poll published in the week after the referendum that indicated as many as 1.1 million people who voted to leave the EU now regretted their decision, he tabled an early day motion calling for an exit package referendum, feeling it would "pull [Britain's] future out of the faire"
The article section "Petition for a new referendum" is highly biased. There is a lot of pro-REMAIN POV-pushing going on here. --77.10.28.236 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

We do have at least two high-profile figures who rule it out, as well as David Cameron himself. You could always find some views of people from the Leave camp then post them here for consideration (but nothing from The Sun or The Daily Mail please). I should add here that I have been looking myself, but to me it seems as though post-referendum, the Leave side have been far less vocal on this particular subject. This is Paul (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

And nothing from UKIP Daily either please. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Or their best friends. This is Paul (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is the YouGov opinion poll. That should do. --77.10.28.236 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So wait for the media to run with it. One wonders why they haven't; it ought to be music to the ears of some news outlets. This is Paul (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There is NO reason to wait for the media to run with it. Otherwise please also remove the YouGov results that are used in the opinion polling section, as well as in the Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum article. --77.10.28.236 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I would argue there is a need to wait. That section is about opinion polling, while this particular section is a commentary on whether or not there should be a second referendum. My own personal concern is that to add it rather than a source discussing it (and which places it into context) could look like original research. This is Paul (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There's this story, YouGov: Britons don’t want a second referendum from New Europe, if that's any good. Incidentally, that article also asks whether the survey is credible. I know the ip will jump on it straight away (or maybe dismiss it as biased towards remain), so let's have the views of everyone else. This is Paul (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok, but writing "YouGov also found that euroscepticism correlates with people of lower income and that "higher social grades are more clearly in favour of remaining in the EU", but notes that euroscepticism also has strongholds in "the more wealthy, Tory shires" in the Opinion polling section, using a YouGov reference is not?! This is really getting ridiculous. This kind of biased editing is not doing any favour to the REMAIN campaign, nor will it help to keep the UK in the EU. All it does, is to create an unbalanced, biased article. --77.10.114.96 (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

City A.M. is now reporting this as well (see Sorry, petitioners: Most Britons don't support the idea of a second EU membership referendum, so we could use that. BTW, I'm not aware of this page being used as a campaign tool to keep Britain in the European Union. I think you probably need to calm down and take a stiff brandy. This is Paul (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

(But none of that French rubbish.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• This section seems to verge into undue territory, with far too many quotes, which ought to be very rare in Wikipedia articles. There is now almost more quotes referring to this petition than quotes referring to the discussion prior to the actual referendum, so I think this is also part of WP:Recentism. I would suggest we remove the Blair quote that was inserted just now, and in general this section should be shortened rather than expanded. Iselilja (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But what if the outcome has proved to be much more controversial than the run-up? The result was a great surprise to many, so that would hardly be surprising would it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Since Blair is a former prime minister I think his thoughts on the topic are important, although perhaps we can summarise them. There are actually two issues here–the petition itself, and a debate over whether or not there should be a second referendum. The two are connected, but not mutually exclusive. It may be worth splitting the section into two sections, since not every view expressed specifically references the petition. This may also help to address any concerns of bias. I'd be happy to draft something, although I probably won't have time to do that today. But maybe later on in the week This is Paul (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair and reasonable suggestion, Paul. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Great, I should be able to do it on Tuesday as I'm not around much tomorrow. It doesn't look like it'll be too difficult actually, as the first half talks about the petition, before the second part opens up into a wider debate about whether or not there should be another referendum. I also trimmed the Blair comment a bit to take out the Brexiteers lied to us stuff. This is Paul (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV???

I don't think the non-legally binding thing in the beginning is OK. It should be placed somewhere else, maybe in the explanation below. I don't see any other referendum page saying that the referendum is non-legally binding or is binding. In the Alternative Vote Referendum, I don't see a starter saying that that referendum was legally binding (correct me if I'm wrong).
49.200.244.109 (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This is very important, and it should therefore appear in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean lead. So, maybe you can edit the article pages for the other referendums like AV and ensure that the rule is followed everywhere? It looks odd on a single article. If you want it to stay here I suggest we take it as precedent and reform the other referendum articles along with it.

No, xe actually meant lede.--143.159.32.60 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

49.200.244.109 (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we allow popular sentiment to get into the article? Maybe put the legally binding note at the end of the lede.

--188.165.30.149 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I do think it would be best not to mention this fact in the intro if all the other British referendum articles also don't include this fact in their intros. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's very important to keep the information in the lead. I have zero interest in editing articles about other referenda, but the IP addresses above could do that instead.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree content about it being non-binding should be in the lead/lede (either word can be used). It is a vital piece of information. I was not aware of this until after the referendum and I think many voters were the same - I'll see if I can find an RS for this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I find the idea that it's "POV" to state a fact that the referendum isn't legally binding frankly bizarre. The other British referendums may not have legally binding, but mostly opted to preserve the status quo, with the votes for change long implemented Dtellett (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was having that thought myself about the heading of this thread. The OP has made very, very few edits and could be considered as new and making an acceptable mistake due their lack of experience. Does anyone know if it is acceptable to make a good faith change of a thread heading? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Issues: A number of voters didn't receive their voting times on time

I have noticed that there is no mention of complaints from a number of voters who didn't receive their voting times on time, or received it too late, or their votes were disposed by the Spanish postal service, since the return envelope sent to voters by the Electoral Board had a free postage stamp, but the stam was valid for the UK only. the Spanish post disposed the letters as sent with no postage fee. More here: http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2016/06/25/thousands-of-expats-had-problems-sending-and-receiving-postal-vote-in-eu-referendum/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony.bangor (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Expats also plan a lawsuit against the Electoral Commission for denying them the right to vote: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-british-expats-considering-lawsuit-over-missing-postal-votes-after-hundreds-denied-say-in-eu-referendum/ar-BBu43MP?li=AAdeCd7&ocid=spartanntp --143.159.32.60 (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Traditional values and Brexit

Not sure where to put this, but Stian Westlake of think tank Nesta argues that research indicated that rather than class deciding how people voted in the referendum, it had more to do with whether or not they supported "traditional" values. "[Leave voters] tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present." Check it out here. If we don't already mention it then it may be worth including in one of the articles relating to this topic, but as I've said I'm not sure which one would be most suitable. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not easy at the moment to attempt to summarise the huge number of comment pieces that have appeared in the media trying to explain the vote - but certainly many articles that I have read focus on a cosmopolitan/liberal/modern v provincial/traditional/nostalgic spectrum - like this for example. It's dangerous to cherry-pick articles at this stage though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We are staying in Europe. That's that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.218.106 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Binding?

In the UK a referendum is not binding on Parliament, because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the principle that Parliament always has the final say. Thus a referendum can only be advisory. (Parliament not being bound by an earlier act of Parliament, such as an act that said it could not be amended for X years, is a variant of this principle—that the current Parliament is bound by anyone else, including an earlier Parliamentary decision.) This cannot be interfered with by any promise that the referendum will give the people the final say, even if the promise is made in the referendum information. Such is the legal position. If promises of that kind have been made, then one might say that the referendum is politically binding: that is, Parliament would need a politically compelling reason not to accept the result of the referendum. This perspective appears to have been assumed by the government during the Scottish Indyref. Wikiain (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-organize Non-European Responses and Economists sections?

The Non-European section includes some sub sections that should probably be in the Economists section.

Yes, I added one a few minutes ago (G20) but only because the IMF sub section is under Non-European. Should the IMF and G20 sub sections not be moved to the Economists section? I can do so but wonder if there is consensus on this. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Separate Parts for pre-Brexit and post-referendum content?

I wonder if this article needs to be reorganized extensively, into pre-referendum and post-referendum Parts? For example, the Economists and Non-European Responses sections now include content from before the vote and from after the vote. Yes I added some a few minutes ago to the IMF and G20 sub sections, for example; this was when I began to wonder if the entire article needs a separate Part 1: pre-referendum and Part 2: post-referendum. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree the two should be largely separate. But I think this article should focus on the pre-referendum content, as the post-referendum stuff is in Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. The Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 definitely needs work. Perhaps we could move chunks from this Brexit article to that article. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I moved the sections of Economy and Scotland that related to post-referendum to the Aftermath article. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Should this article be closed?

See the previous two Talk sections.

This article relates to a past event: leading up to the Brexit referendum and the outcome of the vote (Leave the EU). That is all in the past now. Unless some incredible information about pre-referendum comes to light at this late date, this article should be closed to edits, in my view. I have removed the post-referendum sections from Economy and Scotland and moved them to the Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 article. If there is other such content that I did not notice, that should be moved too. I am not a Senior Editor so it's not up to me to close an article down, but someone should probably do so. OR at least post a note to editors DO NOT ADD INFORMATION ABOUT POST-REFERENDUM TO THIS ARTICLE - THAT SHOULD BE IN THE AFTERMATH ARTICLE. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Just a couple of friendly comments. All articles on WP are considered to be a "work in progress" so there will not be any support for "closing down" the article. However, I also agree with your point. To my mind, this subject area should be split into 3 articles (Pre-vote, the result, post-vote), with possibly more in the future. This "pre-vote" article should now largely be left alone, unless further relevant information come to light. You can leave a note to editors by using (please view this in edit mode) in the first line of the article. There is no such thing as a "senior editor" - you might be meaning an "administrator". All the best. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, [[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]; OK, I will add a note suggesting that it not be updated with content that occurred after the referendum. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I also added this: For the coverage of developments after the referendum, see Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There are three articles, this one on the aftermath AND the British withdrawal from the European Union, see Brexit and the referendum, see United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've tweaked the hatnote. The Aftermath article should only cover the events immediately arising from the referendum result - not "developments after the referendum" more broadly construed. Over the medium and longer term, more specific developments will have their own articles - for example, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. And, over time, there will no doubt be many new reliable sources published that provide new information on the referendum process itself, which will need to be incorporated into this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. I agree with the revision. Peter K Burian.

Requested move 22 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. No such user (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

---

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Brexit referendum – Now that Brexit has been accepted as the WP:COMMONNAME, we should simplify this unsightly title. — JFG ^talk 23:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY. juju (hajime! | waza) 01:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We had a discussion on this very recently: see Talk:United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016/Archive_3#Requested_move_25_June_2016. The idea was rejected then. Nothing has changed since. Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot has changed in a month: the UK has a new government who pledged to execute the withdrawal, and here on Wikipedia Brexit was now decisively accepted as the common name, so it's worth asking the question afresh. — JFG ^talk 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot has changed, but most of it has nothing to do with what this article should be called. The points in the previous discussion all still hold: this simply wasn't usually referred to as the "Brexit referendum" by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, User:Bondegezou made a good point in the previous discussion that there are few people referring to it as the 'Brexit referendum'. I suspect that's what it will be called in a few month's time, however.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The current name suffers from WP:TLDR. Note that this discussion just moved United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union to Brexit. The sources are using this; we should as well per CONSISTENCY, COMMONNAME, CONSISE, as noted above. (Though several sources are simply calling it the "Brexit vote", I'm fine with "referendum".) --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 21:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, while the actual process of withdrawing from the EU is widely known as Brexit the referendum on whether or not to withdraw has generally been called the 'EU referendum' or 'EU memebership referendum' - the current title reflects this. Somehow I feel that if Britain had voted remain then we would still have an article entitled 'Brexit' but there wouldn't have been proposals to move this page too. Ebonelm (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Alt rename to European Union membership referendum in the United Kingdom, 2016. While not shorter, this is less of a noun chain and more natural language. --PanchoS (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional support for this alternate rename iff the actual nomination, which remains my strong preference, fails. juju (hajime! | waza) 22:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Question/comment The focus seems to be on the word "Brexit", but I am a bit confused by the word "referendum". I am sorry if this seems profoundly ignorant (I'm not a Brit), but isn't a referendum a binding vote on an issue? In the US, the voters of California, for example, have initiative and referendum, meaning that voters can directly enact and repeal laws by popular vote. A referendum is always binding. (In Minnesota we do not have initiative or referendum.) The online dictionaries are mixed on this question, as far as I can tell, but most seem to agree that a referendum yields an official result, not a measure of popular opinion. As the vote in the UK is not binding on Parliament, isn't it an advisory vote? To avoid all of these issues, which I admit might have more obvious legal answers in the UK, maybe calling it the "Brexit vote" would be better? I don't get on WP much anymore, and I'm quite content to leave this decision to you who know more than I do. I just want to raise this issue to make sure we're not overlooking something because of the focus on the word Brexit. Dcs002 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A "referendum" may also be "consultative" ( advisory). --Robertiki (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That answers my concern, and it suits me just fine. Thank you! Dcs002 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Before the vote, no reliable sources called it the "Brexit referendum" and the proposal feels like a tabloid title, not for a encyclopedia. At least, it should maintain the year as Brexit 2016 referendum. Today you all know it is 2016; ten years down, somebody would have difficulty remembering it was the 2016 referendum.--Robertiki (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

But there is only one "Brexit referendum". We don't have "American Revolution of 1776" or "American Civil War of 1861" because each of those events only happened once. If somehow there were ever a second "Brexit referendum", only then would it be appropriate to include the year in the title like you suggest. juju (hajime! | waza) 06:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

But it should be that way. Forcing American Revolution of 1776 I get about 32,000 hits with Google, the most from books. And there is another: The American Revolution of 1800: How Jefferson Rescued Democracy from ... --Robertiki (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Here a source. --Robertiki (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This has recently been discussed and the same arguments apply. We should avoid tabloid terms as article headings.Charles (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment from OP – I would support an alternate shorter name such as "British EU referendum" or "British EU membership referendum" if there is no consensus on "Brexit referendum". My main criticism of the current name is that it's entirely made up by Wikipedia (see prior discussions for detailed arguments about this) and that it's way too long, especially when you consider the sub-articles Results of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, etc. In article titling decisions, we must strive to be both WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. We must also strive to be grammatically correct, hence using the proper demonym adjective "British" instead of the clumsy noun adjunct "United Kingdom", which if we keep it would need a possessive 's. In fact this title features a whopping triple noun adjunct, with "United Kingdom", "European Union" and "membership" all struggling to qualify "referendum"… We need WP:CLARITY, my friends, think of the readers! — JFG ^talk 09:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to see "membership" dropped from the title. Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - too colloquial and potentially misleading. The referendum was not "about Brexit" - there were two options which carried equal weight, and we should not name the article based on how the eventual vote turned out. While it is reasonable (just about) to term the entire subsequent process as "Brexit", that does not mean that every article associated with it should use the same colloquial term. For clarity, the current article title should remain - I would oppose any changes to alter the word order, add possessive apostrophes, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment What do reliable sources call it? The UK government called it the "EU referendum". That was The Guardian's term too. Ditto the BBC. And The Independent. And the Electoral Commission. It is obvious that "Brexit referendum" is a poor suggestion that fails WP:COMMONNAME: it was rejected before, suggesting it again so recently does not seem particularly useful to me. The question is how we should wikify "EU referendum", the term everyone uses. Do we need to spell out "EU": yes, I think that's standard. Do we need to add a year? That seems to be the usual approach. Do we need a country qualifier? Yes, and "United Kingdom" is used rather than "British" on other articles. Ergo, we should go for "United Kingdom European Union referendum, 2016". Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose We have a naming guideline for election and referendum articles (WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums), which the proposal is clearly not in line with – and this is the ultimate policy/guideline with which the title must comply. Plus any deviation from this would be a violation of WP:CONSISTENCY (see the contents of Category:Referendums in the United Kingdom and Category:2016 referendums). Number 57 11:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from the guideline: For elections and referendums, use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date", so this should be "British EU membership referendum, 2016" or just "British EU referendum, 2016" to follow common usage of "EU referendum" by most sources. — JFG ^talk 02:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The demonym used for UK elections is "United Kingdom" (presumably because of the whole Britain/UK distinction): see United Kingdom general election, 2015 all the way back to United Kingdom general election, 1802, plus United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 and United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, "British" is the appropriate demonym for the whole United Kingdom. Quoting from the article that you cited, Terminology of the British Isles: British is an adjective pertaining to the United Kingdom; for example, a citizen of the UK is called a British citizen. See also British people, British Army, etc. Methinks we should use "British election" to designate any election happening in the United Kingdom. To take another example where the demonym doesn't sound like the country name, take "Dutch" as the demonym for the Netherlands (or Holland). We have Dutch general election, 2012 and friends, not Netherlands general election, 2012. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally I agree that "British" is preferable, but having all the UK's election and referendum article stuck with "United Kingdom" rather than "British" is a historical legacy of some Irish nationalist editors objecting to the term "British" referring to the whole of the UK in the early days of Wikipedia. Similarly, American elections are at "United States presidential election, 2016" etc because of objections to the term "American". If you were to start an RM suggesting all the UK articles are moved to "British..." (we can't do it piecemeal) then I would fully support it. Number 57 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll gladly launch this process. Can't name hundreds of pages realistically, so I'll drop the RM at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015 and mention that the effects are intended to apply to all articles about British elections. — JFG ^talk 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"The demonym used for UK elections is 'United Kingdom'"... but Gibraltar also voted. They are British, but they are not part of the United Kingdom. Opera hat (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with Number 57 that it is preferable to adhere to the naming guideline for election and referendum articles. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The term "Brexit referendum" is a colloquialism and shouldn't be used for the title of an article. Whatever next? Indyref and Indyref2? This is Paul (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I also agree with Number 57 that it is preferable to adhere to the naming guideline. Also with others that "Brexit" is a colloquialism. I'm now seeing "Scoxit", re Indyref2 (and dread what might be invented if Portugal wished to leave the EU). Wikiain (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Portugo" or "Departugal"? Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Brexit referendum is used as a shorthand and is rarely used, except in tabloid headlines as an editor commented above. Whilst Brexit is the name of the process, 'Brexit referendum' is a plausible redirect but definitely not a plausible title. --st170e^talk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Referendum result toolbar correction needed

How do you access the referendum results toolbar As there needs to be a correction to the number of eligible voters as the final total total was in fact 46,524,120 according to official figures and not 46,500,001 but I have no access to the toolbar itself I cannot change this figure. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:AD50:4EE8:3910:64AA (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)) The figure 46,500,001 is correct as Gibraltar's electoral figures has been added twice in error! (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:2979:E125:93:4F36 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

"Legally binding" and footnotes - merge into article?

TL;DR: proposed changes at the end. I came here via reading that rant on the NPOV noticeboard. I was briefly tempted to go WP:BOLD.

Currently, in the lead, there is the sentence The referendum result was not legally binding. with three refs:

• An analysis of the HoL debates (the footnote itself may be WP:OR, by the way; better to have direct quotes from the Lords);
• The "1000 lawyers" letter, via the Independent (not an independent source, as is evident from some of the letter's wording, still worth citing though);
• The BBC piece about Brexit. (That one, however, is an authoritative source.)

The issue is not dealt with in the rest of the article as far as I could tell (to be honest, I did not read it in full).

I feel the lead sentence is unclear. "Legally binding", though it was used in the press, does not have any precise meaning. If I were asked, I would say the following, but it ventures into WP:OR territory:

Leaving will need that the government or/and the parliament does something (AFAIK nones from Leave contests that). Since the European Union Referendum Act 2015 contains no "countdown provision" (is there a better word?) such as "if the result is leave then government shall trigger article 50 no later than (some date)", then the result of the referendum itself does not produce any legal result.

I think we should rather take inspiration from the wording at European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015#Referendum_result and merge that with the question of whether an act of parliament is necessary (or whether the govt. can trigger article 50 by itself). Notice also that the second ref (the lawyers' letter) seems to take the view that "legally binding" = "does not require an act of parliament" (The result of the referendum must be acknowledged. Our legal opinion is that the referendum is advisory. The European Referendum Act does not make it legally binding. We believe that in order to trigger Article 50, there must first be primary legislation.).

I propose the following changes:

• The section Notification of intention to leave the EU is renamed Legal process to leave the EU, and rewritten with one paragraph of "the EU referendum does not produce legal effects yet" in the vein of European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015#Referendum_result, one paragraph of "article 50 is the way out", and one paragraph of "could the government trigger it without an act of parliament?".
• The lead sentence is replaced by something more objective, such as "as of September 2016, no legal provision had been passed to require the UK to exit the EU, or to set a timescale to do so". It is not about the precise wording, it is about avoiding "legally binding". The same refs could be used, but I think these could be placed in the section per WP:REFLEAD (see above change).

If I did miss significant discussion on those issues when I looked in the TP archives, feel free to WP:TROUT me. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You may also want to consult this rant on the reliable sources noticeboard, which basically covers the same ground, but has different respondees. From what I understand the referendum is not legally binding since Parliament is sovereign and could repeal it if it chose to do so. A similar, though not identical, example can be found in the Scotland Act 1978 which was repealed even though the 1979 referendum to establish a Scottish Assembly produced a majority in favour (albeit this happened largely thanks to a clause that was included). The anon ip's other beef with this article seems to be the use of sources that supported remaining in the EU, which are in the majority. However, since only two quality sources (i.e., sources we would consider encyclopedic) backed leaving the EU then anyone having issue with the use of too many references supporting remain is never going to be satisfied, since what else do we use? This is Paul (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The referendum is not legally binding because there is nothing to repeal. The government is completely free to choose their own wildly unlikely preconditions for invoking Article 50 or simply ignore the referendum altogether; it might not be politically astute to do so or a particularly likely course of events but that's another matter entirely. Conversely if the public had voted "Yes" in the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011, the Alternative Vote system would automatically have taken effect at the next general election unless the government managed to pass a new Act of Parliament repealing the relevant part of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

On the sourcing front, here's a couple more authoritative and neutral sources [2][3]. And here's the most outspokenly pro-Brexit newspaper using the exact same phrase [4] to make it clear that "not legally binding" is neutral phrasing accepted by the other side of the debate, regardless of the WP:OR opinions of anonymous ranters on other editor pages. I would suggest "not legally binding" is most commonly understood as having the simple, objective meaning of "not imposing any legal requirement upon anybody to do anything", which is accurate, objective, timeless and more relevant to the referendum itself than the lack of timescale for withdrawal (yet). It's also a phrase widely used by reliable sources. We certainly shouldn't be amending the wording because somebody keeps reposting an essay of WP:OR expressing the opinion that the referendum should in a non-legal sense, be binding. Dtellett (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I meant to say "choose to ignore" rather than "repeal", since there is, as you rightly say, nothing to repeal. Good to see the Diana Express agreeing with the neutral sources on this issue for a change. This is Paul (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I suspect there are other people who genuinely aren't aware of that distinction, which is why I think "not legally binding" is a useful phrase in the lede, particularly at this stage Dtellett (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just in case anyone didn't see it (I know I didn't till just now), this discussion was taken to Jimbo's talk page, where the original research/soapbox rant was continued (see archived version here) This is Paul (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

British independence

I'm not sure where exactly to post this, and it is related to this topic, so please bear with me for a moment. I'm concerned the article British independence is a direct copy/paste from one or more other articles. Its first version seems too well formatted for it not to be, especially when its creator is a newly registered user with only three previous edits (all to their user page). Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That article looks like a case of OR WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This really should be discussed on the talk page of the article. I might also suggest posting some friendly (and neutral) fyi notices on relevant talk pages (WP:Politics, WP:UK, WP:UKWNB etc. ). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, discussion opened and notices posted. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Added Quotation

I have added David Dimbleby's quotation when he announced the BBC's forecast projection for Leaves win in the BBCs coverage at 0440 BST on Friday June 24 as I think its one of the most important things he has ever said and a monumental moment of that night and I feel it has got to be on this articles page on the TV coverage section and possibly also on his own page, (151.225.210.22 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

New results map with both local and regional maps on same image!!

Why can't we produce a map which is similar to the above shown with the local authority area results on the left and the regional results on the right from the EU referendum so we have a image with both maps. It would work brilliantly the Map above which is from 2016 Welsh assembly election is a great demonstration of how to bring both maps together. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:C56B:D432:32B:E87A (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Lead section

I can't tag the lead section yet, but I might someday. The lead section is too long for most readers. The referendum is very recent; it's not a century old (or half of it). While the article "Napoleon" has exceptions to MOS:LEAD, the topic (referendum itself) isn't that complex compared to Napoleon, the French dictator. Time to have it reworked or skimmed to... say, three or four paragraphs? --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Agree this lede needs a good shave! — JFG ^talk 14:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The economic effects in the lead is too detailed and less necessary. The paragraph indicates the media's "doom and gloom" scaremongering. By the way, I removed info about Nigel Farage from the lead because Farage himself resigns but then becomes the party leader again, making the info too outdated to be in the lede. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Legally binding (again)

This is a long edit summary to my revery to Wikiain's edit.

Wikiain said that:

'clarified reason for not being binding - such "clear words" might have been unconstitutional anyway, but that may come up on appeal'

As it clear from the referred to paragraphs of the Brexit decision the issue of the referendum having any legal effects was no disputed before the High Court. The Government didn't argue that it did. Instead they argued that the Crown's prerogative treaty making powers permitted them to denounce the EU Treaties. The court noted that:

"The Secretary of State's ease regarding his ability to give notice under Article 50 was based squarely on the Crown's prerogative power. His counsel made it clear that he does not contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. He is right not to do so. Any argument to that effect would have been untenable as a matter of statutory interpretation of the 2015 Referendum Act.

That Act falls to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act." (my emphasis)

It is not possible for UK legislation to be unconstitutional. When the judges refer to the Act being "interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy" they mean that only clear language could overturn them, not that this couldn't be done.

The AV referendum legislation was not unconstitutional. The true meaning of parliamentary sovereignty is that had the British electorate approved AV, parliament could still have repealed the law and kept first-past-the-post. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Blue-Haired Lawyer. I believe that my recent alteration, which you reverted and I have restored, is accurate in itself—whereas its predecessor was not.

I went on to remark, unnecessarily but I thought helpfully: "such 'clear words' might have been unconstitutional anyway, but that may come up on appeal". I had in mind the aspect of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty that no parliament can bind its successors or, perhaps, bind its own future actions: Dicey, 10th end 1959, 64-70. In short, it cannot use its sovereignty to diminish its sovereignty. The High Court appears to conflict with that by supposing that the 2016 referendum might have been made legally binding by clear words in the referendum act. My remark was flagging that the issue may receive attention in the appeal.

I hope you will agree that the passage should be left as it now is, pending the judgement of the Supreme Court.

(I had put this reply on your Talk page but have transferred it to here.) Wikiain (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting what the Court said. The "clear words" would not be about binding future parliaments but rather about permitting or requiring the government to do something. For example the referendum act could have required the government to give an Article 50 notification in the event the referendum passed. This is what the AV referendum act did regarding AV. It provided that:

"(1)The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—

(a)more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and

(b)the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.

(2)If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions." [5]

That is the kind of clear language meant. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt, any case, the validity of the passage in the AV legislation that reads: "the Minister must make an order repealing". Since when has it been possible for secondary legislation (such as a ministerial order) to amend primary legislation? Unless (perhaps) the minister is so empowered by the latter, in which case the power to repeal would come from that legislation and not from the referendum. For that reason, the example of the AV legislation doesn't seem to support the High Court's supposition regarding the effect of a referendum upon primary legislative capacity. If litigation on the AV legislation (which I didn't track) has altered the position, I'd be glad to learn. However, the High Court has been explicit (paras 106 and 107) that the EU referendum was legally only (as it says) "advisory". Wikiain (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Clauses permitting the amendment of primary legislation by secondary legislation are fairly common. They're called Henry VIII clauses. The European Communities Act 1972 permits the amendment of primary legislation to implement EU law and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 permitted defence regulations to amend statutes. The High Court did not say anything about parliament's legislative capacity. It just says that the act did not give the government a statutory right to give an article 50 notification. Not that it couldn't have.

As it stands the lead suggests that the "constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy" would prevent a referendum from being legally binding. This is clearly not the case. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was aware of Henry VIII clauses, though not of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (UK) or, therefore, that this act has been extremely controversial in terms of separation of powers, to which I was alluding.

But please stop simply reverting in the article: what you have been reverting to is wrong anyway. What is not in doubt is, as the High Court stated clearly, that this referendum was only advisory. The current text (as I have just restored) reads: "The referendum result was not legally binding, owing to the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, and the legislation authorising the referendum did not contain clear words to the contrary", referenced to para 106 of the High Court judgement. That is correct as a summary of what the Court decided.

I merely pointed out that the Supreme Court may take a different view about the effect of "clear language". Your new links appear to confirm that it is useful to consider that possibility. Wikiain (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What the High Court said was that owing to the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy the statute must be interpreted not to be legally binding in the absence of clear words to the contrary. But that is not what your wording says. Your wording implies that even if there were clear wording to the contrary, it would still not have been legally binding. Which is why I keep reverting. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

On your first sentence there, we are in agreement—except that what might have been legally binding would not have been the statute (no doubts on that score) but the result of the referendum.

As to what you go on to say, I think that my wording states exactly what we agree on: that, in the High Court's view, the referendum could have been legally binding if the referendum act had contained clear words to that effect (which it did not). I'd be happy to discuss an improvement to the wording.

I'm still contemplating that the Supreme Court may disagree with the High Court on this—which of course it could do, on any point. Something for us all to ponder, but not appropriate for the article

The Supreme Court hearing is to begin on 5 December and issues of Scots law may be taken into account (sorry that the link is partially paywalled, but it's the best I have). I think Scots law may be different on the constitutional principles. Wikiain (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

May a bystander officiously interpose here that, on the point of the UK constitution including the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament and its partially devolved government, the constitutional law is identical, but it is apparent that the Supreme Court desires questions connected with that legislation to be separately argued by the Crown law officer appointed and instructed by the Scottish government, just as the practise in competing claims concerning trust property a court will require distinct interests, particularly of infants, to be separately represented. The main thing just now is that nothing in the High Court ruling can be regarded as settled, or worth much debate in the article, until it is affirmed, varied or overruled by the Supreme Court. Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The cited part of the judgement set out what the parties agree on, not what was in dispute. The government does not claim that the referendum gives them the statutory power to invoke Article 50 and the respondents don't disagree. The same is true of the Northern Ireland case @ para 65, although not stated as explicitly. Wikiain seems to be of the opinion that the issue is open, and the Supreme Court might decide that the referendum was legally binding. (As far as I can tell!) But it's difficult to see how this could happen when the parties aren't arguing it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) As far as the current wording goes

"The referendum result was not legally binding, owing to the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, and the legislation authorising the referendum did not contain clear words to the contrary."

it seems to be gibberish to me. It gives two entirely different reasons for the referendum not being legally binding without explaining the relationship between them. The principles are presumptive, interpretative principles, but we're raising them to more than that. The text I keep replacing it with:

"The referendum result was not legally binding as the legislation authorising the referendum did not set out any legal consequences of a vote either way."

is correct and succinct. And leaves further explanation of interpretative principles for elsewhere. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer's text. Bondegezou (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, I have never suggested that "the Supreme Court might decide that the referendum was legally binding". It might, of course, but I have not suggested so. What I have suggested is that the Supreme Court might disagree with the Hight Court's supposition that it could have been binding if the referendum act had contained "clear language" to that effect. But, since there was no such language, such disagreement would not make the referendum binding. There is no point in discussing this matter further until we see the judgement of the Supreme Court.

As to the principles, you and your preferred text are mixing up two very different levels. The constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy are high-level substantive norms, not just principles of statutory interpretation. For example, in terms of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty a statutory provision can be invalid if it purports to fetter the legislative capacity of a later parliament. One has to interpret the provision, to ascertain whether it conflicts with the constitutional principle. The constitutional principle is a referent in the interpretation, not a principle governing the interpretive method.

These constitutional principles themselves are the reason why the referendum, like others before it, is not legally binding. The referendum act could have created an exception to that (in the High Court's view), but it did not. The operation of a principle is not affected by absence of a possible exception. Wikiain (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The text should reflect the current state of play. What the Supreme Court might say in the appeal is not relevant. BHL's text accords with Wikipedia's policy of WP:V, whereas, Wikiain, it feels to me like you may be straying into OR. Bondegezou (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I badly concur with Bondegezou's sentiments, viz. that Blue-Haired Lawyer has successfully dominated this exchange. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)--BowlAndSpoon (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in the current version of the lead is: The referendum result was not legally binding, owing to the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, and the legislation authorising the referendum did not contain clear words to the contrary. I do not see this as a summary of content in the main body. If it is retained in the lead, it should be suffiiciently expanded in the body, pinpointing the paragraph(s) of the judgement which support it. Some may regard the answer to a supposed question about "legally binding or not?" to be moot, others as self-evident, hardly worth mentioning anyway. An attempt by Wikipedia editors to interpret by paraphrase the somewhat Delphic pronouncements of the High Court's judgment is not the way to go here. We may surmise that the Supreme Court will have to do so. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I never suggested that speculation on what the Supreme Court might say should be included in the article. I merely offered a surmise (to adopt Quexigator's word) for the interest of users.

Qexigator, I agree that there ought to be nothing in the lead that is not discussed in the body. However, there is a See Also link to Referendums in the United Kingdom which has a section "Status of referendums". That section could be expanded as well as being directly linked to. But I'm inclined to leave the matter as it is for the time being, since there are only a couple of weeks before the Supreme Court hearing begins. Its judgement, expected in January but conceivably coming earlier in view of the urgency, will need to be taken into account in both articles. In the meantime, a more extensive account of the High Court's (as you say, Delphic) pronouncements would have a close expiry date. Wikiain (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BHL's wording is clearer and a better summary of the current state of play. Wikiain, I can only see you in favour of your version. Bondegezou (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The above comments look to me as confirming that the sentence should be removed from the lead, for the reasons I gave. There is no need for it there, or in this article. In short, it is unsourced verbiage. Qexigator (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether the referendum is legally binding has been a key issue, hotly debated in the UK. Some of that debate used to be linked to in the ref to this very passage. It has to be mentioned in the article; although as I have said, a fuller discussion belongs in the more general article on UK referendums. As to the passage being unsourced—a source is given and it is the High Court judgement. Wikiain (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not needed in lead of this article, and if mentioned in body should pinpoint paragraph(s) of the judgment which support it. Qexigator (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that (while I was writing and on the very stroke of somewhere's midnight!) you've simply taken the passage out, so that "gauge the support" does all the work. I don't mind that, for the lead. I still think something about bindingness should go into the body of this article, but briefly and in conjunction with an expansion of the "status" section in the more general article. That discussion would currently have to be referenced to the High Court judgement, pending the Supreme Court judgement (as will what is already in this article about the High Court judgement). But this article notes that there is an appeal and I'm content to await the word from on highest. Wikiain (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there

I'd like to start a section on ways the EU Referendum could still be invalidated, but I don't know what to name it in terms of its title.

It is still possible to invalidate the referendum legally, and I'd like to add that information here, but, what do you people say it should be called?

I don't know where to start, but I know the rest.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.54.169 (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd put something in the "Reactions to the result" section, perhaps under a new subsection "Challenges to the result", depending on quite what material you are covering. That's probably a better place to start: what reliable sources are you suggesting adding? Remember, also, that content must follow a neutral point of view. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Critically, you can't just give your own opinion on the matter. You may only report what a reliable source has said.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I know what I'm talking about, I sued the UK Government over it. I already know Wikipedia's standards. I just don't know what to title it to start with. Please don't yap about the fact that I didn't sign myself, I fully expect Wikipedia's anonymous signature to be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.54.169 (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're so conversant here, you'd know that the advice given is standard for the sort of question you asked while anonymous. However, since you chose to hide behind anonymity, nobody can see that you're the 2nd coming of Christ on Wikipedia. Perhaps instead of bitching about being given sound advice on standards that anonymous and/or unsigned editors need, you should consider making yourself known, so we don't waste your time telling you what you already know. Additionally, you should have known that as a collaborative effort, little things like the section title would be revised (if needed) by us lesser peons if it wasn't acceptable.

Odd thing though, you forgot to inline your above comment correctly. I'm pretty sure THAT'S not standards compliant. But, what do I know, right? I'm obviously just a puny mortal compared to you! MrZoolook (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Colour clash

It is a bit unfortunate that the map illustrating "Part of a series of articles on the United Kingdom in the European Union" uses colours in exactly the opposite way from "Results by voting areas" immediately above it. 31.49.181.147 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead: simultaneously woolly and definitive

I guess this relates in part to previous discussions, but currently the first sentence says:

• The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, also known as the EU referendum and the Brexit referendum, was an advisory referendum that took place on 23 June 2016 in the United Kingdom (UK) and Gibraltar to gauge support for the country either remaining a member of, or leaving, the European Union (EU) (my emphasis)

While the word "advisory" may be technically true in a legal/constitutional sense, it somewhat plays to a distinctly political point that the result need not, or even should not, be implemented. Nor does the word appear currently in the main body, which the lead is meant to summarise. The second highlighted phrase, "to gauge support", adds to that impression, as if the referendum was just a glorified opinion poll (which is the way people on one side like to talk about it), as well as being redundant to the extent that that is rather obviously what referendums do. Surely all the opening sentence needs to say is:

• The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, also known as the EU referendum and the Brexit referendum, was a referendum that took place on 23 June 2016 in the United Kingdom (UK) and Gibraltar on whether the country should remain a member of, or leave, the European Union (EU)

That is 100% accurate while both being more concise and avoiding any contentious phrasing that could be seen as slightly loaded in favour of one political narrative over the other. More detailed and nuanced discussion about status and legal debate is of course a matter for the body. N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone changed the stable opening sentence a few days ago. I've changed it back. "referendum" doesn't need to be there four times; if you can find a wording that avoids the need for "was a referendum", then that could be better. EddieHugh (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, "advisory" is not in the legislation, nor an established technical term. See United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 edit 12:25, 10 December 2016.[6] In this context it adds no useful information, and tends to mislead persons not otherwise better informed. Qexigator (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• While "advisory" does not need to be mentioned in the opening sentence, it (or something equivalent) does need to be mentioned somewhere (if not already), as the result was not legally binding (only "politically" binding), according to numerous reports in the British media. 31.49.181.147 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

1974-75 EC renegotiation

What are the line of thoughts in the idea of setting up a separate article about the EC renegotiation of 1974-75 similar to the article UK renegotiation of EU membership, 2016 as currently the 1975 EC referendum article does not currently contain much information about what happened during the renegotiation itself. I would title the article UK renegotiation of EC membership, 1975. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:F8CC:FFAD:C0DB:7D63 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC))

We could do it if there are enough sources available to put together an article. I imagine there would be; if not online then certainly from publications. This is Paul (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Could we get started as soon as possible there are briefing papers from the House of Commons which would be a good link to start off with. (82.132.215.212 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC))

It's not something I'd want to take on myself, but I've created a redirect so that anyone who does want to do it can make a start. This is Paul (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Expansion needed to UK EC Accession article

There's needs to be expansion to the Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities article as currently there are blank sections that need filling or reformatting. Also we need sources to be added as well to the article. The article was created back in July and it was given a basic start but hardly if anything new has been added since and I feel we do need a separate article to fully explain how the UK became a member of the European Communities or the European Union as we now know it. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:E9C8:99E0:28B4:F2CD (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Could this map be modified so that the UK is in orange just like the 2016 EU map of the same image? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Flag cruft on templates at the bottom of this article.

Most of the templates at the bottom of this article are 'decorated' with a flag in the title. Per wp:flags, these decorations should be removed. Material should have a country-name OR a flag, not both [and flags are primarily for use in tables where space is at a premium]. My attempts to apply this policy are being reverted so I am about to hit the 3RR rule. Does anyone else see this as an issue? Care? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability: Prof Michael Dougan

User:EddieHugh, Professor Michael Dougan appears to fulfil the notability criteria in any case: WP:N. Maybe there should be an article on him. However, content of an article need not cite only notables: WP:NN. What matters for a citation is that he is a reliable source, and I don't think there can be any doubt that he is an expert on this subject: maybe he should be quoted more extensively. Anyone is welcome to cite a different expert view. Wikiain (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

He may be an expert on European law, but his opinion that was added to this article was not on European law; it was about honesty during the referendum campaign. "one of the most dishonest political campaigns this country [the UK] has every seen" was his inserted opinion. Even if he were an expert on honesty in political campaigns, picking his opinion without a counter-opinion (they do exist) affects balance and NPOV. The compromise summary from Bondegezou is an improvement. EddieHugh (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Why is the Gibraltar result lumped in with England in the 'results by constituent countries' section? 109.145.34.182 (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Because Gibraltar was officially counted as if it were part of SW England: see section "Voting, voting areas and counts". Wikiain (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Mention of 2017 general election

There needs to be a small mention At the top of the article that as a indirect consequence of the result of the referendum that a general election will be held on June 8 2017 (188.221.10.3 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/europeanunionreferendum.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/yes-to-an-eu-referendum-green-mp-calls-for-chance-to-build-a-better-europe.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/europeanunionreferendum.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sdlp.ie/issues/international-affairs
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/eu-referendum-dup-gives-backing-to-ukip-brexit-campaign-blasting-david-camerons-pathetic-demands-34233078.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304173007/https://www.tusc.org.uk/17182/22-02-2016/tusc-letter-in-the-guardian-now-sign-the-petition to https://www.tusc.org.uk/17182/22-02-2016/tusc-letter-in-the-guardian-now-sign-the-petition
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.womensequality.org.uk/we_propose_a_women_s_bill_of_rights

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath and «immediate after» (with brexit on 30 march 2019)

According to wikipedia, «Aftermath est un mot anglais signifiant « suites, répercussions », pour désigner les conséquences d'une catastrophe ou l'après-guerre. Il est fréquemment utilisé dans des titres d'œuvres artistiques.»

Thus I was wondering why this article has been edited recently so that it considered that aftermath is only immediately after.

And in the case aftermath only means immediately after, how long is «immediate after» for a brexit which should occur on 30 march 2019?

Did I miss some point?

Yes, you did. See the tortured discussion at Talk:Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 on that title and the period it should apply to. The current article is on the referendum, so it covers the period around the referendum (the headings are a mess, though, I'd agree); the Brexit article continues with the rest. EddieHugh (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Biggest ever fall in the pound

The fall in the value of the pound was widely reported as being the biggest ever. I've added a 'dubious' tag, as the overnight devaluation in 1967 from $2.80 to $2.40 was a greater percentage fall. See the BBC summary. EddieHugh (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The big difference is that the 1967 event was a formal government-driven devaluation whereas the 2016 event was a market-driven depreciation. So I suggest the way forward is to add a small rider such as "since the introduction of floating exchange rates". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A good point, even though the government-driven devaluation was really driven by market realities. If we can find a source that has such a rider then that would be the simplest thing to do. If not, then a separately sourced footnote spelling out the nuance could be used. EddieHugh (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Boson found a good source and mentioned it on the talk page for Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, so I've used that one and changed the wording a bit to fit. EddieHugh (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617094046/https://www.partyof.wales/europe-1/ to https://www.partyof.wales/europe-1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160521033827/http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/2016/05/lexit-why-we-need-a-left-exit-from-eu/ to http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/2016/05/lexit-why-we-need-a-left-exit-from-eu
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303080320/http://www.respectparty.org/2016/02/22/respect-to-campaign-to-leave-the-european-union/ to http://www.respectparty.org/2016/02/22/respect-to-campaign-to-leave-the-european-union/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Disenfranchised

I am reverting the removal of the reference to the disenfranchised in the referendum result table. This is a valid statistic with direct relevance to the result of the referendum. It may be unusual, but undemocratic totalitarian states excepted, it is unusual for western democracies to disenfranchise their citizens, wherever they live and for however long.Lkingscott (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted it, get consensus for its inclusion. People were not "disenfranchised" for the referendum, the ex pat franchise has long been limited and highlighting it for one particular vote is undue. Timrollpickering 08:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Putting it in the infobox and results table is undue, I agree. As Timrollpickering mentions, this sort of restriction is common (Scots based outside Scotland couldn't vote in their independence referendum, for example). And restrictions on overseas voting is not rare: stories on Indonesia, Greece, Ireland and Bermuda are linked to here. I'm sure there are more. I don't mind it being mentioned in the Eligibility section, given that the matter of voters overseas was widely discussed in sources. We could throw in mention of Irish people who could vote too. EddieHugh (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Tim Roll Pickering appears to be deputy chairman of the West Ham Conservative party and therefore can be expected to be biased on this subject. Since the Conservative party has decided to support the referendum result, anything which challenges the basis of the referendum challenges the Conservative policy.

There is an Eddie Hughes who is Conservative MP for Walsall North. I'm not sure whether EddieHugh is the same person, but if so, my comments above about bias would apply.

I agree that enlarging the eligibility section with this information is a useful enhancement, but putting the disenfranchised information only in the eligibility section would require adding the results table to that section too, otherwise the scale of the disenfranchisement is not clear with respect to the results. Duplicating the results enlarges the page unnecessarily.Lkingscott (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You should read through Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Maybe most of the people who were not eligible to vote would have voted Leave; we have no way of knowing. So, it's not about material that challenges the referendum or (a conceptual leap) Conservative or Labour policy. It's about presenting material in a neutral way. Putting the number of ineligible people in the results table is intended to lead readers in a certain direction – that's not neutral. EddieHugh (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not including the information about the disenfranchised together with the results is presenting a non neutral opinion. Nothing in what I have stated would present the information in a way which is non neutral. Adding it with all the other result information in a way that readers can make their own mind up is neutral. It is merely presenting ALL the information. If the information is challenging a political position, it's the information which is challenging not the presentation.Lkingscott (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere have I suggested, or the original editor, that the disenfranchised would have voted a particular way. You (EddieHugh) have made that inference. I merely wish that the disenfranchised information is included with the results, as the original editor intended. If this shows that the referendum was flawed then maybe it was. I would not be adding that opinion, merely including verifiable information in its appropriate context for the reader to make whatever opinion they want. Lkingscott (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The non-voting ex-pats are a significant number of people and their disenfranchisement issues are relevant to the referendum. So are other voter eligibility issues, such as the non-voting 16 & 17 year olds or the voting Irish. I note that the youth franchise was a party political issue that attracted more substantial interest in the news. All these facts are interesting, and should be discussed. However, I don't see them as critical to understanding the referendum and I wouldn't want to pick one of those as vastly more significant than the others. Therefore leave all of them out of the lead, infobox and results tables.

Furthermore, I certainly don't see why this specific vote should be singled out, or be treated in a different manner, from the articles about any other vote in the UK.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict. I concur with Nilfanion; this reply is to Lkingscott's last.) It wouldn't be presenting all the information, though, would it? It would be selectively presenting one bit of information. There'd be no mention of 'disenfranchised' under 18s, 'disenfranchised' prisoners, 'disenfranchised' UK residents who hadn't registered, 'disenfranchised' EU residents of the UK, 'disenfranchised' citizens of former Commonwealth countries, 'enfranchised' foreigners who could vote, 'enfranchised' people with dual nationality, etc. None of these should be included in the result section, because... they're not relevant to the referendum result, which, as with any referendum or election, is about those who were eligible to vote. EddieHugh (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, not quite all, but significantly more of the information relevant to the result statistics than without this. If anyone else wants to collect all the other information on disenfranchised voters and add it they are welcome to do so. Anyone who wants to add the various disenfranchised to all the other UK election wiki pages is welcome to. The fact that it has not so far been added to those pages does not mean it is irrelevant. Many wiki pages are incomplete, due to the voluntary nature of the contributions. Note that in the case of the expat disenfranchised, the UK government has many times agreed that they should be included in future elections and referendums. It has not for any of the other disenfranchised groups mentioned above. (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-delivers-on-pledge-to-give-back-british-expats-the-right-to-vote) Lkingscott (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

--- The UK dis-enfranchised 3.7 million British globaly (Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-11-02/debates/5F35283E-BC76-4779-853D-BBA32FD7F43E/VotingRightsOverseasUKCitizens?highlight=%273.7%27 ref. that the politician then MP each censored), of which approx 700,000+ resident in the EU, gerrymandering the referendum results.

Britain's inferior democracy - Ref "European Parliament: Disenfranchisement of EU citizens resident abroad Situation in national and European elections in EU Member States - December 2014 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2014/542183/EPRS_IDA%282014%29542183_REV1_EN.pdf has long dis-enfranchised Brits abroad for General Elections, ( not so problematic for some of those who wouldn't return to UK till after a further General Election);

But many British abroad in the EU & some elsewhere remain outraged at the UK's gross un-democratic abuse, refusing a vote to some British in the EU severely personaly impacted by Brexit for the rest of their lives. The UK's 11% gerrymandering is highly relevant to referendum numbers. Deleting 3,700,000 abused Wikipedia to politicians advantage. julian.h.stacey --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian.h.stacey (talk • contribs) 04:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Support EddieHugh's approach. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I also support EddieHugh's approach. We are not here to right great wrongs.Charles (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

National England results maps?

At the moment for England we only have the regional results map, would it be possible and practical for two maps to be created which showed the national results for the whole of England only in the following designs which I am taken from the East Midlands results maps as a example.

This is the kind of idea I had in mind from the 2015 general election, maybe excluding the city pullouts.

If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own national results maps why doesn’t England? (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:D85:60AA:3B1A:493E (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC))

This article doesn't have regional maps. Maybe you meant to post this on the talk page for Results of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. EddieHugh (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did sorry, I have transferred this over to that article. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:D85:60AA:3B1A:493E (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408030603/http://www.respectparty.org/the-eu/ to http://www.respectparty.org/the-eu
• Added archive https://archive.is/20160619101131/http://104.46.54.198/media-centre/news/2015/feb/rbs-warns-business-damage-brexit-plans to http://104.46.54.198/media-centre/news/2015/feb/rbs-warns-business-damage-brexit-plans

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160701173053/http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-corbyn-loses-vote-of-no-confidence/ar-AAhJ3KO?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=SL5MDHP to http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-corbyn-loses-vote-of-no-confidence/ar-AAhJ3KO?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=SL5MDHP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

#FBPE on Twitter now on Wikipedia as well?!

I refuse to believe that this is reverting entirely made in good faith [7], not by someone who basically declares himself as an anti-Brexit (LibDem) activist on his own Userpage anyway! More of the like of him and his like-minded co-editors (who probably all know each on Twitter with #FBPE or #PCPEU handles anyway) is no consensus! It reads like someone trying to keep the 'pre-agreed', 'pre-approved' version on Wikipedia, last edited by a bunch of LibDem and Open Britain activists before the 2017 General Election...I mean, for a start, who would actually write (and then feel the need to repeatedly restore) 'the United Kingdom (UK)' ?! ----- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Referendum template

I have been forced to take my case here, it’s very simple which referendum results template do you pefer, is it this which was been put up in the last few days so it simply.

Referendum results

Choice	Votes	%
Leave the European Union	17,410,742	51.89
Remain a member of the European Union	16,141,241	48.11
Valid votes	33,551,983	99.92
Invalid or blank votes	25,359	0.08
Total votes	33,577,342	100.00
Registered voters/turnout	46,500,001	72.21
Source: Electoral Commission

Or would you pefer this?

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

Choice	Votes	%
Leave the European Union	17,410,742	51.89
Remain a member of the European Union	16,141,241	48.11
Valid votes	33,551,983	99.92
Invalid or blank votes	25,359	0.08
Total votes	33,577,342	100.00
Registered voters/turnout	46,500,001	72.21
Source: Electoral Commission

National referendum results (excluding invalid votes)
Leave 17,410,742 (51.9%)	Remain 16,141,241 (48.1%)
▲ 50%

Results by UK voting region (left) and by council district/unitary authority (GB) & UK Parliament constituency (NI) (right)

  Leave

  Remain

Region		Electorate	Voter turnout, of eligible	Votes		Proportion of votes		Invalid votes
				Remain	Leave	Remain	Leave
	East Midlands	3,384,299	74.2%	1,033,036	1,475,479	41.18%	58.82%	1,981
	East of England	4,398,796	75.7%	1,448,616	1,880,367	43.52%	56.48%	2,329
	Greater London	5,424,768	69.7%	2,263,519	1,513,232	59.93%	40.07%	4,453
	North East England	1,934,341	69.3%	562,595	778,103	41.96%	58.04%	689
	North West England	5,241,568	70.0%	1,699,020	1,966,925	46.35%	53.65%	2,682
	Northern Ireland	1,260,955	62.7%	440,707	349,442	55.78%	44.22%	374
	Scotland	3,987,112	67.2%	1,661,191	1,018,322	62.00%	38.00%	1,666
	South East England	6,465,404	76.8%	2,391,718	2,567,965	48.22%	51.78%	3,427
	South West England (inc Gibraltar)	4,138,134	76.7%	1,503,019	1,669,711	47.37%	52.63%	2,179
	Wales	2,270,272	71.7%	772,347	854,572	47.47%	52.53%	1,135
	West Midlands	4,116,572	72.0%	1,207,175	1,755,687	40.74%	59.26%	2,507
	Yorkshire and the Humber	3,877,780	70.7%	1,158,298	1,580,937	42.29%	57.71%	1,937

There has not been a problem until now with the template and frankly I am shocked that people would pefer a very substandard looking template to one that looks much more professional. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC))

It's not a question about what personal preferences are, it's about the fact that the first is the standard template created by {{Referendum}} and the second one is a non-standard one created by yourself and not used anywhere else (as far as I'm aware). If you don't like how {{Referendum}} displays the results, then suggest changes to it at Template talk:Referendum. Your version is also a pretty clear violation of WP:MOSICON. Number 57 19:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Organisation of responses section

I don't have time myself but this section needs to be reorganised. We have UK economists, lawyers and NHS as sub-sub-sections under a "non-european responses" sub-section. Would someone oblige? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Voting demographics and trends

I have put the word institutional before the word education. All sources report solely about institutional education such as having a degree. There are other ways people acquire knowledge and become more educated, such as reading, visiting places, conversing with people and taking an interest in how the world works. It's far-fetched to say the average 20 year old with a degree is more highly educated than the average 65 year old that has accrued knowledge for far longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.98.125 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

An edit war appears to be about to break out over a quotation by a notable person that happens to be on YouTube. I cannot find anything on WP:RS or WP:RSE that rules out this medium, irrespective of the message, and frankly it would be crazy if it did. The only valid questions are these: [a] is the source saying what we report them as saying and [b] is the person speaking actually who we believe it is. In this case, I have no doubt that these tests are met. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Before addressing those questions, the pertinent one to ask is: should this information, if a good source can be found, be included? The person is an academic in the field of EU law, so if he commented on matters of EU law, he could be considered a useable/useful authority. However, in this instance, he was commenting on the history of political campaigning: "one of the most dishonest political campaigns this country has ever seen". His comments were not on his area of expertise, so the answer to the question is: no, his opinion should not be included. (Alternatively, we could choose to include the opinion of anyone who is considered to be an expert on anything, but that would be absurd.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree entirely if it were true, but in this case it is not. He is an expert in constitutional law. His specific challenge to the leave campaign is that they based their argument on foundations of constitutional law but these don't stand up to legal examination. So not only is it quite appropriate to report his assessment, it would fail npov if we did not do so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

All we are are looking for is a more stable report of his comments than a youtube posting.Charles (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely - if we could get it. Liverpool U has provided a transcript of his first paper but not of the second that I can find. Hopefully a future historian will capture it for posterity - Dougan is clearly referring to a script. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If his argument is based on constitutional law, then this article should state that. Using the "dishonest" line makes it look like unjustified opinion covering any and all aspects of the campaign, which is pov. EddieHugh (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

His argument is precisely that almost all of the arguments from the Leave campaign were constitutional issues, since they touch on the relationship between Member States and the EU, which is one defined by the constitutional frameworks of both the EU and its Member States. For example, which actors take decisions (the Commission or the Member States), the procedure they use for them (QMV/Unanimity) are all constitutional issues - they are clearly defined in the rules of procedure of the EU. So, for example, it possible for him as an expert on EU Constitutional law to say that Leave were being dishonest over one of their central claims that the UK couldn't veto Turkish membership of the EU and that it was imminent - and possible for him to point out that defence is an issue requiring unanimity within the respective constitutional frameworks of each member state, and that the UK constitutional framework, as defined by the European Union Act 2011 requires the UK to hold a referendum on that issues with a positive result before approval, indicating that Leave was dishonest on that too. (And without wishing to fall foul of making this forum, I'd like to point out that these points aren't exactly controversial; I can go to the respective Wikipedia pages of these issues, eg, EU enlargement, that irrespective of the referendum, will tell me that this is the case.) So, whilst we have established he is WP:RS on EU constitutional law, I also think as, with his role as a fact-checker for different news sources throughout the referendum, and regular witness to Parliament and adviser to the government, he has WP:RS also to make a judgement on the amount of Leave's claims that were essentially issues within the realms of constitutional law, and so I vote to Keep the quote as is, though allow for an opposing WP:RS if found.

As for the source, I guess I'm slightly unclear. I can do a search for a transcript, but it would seem odd that I could, hypothetically, type up the transcript of the video, put it on the "biddidly bumkpin town - population 12 - newshopper online" website and it becomes a valid source for use on wikipedia, whilst a direct to cam piece of someone we've already established is WP:RS of a verified youtube channel of a law department of a UK university is not. As John Maynard Friedman says this does seem crazy. I did have a quick look at what Wikipedia has to say about posting youtube videos as sources before looking to fill the citation, and it does seem to indicate general aversion, but with exemptions where common sense applies. I say this an area where common sense would indicate we can utilise it. Luxofluxo (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

[Reply to EddieHugh, edit conflict with Luxofluxo]. I have added a sentence to clarify. I also wondered if the paragraph would be better placed in "5.7.2 Law and economics experts"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense; I've moved it to the Response section, as it's a response to the campaign, not from the time of the campaign itself. EddieHugh (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's probably worthwhile mentioning that the original accusation of "dishonesty on an industrial scale" that you have since removed, was indeed made during the campaign, and so was from the campaign itself, in a lecture at the University of Liverpool, that was uploaded to youtube and went viral on social media, on 14 June 2016, 11 days before the vote. The youtube clip that now is sourced is a clarification of that assertion. Luxofluxo (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point about the timing. It's still probably best in the "Responses to the referendum campaign" section, as it's a comment on part of the campaign, unless we take that to be part of the campaign in itself. "described the Leave campaign as" could be changed to "described the Leave campaign shortly before the referendum as" if specifying a time period is desirable. EddieHugh (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: July 2018: I feel it was a reasonable request to suggest that a better source than YouTube would be preferable. The initial request on the article was only to suggest that YouTube is not ideal rather than removing the content. YouTube is not banned as a reference, however it is not generally encouraged or ideal as per WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources" and WP:YTREF: "Editors should consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic if the best citation that can be made points to YouTube." The request for a better citation than YouTube was reverted / removed by the editor "Luxofluxo" on 1 June 2018 (UK time).

Other editors involved in this particular discussion (John Maynard Friedman, EddieHugh, Charles) are advised that the editor "Luxofluxo" was blocked indefinitely on 17 July 2018 (UK time) for abusing multiple accounts, following a sockpuppet investigation. Last year, in 2017, the editor was also blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and indeed created new accounts to post personal attacks on an admin, but he or she evaded the block and "Luxofluxo" has recently been blocked again. (None of the sockpuppet investigations were requested by myself). According to guidelines: "All edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted." Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Euexperttime/Archive

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Bloomberg speech

Why is there so little reference to the so called Bloomberg speech that was given by David Cameron in January 2013, this should be included within the article given it was so important in regards to the holding of the referendum, in fact should there be a article in it self for the Bloomberg speech at all? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC))

There is now a article on the Bloomberg speech which has been set up but needs lots of expansion. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:E196:98A9:F60A:53F6 (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC))

Do we have "evidence of Russian interference in the referendum"?

The following sentence, in Wiki's voice, is in the lead: "There is also an ongoing investigation following evidence of Russian interference in the referendum." I tried twice (adding to the summary each time) to modify that to reflect what I think we can support in the article (here and here), but was reverted both times (here and here) by Yaris678.

Certainly the heading of the appropriate prose section uses more moderated language with - "Possible Russian interference" (i.e. not definite). The section itself contains the sentence "In December 2016, MP Ben Bradshaw speculated in Parliament that Russia may have interfered in the referendum." (which I thought summed it up). Other than that, the prose never actually discusses "evidence of Russian interference" as such, just that that Facebook stated that "Russian-based operatives spent 97 cents to place three adverts on the social network in the run-up to the referendum, which were viewed 200 times." and "The Observer had seen evidence that Leave.EU funder Arron Banks had met Russian officials "multiple times" from 2015 to 2017 and had discussed "a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines."

I don't think what we have in the prose supports the assertion of fact that there is "evidence of Russian interference in the referendum". The best I think we can say is that there is speculation that such a thing might have occurred, and I propose removing the sentence from the lead altogether, or modifying it, as I did, to reflect the article content thus: "There is also an ongoing investigation following speculation that there was Russian interference in the referendum." -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"Speculation" certainly does not sum it up. Saying "speculation" without mentioning evidence suggests there is no evidence.

Our article states "After denying it for over a year, Facebook admitted in November 2017 that it was targeted by Russian trolls in the run-up to the Brexit referendum" and "On 10 June 2018, The Guardian reported that investigators from The Observer had seen evidence that Leave.EU funder Arron Banks had met Russian officials "multiple times" from 2015 to 2017 and had discussed "a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines"". This is evidence. One could claim that is is not conclusive evidence, but then no one wants to put "conclusive evidence" into Wikipedia's voice.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yaris678: neither of those are evidence of "Russian interference" in the referendum. The Facebook story is a claim that there are trolls in Russia and the Guardian one is a report that journalists have seen evidence that a business man visited Russia for business discussions! I think we need to do better than that to justify the statement currently in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Change the wording to "investigation into possible Russian interference in the referendum": controversy avoided; neutrality maintained. Or cut it from the lead: it's not a major part of the narrative (at the moment). EddieHugh (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: I'd support your wording, or removal altogether, as you suggest. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have reworded it like this as there has been no further comment for a couple of days. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

More racism.

"In Wales, a Muslim woman" . . . "Other reports of racism" Muslims are not a race. This has been pointed out so many times before that this must be deliberate. AnnaComnemna (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: do not move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

---

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum → United Kingdom European Union membership referendum – It was originally called this before being moved to the title with the year at the end. The year would only be needed in the event of another vote. Unreal7 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• The current title is as recommended at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation): "For individual elections and referendums, use the format 'Date demonym type election/referendum'". It's not intended to imply that there will be another one. EddieHugh (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per EddieHugh. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NC-GAL, the naming convention for election and referendum articles; the year is virtually always included in these articles. Plus there is arguably potential for confusion with 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum. Number 57 01:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title change would be too confusing particularly when it comes to the 1975 referendum. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
• Oppose as per Number 57, both because of WP:NCGAL and confusion potential with the 1975 referendum. Impru20^talk 13:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per EddieHugh. Wikiain (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"due to"

Most contributors will be aware that "due to" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead[8] is NPOV, and is correct according to the present state of the law of the UK and of the EU, irrespective of any assessment of the current state of political opinion from any source or OR. Word definitions on line say that by common usage "due to" = attributable to or caused by, or as a result of and similar. Qexigator (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Article temporarily protected for 3 days to calm this dispute. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Timrollpickering. I caught sight of a report at WP:ANEW, which was placed just a few minutes after your protection: Report posted, Report removed. I looked at it, and it seemed to me, just as it apparently seemed to User:Dr.K., that the article history indicates an IP (86.134.63.244 and 86.134.62.138, obviously the same individual) edit warring very persistently against multiple editors, rather than a bona fide "content dispute". I have blocked the small range 86.134.62.0/23 for edit warring and disruption. It's up to you, but if I were you I'd undo the protection. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. I agree with your rationale and actions. Based on that, I will restore my 3RRN report. Dr. K. 16:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, not much point in that, User:Dr.K., since I've already actioned it. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I agree. But I view this as finalising the paperwork. It also provides a clear picture of the background and justification for your actions. However, if you don't want me to do it, I'm good. Nice talking to you, as always. Dr. K. 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what grievance this editor has with the term "due to" - it's clearly being used to mean 'scheduled to' or 'on course to' (which was the original wording of the sentence before it was edited). It's hard to see what justification there is for insisting that article says "will leave" (surely deity-level WP:CRYSTAL-balling) over any other perfectly acceptable and more accurate alternatives. Perhaps the original 'on course' wording would be better restored? Incidentally, as a point of information, the consequence of locking this article is that it is now frozen in the form desired by the disruptive editor. Bonusballs (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason why "will" is incorrect, while both "due to" and "on course to" are accurate, is the existence of (at least) the following possibilities:

1. The notice of intention to withdraw may be revoked; that this is possible was confirmed by the ECJ in December.
2. The 29 March deadline may be extended; this has always been known to be possible.

Likelihood of either of these things happening is a different issue. WP can report anybody's estimate of likelihood, but for WP to make such an estimate would indeed be WP:CRYSTAL-balling. Wikiain (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with your analysis. The size of the IP's POV can be discerned by the huge amount of edit-warring they engaged in, as well as the WP:NPAs in their edit-summaries and their talkpage. Hopefully the 72-hour block they earned will give them time to reflect on the quality and mode of their contributions. Dr. K. 23:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And what is more, the indisputable fact against the IP's edit summaries is that if the exit happens on the due date, 29 March, that will be the inexorable result of EU treaty article 50, and the UK Act requiring the prime minister to give the notice of withdrawal prescribed by article 50 and its acceptance as such by the EU. Qexigator (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Obama's statement

Regarding my earlier edit, it seemed undue to me to have four reaction quotes to one statement, all from the same side, in an already long article. Other than that, I think we can agree that it makes sense to have all the information on the subject in one place, and not in an "Investigations" section, since it's not subject to an investigation. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Great Britain

Section 6.1.1 is called Great Britain. It includes Skye, the Shetlands, Anglesey and the Isle of Sheppey. Should it be renamed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Usual convention in a wide variety of contexts is that adjacent islands are included with the mainland for summary purposes. So no, it should not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"not legally binding"

The present text states that in the Miller case the UK Supreme Court 'confirmed' that the referendum result was not legally binding. This might be taken to imply that someone had taken the contrary view. So far as I recall, no-one ever has, and it was not a point at issue in Miller. I therefore think the present text is misleading and the statement should be deleted.81.146.36.63 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting unwanted data

With reference to:

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum: Revision history - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum&action=history

Earlier this summer [2019], the referendum results table included data regarding *both* "registered voters" and the "voting age population". Why has the reference to the "voting age population" been removed? This detail is relevant to the matter which is addressed by:

Dissatisfaction with parties is a reflection of the political system as a whole https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/blog/opinion/dissatisfaction-parties-reflection-political-system-whole-jess-garland

The Hansard Society: Research reveals public disengagement https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/house/house-magazine/103315/hansard-society-research-reveals

How many people have visited the bowdlerised version of the page and been denied the opportunity to see important data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.173.130 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

With reference to "not legally binding" above

With reference to:

"not legally binding" [81.146.36.63(talk) 19:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)]

I had obtained the impression that the UK Supreme Court had delivered the indicated 'confirmation' because the members of this illustrious pink elephant had the opportunity to participate in the discussions which the governing elite have amongst themselves. Is someone suggesting that the UK Supreme Court delivered their 'confirmation' simply because they were at a loose end and had an urge to remind people that they had arrived among the elite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.173.130 (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved.

As on the previous two occasions, there is a clear consensus against this move, largely on the basis of WP:NCELECT and WP:CONSISTENT. The argument that the WP:CRITERIA "override" WP:NCELECT is misconceived: see WP:PGE and note that the criteria "should be seen as goals not rules". Balancing the criteria is done by consensus, and in this instance 8 out of 12 of participating editors see no sufficient reason to depart from the guidance in WP:NCELECT. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

---

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum → Brexit referendum – N.B. The two previous RM on this exact question(1; 2). Many of the reasons proposed against moving then ("Brexit is a tabloid and informal term" [i.e. "I don't like it"]; calls to follow a guideline as though it were law, WP:HARMLESS, "Not the official title") have obviously not aged well. The UK government uses the term ([9]). Even Britannica uses "Brexit". Additionally the existing title is clearly in breach of the usual WP:CRITERIA (which, as sitewide policy, obviously override the WP:NCELECT guideline), not only on the aspect or recognisability (WP:COMMONNAME - 5 years after the fact, "Brexit" is without doubt the term most commonly used to refer to all aspects of this), but also on conciseness and naturalness, as it is clear the current title is needlessly verbose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Clearly not in line with the naming guideline for elections/referendums (WP:NCELECT) and inconsistent with virtually all other election/referendum articles (see e.g. Category:2016 referendums); WP:CONSISTENT is one of the WP:CRITERIA. Number 57 12:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  As said, CRITERIA overrides NCELECT, and none of the other election/referendum articles have the issues of this one (which is that there is a far more common, natural and concise name used to refer to it), nor are they as verbose as this one (with the exception of maybe 2016 Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum, but I don't know whether that one can be improved; unlike this one), so actually making this less verbose would also be consistent with other similar articles (i.e. 2016 Hungarian migrant quota referendum; not 2016 European Union migrant relocation plans Hungarian referendum). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  This proposed title has already been rejected twice in previous RMs. Number 57 13:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Since I explicitly mention (and even link) those in the nomination, and give reasons why they're not helpful; the only logical conclusion is then that you haven't even read it and are opposing on principle and not on actual merits. See WP:LASTTIME, anyways. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm absolutely opposing on merits (or lack of), hence setting out above why I consider this to be a bad proposal. If I was opposing on principle I wouldn't have been able to explain why I think this is a terrible idea. Number 57 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Which is why, when presented with a rebuttal of your argument, you went for a WP:LASTTIME non-argument? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  My personal opinion of Number 57 is that they tend to enforce their personal whims in election articles, and this is very much one of these. Glide08 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support as 2016 United Kingdom Brexit referendum. Brexit has been accepted as an academic term per RandomCanadian, but if there is a need to keep it consistent then there should be a "2016 United Kingdom" part. Glide08 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be averse to keeping 2016 in the title, as is common for some event pages (e.g. 2021 Hualien train derailment) but "United Kingdom Brexit" seems a tautology. Brexit already includes the term "British" as part of its portmanteau, so there's no other country it could ever refer to.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Number 57 and WP:NCELECT. Brexit is actually the RESULT of the referendum, not its purpose or designation. The purpose was to hold a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU and so the present title is adequate as a reflection of that purpose. Use of the non-academic term Brexit would be absurd and plain wrong. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Legislative articles should use their formal name as defined in law. Compare formal Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 v common British Calendar Act of 1751 (especially given that there was also a (different) Calendar Act 1751). Precision matters.

Brexit referendum redirects here so if someone is using that shorthand form, they will arrive here. If it actually had been a constitutional referendum, it would have included the terms of disengagement rather than the "it'll be all right on the night" hand-waving that we actually got.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - as we have the 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum article. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - hang about, why so much opposition? This is fairly clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for this, and is much more WP:CONCISE than the current title, so wins out on article titling policy grounds. I don't see anything in the opposition above based in our naming policy, other than perhaps the consistency with 1975, but given there's only two articles in the set, and the other one happens not to have a concise commonly used title, there's no strong basis in that either. I suggest much of the above can be ignored, unless there's a policy argument I've missed.  — Amakuru (talk)

The set is much larger than two articles:

• 1972 Danish European Communities membership referendum
• 1972 Norwegian European Communities membership referendum
• 1982 Greenlandic European Communities membership referendum
• 1994 Austrian European Union membership referendum
• 1994 Finnish European Union membership referendum
• 1994 Norwegian European Union membership referendum
• 1994 Swedish European Union membership referendum
• 1994 Ålandic European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Czech European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Estonian European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Hungarian European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Latvian European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Lithuanian European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Maltese European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Polish European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Slovak European Union membership referendum
• 2003 Slovenian European Union and NATO membership referendum
• 2012 Croatian European Union membership referendum
• Icelandic European Union membership referendum

Number 57 15:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as this is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally it is WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE; 'Brexit' is in the OED and in there is a note under its definition saying: "Sometimes used specifically with reference to the referendum held in the UK on 23 June 2016, in which a majority of voters favoured withdrawal from the EU". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You realise that's evidence against, right? That's clearly not saying that the referendum is commonly referred to as "the Brexit referendum". Just that the term Brexit, which is defined primarily by the actual act of withdrawal, is sometimes broadened to include the referendum.ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it shows that the two are used in the same context and are recognised that way, as is evidenced by the shear quantity of hits for "Brexit referendum". One six-letter word could replace, quite literally, "2016 United Kingdom European Union membership". -- DeFacto (talk). 17:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Imprecise. I'm not even convinced it's the WP:COMMONNAME either. Seems to be A LOT more search results for "EU referendum".ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  But that includes a whole bunch of "EU referendum"s for each of the countries that had a referendum (see Number 57's list above) - "Brexit referendum" is unique and specific to the UK one of 2016. There are more than ten times as many "Brexit referendum"s as "UK EU referendum"s in a simple search. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  The UK referendum is by far the dominant event referred to in results of "EU referendum". This is not surprising, there is relatively less comment on events in non-English speaking countries. You cannot use the excuse that some uses of "eu referendum" refer to other referendums to chuck out the vast majority that do. By using the three keyword exact search "UK EU referendum"s over a two keyword exact search "Brexit referendum" you are deliberately removing the vast majority of usage.ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – the naming convention at WP:NCELECT is easy to follow and advantageous, and I'm firmly against breaking it for an individual case. By nature referendums are technical – I prefer accuracy to brevity, as can be be seen in all the above examples (including the 1975 UK one). The "United Kingdom European Union membership referendum" was what it was, whereas "Brexit" is a convenient colloquialism that can mean different things to different people. The referendum was on the UK's membership of the EU, not on any particular definition of "Brexit". While it's perfectly fine for a journalistic source to refer to it as the Brexit referendum (or another Wiki article, where the context makes the subject clear), I don't think it's a good title for an encyclopedic article. This is why I don't think the current title is "needlessly verbose".

Secondly, responding to the inference made in the proposal that "Brexit referendum" would be easier to understand (because of its "conciseness and naturalness"), the lead sentence explains immediately that it's also referred to as the "EU referendum" and "Brexit referendum", so I don't see any need to make things clearer. Jr8825 • Talk 16:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Number 57, unconvincing rationale to go against NCELECT. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per N57. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.