Talk:Brexit

Please be aware that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss how the article can be improved. It is not a forum or a platform to debate the issue. This is the same rule as applies to every article talk page on Wikipedia. See wp:NOTFORUM.

Racism, Xenophobia, BNP, EDL etc

Some very predominant underlining factors and other actors are missing from this page. It is absurd to only mention UKIP and ignore all the racist and xenophobic elements and ideologies. And no mention of BNP, EDL etc etc etc... these must also be mentioned in this presently sanitised page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.171.52 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add that material - but you must be able to show where you got the information from. ['Everybody knows' won't do]. There is the also the problem that the BNP/NF/EDL are completely bit players nowadays so, per policy wp:FRINGE, we don't give them disproportionate air time. So not any more than a couple of lines. If you want more help, please become a registered user. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that the anonymous OP is troubled by the same black-and-white thinking and exaggeration of threat as the groups that he has mentioned. The idea that the BNP, who had two MEPs at peak and now have no representatives at all, could inspire a referendum is thoroughly flawed. The belief that this is a left/right issue is not just simplified, it is wrong. David Cameron and George Osborne are not left wingers. George Galloway is not a right winger. Tony Benn and Bob Crowe opposed the EU for their whole working lives. As mentioned in the article, Jeremy Corbyn long questioned the EU, as did Owen Jones. The Remain camp has highlighted issues of migration and security which have been criticised by floating voters who see those positions as the same as the Leave camp '''tAD''' (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

rework

I've gone through this today (part of the EU referendum editing workshop) and tried to ensure it's oriented more towards discussing the general issue of withdrawal rather than details of the 2016 referendum, which is better dealt with in that article. We really don't need to include trivia like the campaign songs here! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Content of the lead, prior to June 23

There is a minor edit scuffle over the content of the lead.

IMO, the lead should specify what the status of UK withdrawal is today, prior to 23 June: it is an aim of some groups. It is not a fact. It is not a referendum. We should be careful not to have this article become a reprise of the other articles in the set. So the text I believe we should have is this:

• Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, often shortened to Brexit (a portmanteau combining the words "Britain" and "exit"), is a political aim of some advocacy groups, individuals and political parties in the United Kingdom (UK). The British electorate will address the question again on 23 June 2016 in a referendum on the country's membership, following the passage of the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

In the view of user:SlimVirgin, the text should say this:

• Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, often shortened to Brexit (a portmanteau combining the words "Britain" and "exit"), will be addressed on 23 June 2016 in a referendum on the country's membership, following the passage of the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

Contributions and advice from other editors is invited.

If we vote to BREMAIN, then it will remain an aim. If we vote to BREXIT, then this article will need a major rewrite, to track the consequences. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Party political balance.

The article details in great lengths the (largely historic) divisions within the labour party on the issue but fails to mention the more recent and arguably deeper divisions within the conservative party on the same issue. 31.50.100.90 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle veto on British membership

Article readers ought to be enlightened about French President Charles de Gaulle's veto on British membership. Britain had to argue and pleed for more than a decade in order to recieve membership in what in 1973 was EEC. First after the "abdication" of the French President did it became possible for Britain to become a member. I think this should be mentioned here ! And who can trust a British nation that want's to join, jumps off and presumably want to keep all good agreements and contracts with EU. And why has this question been rised at all ? Compare the UK 1972 with today - London has become the centre of the world, the tube and all railway systems is at a much higher standard today. Coal miners and typographers has become victims of the modernisation, but if the UK unemployment compensations are too low - that has nothing to do with any EU-decrets. Does England wan't to participate in the Euro 2016 och Champions League ? If not so, then go ahead and vote for becomming the 51st colony of your previous colonies across the Atlantic! And give Charles de Gaulle right some 48 years too late. But please vote for changing the EU instead. What is the main issues for UKIP and similar anyways ? Boeing720 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth are you pushing a political opinion on a talk page? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Article name

@Amakuru: Yesterday, I moved this article to "Possible exit of United Kingdom from European Union" but someone moved it back today. If the article is about a goal or a possibility then I don't see why that shouldn't be reflected in the article title. We wouldn't have an article titled "Presidency of Donald Trump" or "Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II" unless or until those events occur. See WP:Crystal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Funeral of Pope John Paul II, for example, existed a week before the funeral actually took place because that was its WP:COMMONNAME. Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II dosn't exist not because it hasn't happened, but because it's not notable. If it was notable, that would be an appropriate title, whether it had happened or not. The content that would be at Presidency of Donald Trump fits more naturally at Donald Trump presidential campaign, which is it's more common name.

Many other hypothetical future events don't have this explicitly stated in the title (ie human extinction, colonization of Mars, Korean reunification) per WP:CRITERIA (ie Naturalness and Conciseness). TDL (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Consequences

Shouldn't this article also cover the consequences of a LEAVE vote? Such as the breakup of the Union with Scotland choosing to REMAIN and all that? (or Gibraltar's status) -- 70.51.200.20 (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's strange it is not reflected in the article, considering how many people may be affected, and often beyond their control like having citizenship automatically converted from UK to Scott. Without that in the article I don't think people really realize the consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisprof (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Then you'd have to be getting into the consequences of a remain vote. The speculation on the breakup of the UK should it decide to leave,as well as the speculation on the consequences of choosing to remain is not suitable for an encyclopedia. 92.14.235.19 (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Both outcome consequences of course. During the Scottish referendum, there was a Wikipedia artile like that. Speculations CAN and ARE published in Wikiepedia every day, as long as they come from reputable sources. The sources that people read. There is nothing wrong with that. What's the point of having a referendum, if there is no discussion of consequences going on? And if there is one, I see no problem in Wikipedia presenting a summary of it, as of any currently ongoing event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisprof (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• • As long as we're not crystalballing it, I think some discussion of the speculations made by others can be included, as long as it's not in wiki's voice. Speculation on potential outcomes has been an integral part of the debate, and received heavy coverage in RS. Indicating the speculation exists is different than speculating ourselves. This is probably best included in the dsicussion of the rationale for each faction. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Partial Lock on Article May Be Required

Due to the nature of the issue, this article may need to be locked, such that further vandalism by non-logged-in users can be prevented, and such that policing may be done for vandalism by those who ARE logged in. - 107.7.147.21 (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Request has been submitted. Thanks for suggesting. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2016

United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union → Brexit – Per WP:COMMONNAME the vast majority of sources use the term, which is to say, all of them. Was very surprised not to find the article at this name already. Even when searching Google News for "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union" most articles use 'Brexit' in the title, and those that don't always use it in the article body itself. This shouldn't be controversial, but I know that some people won't like the colloquialism being used as the title, despite being the obvious and clear WP:COMMONNAME  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If it's not moved to that title, it really should be at United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, as the current title is incorrect. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Image

We don't like North Cyprus?

On the map, currently the territory of Northern Cyprus is shown as gray. Shouldn't this also be blue? As I understand it, the European Union regards all of Cyprus as a part of the Union and their position is that the territory of Northern Cyprus is being illegally occupied by Turkish-backed forces. On a practical level, people in Northern Cyprus don't have the same access to Europe as other people from the rest of Cyprus, but nonetheless if the EU considers all of Cyprus to be part of the union, then shouldn't the whole island be colored blue. Dragons flight (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

outdated content:

Today, Cameron announced that only his follower as prime minister (October 2016) will invoke article 50. Please correct/update the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.190.250 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ratification

The opening section mentions that it must be ratified by parliament. As someone unfamiliar with the UK's legislative procedure, does that mean that parliament can override it, or is it more symbolic than anything? This should be expanded upon --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's incorrect. Parliament is irrelevant. The Government will activate article 50 independent of Parliament. Actually, updating my earlier comment, in the case of the UK it's a bit vague. See this quote "First, it is a matter for a member state’s “own constitutional requirements” as to how it decides to withdraw. The manner is not prescribed: so it can be a referendum, or a parliamentary vote, or some other means. In the UK, it would seem that some form of parliamentary approval would be required — perhaps a motion or resolution rather than a statute. The position, however, is not clear and the UK government has so far been coy about being specific." [1](FT) Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 11:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)