Talk:Brexit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

Image in article

The licensing info for c:File:Ballot img.png used in the article is blatantly wrong. However I have locked myself out of Commons... Can someone please do the necessary? BethNaught (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of the rich, tangled web of connections between Brexit and the rise of National Socialism?

Many triumphant supporters are drawing parallels between Brexit and the ascendance of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. I have often heard these interesting individuals calling Brexit "the fourth reich" and claiming "We have taken our country back from the Arabs, Browns, Negros, and Jews" and other statements such as these. I propose we add a section called: "Brexit and National Socialism"63.143.202.85 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That content should be well-served under Issues section in the related articles, and described as sentiments regarding immigration aka racism. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ifthere is a RS source on notable discussions instead of individuals on twitter then we can add i.t.Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds utterly speculative and not something worth including.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

The title should be changed to, "British withdrawal from the European Union," as, "British," is one of the the demonyms used for a resident of the United Kingdom.

97.93.28.226 (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There's an RM going on right now. See #Requested move 24 June 2016 — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

It is indeed the height of absurdity to not mention the Fascist, racist, xenophobic, and bigoted character of the Leave campaign and its elderly, rapidly decaying voters who will soon shuffle off this mortal coil. It is as if in 1932 an article on the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany omitted the fact that they ran on anti-semitic campaign platform of making Germany "Judenfrei." 63.143.195.39 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm the son of an immigrant and both me and all my family voted leave with our heads held high. There goes the racism meme.Sardinefig (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

IP user, that is the definition of a WP:FRINGE view. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting your political views. If you have *factual* information, by all means contribute it, but leave your righteous indignation out of it. Robertwharvey (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Massive Fraud in post Brexit re vote petition

https://www.rt.com/uk/348507-brexit-petition-fraudulent-signatures/ SaintAviator lets talk 05:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. As you already know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Greenland option

Per [2] [3] this article should cover the one-country two-systems option, exemplified by Greenland-Denmark, where part of the state LEAVEs while another part REMAINs. -- 70.51.200.20 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia call leave voters "idiots"?

In reference No.4, leave voters as the source calls them are renamed to "idiots". Wikipedia should have no political stance, let alone insult people. 77.238.216.46 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite right. I've taken out the whole sentence as being a little ridiculous, based on one headline. If the term gets traction and more publicity, it may be OK to put it back in, but it’s not leadworthy as it stands. – SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 27 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)

Better discussed on the originl fraught-with-controversy and 1RR pages.Lihaas (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Any reason why we can't have it in light blue maybe?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

If on the other hand, United Kingdom waits with the invoking of article 50, will a rather orchid situation emerge.

Even replacing orchid with awkward this doesn't really make sense. Should this read something like:

If on the other hand, The United Kingdom waits to invoke article 50 a rather awkward situation will emerge.

But I'm not sure awkward is the right word here either. Strange, perverse perhaps, weird, but not really awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.236.1 (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to Add Image

Thoughts on including an image of a 1973 Great Britain 50 Pence (KM# 918), which commemorates the U.K. entrance into the ECC, as part of the Background section? Here's an image I took of one the other day: http://i66.tinypic.com/1j46rt.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.145.104 (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Past tense in lead text

Why does the opening sentence say "... is a political goal that was pursued ...", as though the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union is something which has already happened? It should say "a political goal that has been pursued ... - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: this amendment has now been made - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2016

Suggested insert with regards to Options for leaving the EU; infographic detailing "Alternative models to EU membership - comparison of rights and restrictions." Useful as a comparison of what rights certain non-EU countries have or don't have compared to EU member states.

Memarch (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Where are the reliable sources for that graphic? Without them, it can't be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

Please add the following text to the article: "The British pound has suffered its biggest one-day selloff in recent history, as the shock news the the UK is heading out of the European Union sparked panic in the markets." [4]. 89.164.181.240 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This is covered at International reactions to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Economic - which is a more appropriate place than this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. As long as it is covered... 89.164.181.240 (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually its not covered. THe international reactions covers the international aspects of other countries outside.Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've provided a source, it can be included here or there. I can't edit as an IP. 141.138.27.198 (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. That kind of detail is covered at United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, but not here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Article 50" and the procedure for leaving the EU

Just a modest comment on the irony of history - It seems, the British government were instrumental in their own recent troubles getting a good deal or getting out of the EU in general - it is explained in this political commentary of 3. July 2016 on the website of Denmarks Radio (unfortunately in Danish only): http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/13-aar-gammel-britisk-eu-sejr-viser-sig-vaere-et-skud-i-foden (13 Year old British victory turns out to be a shot in the foot) (with reference to this article on BBC with EU Trade Commisioner Cecilia Malmström: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222).

The British actually were the ones, who pushed for the exact conditions and wording of the now infamous Article 50, back in 2003. The then British representatives pushed for the very procedure, now making it extremely difficult for the same British government to get at good deal before getting out, inscribed into the EU constitution, despite the fact that both Germany and France was strongly against it. Then, the British celebrated it as a political victory over the 'sinister' EU - now it would seem a shot in the foot, as the commentator puts it.

Cecilia Malmström is the keyperson, who will negotiate directly with the British government, on behalf of the whole of EU, in matters of trading and the internal market.

If this should have been put somewhwere else in this discussion page, just move it. If you think these facts abovementioned should be included in the Brexit-article, I would be delighted. Please come back UK :) Thosland1 —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Brexit-article? Surely you mean the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union-article? - DVdm (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the UKWEU-article - I was just being informal. Where I live, the process is almost exlusively termed Brexit in most connections, both as a reference to the actual referendum and to the forthcoming process as a whole. The Danish National Broadcast, Denmarks Radio also uses it as the official designation: http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/brexit - but I am fully aware there is a more correct term for this process, which is the formal title, used in the article. Thosland1

Actually, you were being formal, as it's called Brexit everywhere. Except on the English Wikipedia . See above. - DVdm (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you - I thought so Thosland1

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016

As a qualified member of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (www.iti.org.uk), I am not fully satisfied with the grammar and/or word choices of part of this article. I would like to correct some grammar mistakes in the article.

Yang Shi, MITI

Yangshi uwa (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I'm sure that you can read and understand the text in the box above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

So we can escape with the unsatisfactory word choices and just need look forward to seeing the grammar mistakes? But which part was that? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2016

It would be beneficial to this article to add a line after the sentence in the third paragraph from the beginning that states, "The result was 52% in favour of leaving and 48% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72% of the electorate." The sentence should be added after is, "The 'Leave' campaign won by 1269.5 votes." This should be added because it is important to note early in the article the small number of votes by which the "Leave" campaign won. Providing only percentages shows the reader only the relationship to the whole, not an exact number.

Here is here is a citation from CNN concerning the margin of victory for the "Leave" campaign: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/david-cameron-resignation-brexit/

Mr Dunn Mills (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The leave campaign didn't win by 12,695 votes, they won by 1,269,501 votes, which was 3.78% of the total number of valid votes cast. I think providing percentages is more informative and saves the reader from those tricky mental calculations? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the number. But I believe providing one statistic without the other is an incomplete analysis. Providing the margin of victory only in terms of a percentage shows readers only its relationship to the whole. This is valuable but incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Dunn Mills (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think percentages are more useful than raw numbers in this article. The reader can consult the article which has the raw numbers quite easily. Other editors may agree with you, however. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this is answered. Toggling |answered=no. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016

Please add the following(in main leading section or other). Brexit may not be end to free trade or stop to work immigration. Actual example may be Norwegian model, where being out of union means mainly having more independence in own politics, and not having that influence on union politics.

References

An interesting article, but one which was published on 16 June, i.e. a week before the referendum, so somewhat speculative. But interesting that Aspaker said "It would be a huge step backwards if the UK was to leave, and would have huge implications for us." Also that Patrick Wintour says that Norway is "portrayed as a willing serf waiting by the computer to download its instructions from Brussels." I've added Norway by name to the article to make it clear it's part of EFTA, but I'm not sure how much of that article should be cited. It's mostly opinion, illustrated by the views of Elisabeth Aspaker and Hilde Nylén. What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Toggling answered edit request. The original requester can re-open if there are still concerns. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"then referred to in the UK as 'the Common Market'"

Is this important enough to note? It wasn't only referred to by the UK but by other EEC countries (I'm guessing most of them) (e.g. from the article on French Wikipeida Marché commun européen): "Le marché commun européen, ou plus simplement marché commun, est l’ancien nom du marché intérieur de l’Union européenne." Ditto Italian Wikipedia: "Con l'espressione Mercato europeo comune (MEC) ci si riferisce al mercato unico dell'Unione europea ..." In other words, that's what everyone called it for short. I suggest we don't need to specify that it was called that 'by the UK' at the time, if we need to mention it at all. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I should have realized there would even be an equivalent article in English. I've trimmed and linked to Common Market.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Calm down please

There's an amount of hysterical reaction in the media following the Brexit vote, with minor stuff being inflated beyond all reason. The secession of London is an example which I've deleted, and I would also class the Mayor of Calais's opinions with that and probably the on-line petition for another referendum. Can we try to avoid this fluff getting into the article? This is too big and too important on many fronts to let it get hijacked by publicity-seeking wallies. Gravuritas (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Although the outright "secession" of London may be unlikely, the pressure towards increased autonomy for London is certainly plausible and the subject of substantial discussion. Reference to it should be reinstated - change the sub-heading if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not plausible-see my comment below- so falls under undue weight.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Reaction from influential people or large groups is reaction, whether editors think it's is a sensible or not, just like the referendum campaign article covers silly arguments about Turkey because they were significant subjects of debate at the time. The most-signed petition in British political history certainly falls into the category of significant reaction, regardless of it being unlikely to change anything. "London Independence" probably warrants coverage on Wikipedia as well, although I agree with Gravituras that the article shouldn't weight a protest petition and a few commentators' remarks as heavily as the much more longstanding constitutional questions around Scotland, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar. Dtellett (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You're suggesting that an official on-line petition, signed by 4,111,660 people is "fluff"? Or just that William Oliver Healey, the person who initiated it, is a "publicity-seeking wally"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Look guys: this is a big issue. There are certainly Europe-wide, possibly world-wide financial implications, and massive political implications for the EU as a whole. At this time, and in an article of only moderate length, 'London independence' is a complete joke and merits no coverage at all: it's going nowhere. There is so much constitutional work to do in the UK that further powers for London are inconceivable in the next few years: anyone capable of drafting legislation in the UK is going to be up to their eyeballs. Grudgingly, because it is just tosh, the pointless petition signed by 4,111,660 people or bots might just about merit a short mention but it will be forgotten in a couple of months: 4M is certainly a lot but it's small potatoes compared to the number that has just voted, so no-one gives a rats arse about it: it's just venting. I don't allege that the original (pre-referendum) creator of the petition is a publicity-seeking wally: that's reserved for the nits that have signed it since the result or the people that think it matters. The Mayor of Calais' little hissy fit? Over-ruled by his government, so it's just a little hissy fit of no consequence. The same applies to a great deal of the comments and speculation: when Brexit is triggered, the SNP may or may not attempt some constitutional blocking action. When the EU and the UK get down and dirty into some negotiations then there will be something substantive to say, maybe. But until then is the page going to fill and refill with posturing by everyone and his Mother? Get some perspective, please.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah right, "small potatoes." The margin for the Brexit vote was 1,269,501 - that's less than a third of the petition vote (so far), yes? But so pleased that crystal ball of yours covers four million peoples' memories "in a couple of months". Maybe people don't give a "rat's arse" for biased political ranting? - well, how can they if they're all "nits". We're all left wondering which way you voted. My regards to your Mother. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Basic error of numeracy: you think that you can pick any two numbers and compare them. That's bias. Why do you think that there is a comparison between a voting margin and a petition number? Surely in all likelihood it is the Remainers that want another vote. So if there are 4M genuine votes, all it means is that 25% of the Remain voters think that it is all going to happen again, because they don't like the result. Why is that worth reporting in this article? Possible Wishful thinking might be more appropriate. See you in a coupe of months and you can tell me where this petition has gone.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I was discussing your use of the term "small potatoes". The simplicity in your analysis of the situation is quite shocking and seems to be riddled with baseless bias and a need for petty name-calling. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you were referring to that term.. 25% of a group (in this case 'Remainers', assuming that these are genuine votes not bots) feeling strongly enough that they wish to revisit a settled question is small potatoes, and your selection of an illegitimate basis for comparison (i.e. of 4M vs the 1.xM In/Out margin) showed considerable bias. I have no doubt that, if there were sufficient publicity and confusion, and media storm, around an election result, 25% of the voters for the losing side would gladly vote for a re-run. So what? If you need further explanation of why your comparison is biased, please ask. Meantime, I suggest that you support 'baseless bias' with at least one line of argument; 'simplicity of analysis' with another, otherwise your entire post is ....petty name-calling.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How many petition votes do you assume were made by "bots"? I don't see you making any particularly clear suggestions as to how this article could be improved. Perhaps I missed something (assuming I'm "a nit", of course)? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clear- but to repeat, my suggestion is in general that we try to filter out the 'somebody said something' type reporting and the minor and irrelevant stuff, in the light of the major stuff that the vote portends. Specifically, I think that the London independence stuff should not be there, and nor should the now-over-ruled opinion of the Mayor of Saint-Quentin (not Calais- my mistake) Personally, I would class the on-line petition for a re-run in the same way and delete it, but I would now accept that this view will not be held widely enough so I withdraw that part of the suggestion. Do you or anyone else feel that Xavier Bertrand and his smack-down merits inclusion? Gravuritas (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You've overlooked my question. It's a easy one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The status of London has been raised in multiple reliable sources; and is mentioned at Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Status of London, and at London independence. Now, I'm all for minimising overlap between articles as things settle down; but there seems to be absolutely no good reason not to mention the discussions over the status of London in this article. The only argument against its inclusion is by one person who thinks it's a bit silly. That's not a good enough reason. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: No, I said above that the London independence thing is undue weight in this article, and misrepresenting that statement demeans your point. I would accept that it should be mentioned briefly in the 'Aftermath..' article, but clearly inclusion in one WP article is not automatic grounds for inclusion in another. There was also some support from User:Dtellet concerning its prominence. Please stick to the facts, and try to deal with the point of undue weight.

@Martinevans123: You wish to ignore my disposal of your biased comparison, but try to insist on your later question being answered? First things first.

No defence of Calais noted.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no real suggestions for improvement, only misguided ranting. Have your small potatoes suddenly grown? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas. The discussions in reliable sources relating to the status of London are of sufficient importance to be noted in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

Epithetic effects

On completion of Article 50 procedures, all British subjects will be addressed as extracomunitarians in all informal contexts. Albertosplit (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

References

That article says that the term "is usually overtoned to refer to migrants that legally or illegally enter Europe from developing countries." Do you think that is appropriate? And I'm sure this is not the term you can expect to hear "in all informal contexts" e.g. when down the pub. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per wp:UNSOURCED—see wp:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, the article Extracomunitarian is based on just one wp:primary source, and even then that article says that "the term "extracomunitarian" is no longer used in formal contexts...", which does not imply that it is used in all informal contexts. This is wp:SYNTH—of the erroneous kind. - DVdm (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename article to "Brexit"? Or maybe create another article for Brexit?

This has probably been discussed before, but anyway... I googled Brexit (just like everyone else googles brexit) in order to find this article I'm in right now. For the sake of simplicity, why not just rename this long name to simply Brexit, if that's what people search most of the times? EeeveeeFrost (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

See the above discussion: weigh in and good luck.The joy of all things (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Brexit page auto redirects to this page. So you can get the page via Brexit. Proper naming is another discussion Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

London section in secessions

I found this piece strange.

Scotland, N. Ireland, Gibraltar are substantially different territories. Thus, the talk about secession, even if not naturally "legal" is meaningful.

London is a city. Without anyone seriously looking into giving it independence.

London idea is more political protest than anything like a realistic secession threat / plan

I cannot see why this is framed as secession idea.... Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not (now) included under "Secessions" - there is a separate section headed "Status of London". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

For me it feels hot air not in need to be included. But I understand that this is widely discussed in the media. So what can I say?? Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"United Kingdom of England and Wales"

Multiple news sources and political analysts have stated that in the aftermath of Brexit, Scotland and Northern Ireland will secede. This of course is due to their preference to be with the EU as independent republics.

The U.K., as we know it, will be no more. Not even Great Britain will be spared! This analysis should be incorporated into the article. Cheers. --66.87.118.217 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Analysis? Then it's original research. Not going to happen. Digifiend (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Off-Topic Discussion (collapsed by 67.141.87.141 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC) per WP:TALKO)

Suggest to call it "United Kingdom of South Britain" O woeful day, O woeful day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.142.182 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC) and perhaps Scotland and Northern Ireland could unite as The Celtic Union of Scotland and Northern Ireland. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.142.182 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC) I have it. "The United Republic of Eire, Cymru and Alba". URECA ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC) I'm still all for Formerly United Kingdom, aka FUK! --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Any sources for the assertion by both RS and notable commentaries?Lihaas (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)