Talk:Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit

Further points to be added to this article - proposal

I would like to see a section added on the location and heading of EU institutions during the UK's membership of the EU, to wit, the UK is the second largest economy, the second largest population and the second largest net contributor to the EU budget, yet not one single important EU institution is or was ever located in London or elsewhere in the UK, such as the EU parliament, Commission, Central Bank (although this would have been logical given the role of the City of London). There has never been a UK citizen as head of any of the major institutions either. The result is that the UK population never 'owned' the EU, it was something 'over the channel' and perceived as 'foreigners telling us what to do'. This may be a lesser-known fact but possibly also a contributory factor behind the majority vote to leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Why this page

I am a new Wikipedian, and I have joined in order to make a page that is similar in character to the pages that exist on the causes of the First World War, the Iranian Revolution and other major historical events. The EU referendum page is excellent and comprehensive, and I wanted to respect the practice of keeping 'causes of' to a separate page, like this. However, in all ways I am new to this and will doubtless have made mistakes - I would be grateful if people could be gentle in helping me correct them as a newbie. TomASteinberg (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

For the major historical events you list, there is probably an issue of article length which is a driver for separate articles for 'Causes of...', and that issue is not present in this case. Is this page needed? If this page is needed, I suspect there will be a serious problem of balance in the published commentary, which will give rise to difficulties in this article. Remainers are asking 'How did we lose?' and looking for causes. Leavers, I think, are and will be much less prone to navel- gaze about the causes of them winning.

A further question: what do you or others want this article to cover? Conceivably, it could be limited to explaining how, given the roughly equal standing of the two sides, the referendum campaign was won or lost by either side. Alternatively, the article could cover the causes of the EU becoming sufficiently unpopular in some quarters that the Leave campaign was in with a shout in the first place.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gravuritas - thanks for taking the time to comment and help out. Let me answer your points in turn.

1 - On the fact that some members of the readership may find this page more useful than others, is that truly a barrier to publication? Surely every page is of more interest to some groups, and sometimes that difference lies down political or religious lines. Also I feel like I've been clear that the more popular nature of leave's key policies is at the top, to set the tone for the rest.

2 - On the 'why should this be its own page' question, my answer is two fold. First, I worry about the clarity of something that is as nested as this article occurring inside the already highly complex page for the overall referendum. Second, I believe that there is a public interest in having a clear, easy to find page on the social and political factors that contributed to this important even, especially since many people will actively look for those factors as they try to plan their own lives in the years ahead. I believe the main referendum article to be primarily of use to historians, but this page to be mainly of use to people working on the future - this is in fact why I wrote it, so that people launching new projects, or making political moves have a better evidence base than they would otherwise have.

3 - In terms of what I would like it to cover, I have various desires. First, I'd like more information on key choices by the EU institutions themselves that contributed to the lack of popularity with the public. Then I'd like examples of key news stories that may have shaped long term public opinions. Next, I would also like to add estimates on the absolute numbers of people representing different demographics that actually turned out to vote different ways.

Thanks! TomASteinberg (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

TomASteinberg (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this page is needed. I have added to this discussion page some themes which I think should be included. I have not tried to find sources.Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Right then, no lack of additional material required then... 192.76.7.163 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

European identity and / or Island mentality

People (perhaps outside the UK) must have noted the lack of a "European" identity compared to other EU member states; and perhaps advanced the notion that Brexit is in some way due to a sense of an 'Island mentality' ie that we can stand apart from our neighbours?Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone else added a section on this, which I've edited and moved to what seems to be the appropriate place. Was it you, logged out? TomASteinberg (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I am writing from Spain, where I have been born and raised but have traveled to many EU countries and have plenty of friends from all the EU around. I am not backing this with any social scientific article or study: I have the feeling that nobody feels European anywhere. Spaniards tend to feel Spanish (well, we have Catalonia and the Basques), Frenchmen feel French, Dutchs feel Dutch and Italians feel Italian... what I want to stress is that the lack of a European identity should not be regarded as a cause of Brexit since the absence of that feeling is similar among the rest of EU nations.

Perhaps I could agree that Britons tend to protect jealously their independence and there are plenty of reasons for that. Philip II of Spain tried to restore Catholicism everywhere (including England), Napoleon wanted to conquer all of Europe and Hitler had plans to invade the British Islands. We can say that this is part of British / English nationalism much rather than a 'lack of European identity'.

On the island mentality, you could compare to Ireland, where I understand that there is not a debate on their membership of the EU. Sam10rc (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

English nationalism

Some authors for instance Anthony Barnett in his series of Open Democracy articles Blimey, it could be Brexit! advanced the idea that England lacked a political expression, and linked the idea of anti-EU and / or immigrant feeling to English nationalism. He believes that this contrasts with the civic nationalism that has been built in Scotland.Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Civic nationalism in Scotland? Would that be the kind where people paint their faces, wave the national flag, hurl abuse at visitors, sing songs about killing their neighbours, bang on about battles from 700 years ago and hold demonstrations that are 99% white?

I'm afraid that this Barnett article doesn't actually articulate the idea you've put here in the same way that you put it. So I've not added anything for now. TomASteinberg (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Credibility of the EU

A further factor must be the credibility of the EU, for instance, given its inability to deal with the Euro crisis and the economic stagnation that appears to have resulted from it; and also the way that its border policy was failing to stop large scale migration from Syria and Lybia. Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Both points are linked to the UK's economic and immigration policies, but are separate from it, as they have indirect effects on the UK. However, both must have contributed to a sense of a 'failing' EU.

Liverpool

Liverpool deserves a special mention in an analysis of the causes of Brexit, for bucking the trend. Anecdotal reasons cited have included a dislike of Boris Johnson for his comments re Hillsborough and their boycott of the Sun.Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Cameron and Remain's staregy

These must be examined. Cameron's strategy was awkward and lacked credibility for many well-documented reasons. Remain's strategy lacked emotion for related reasons; Remain got boxed into an economic case based on the fear of leaving.Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Contentious. From within the Remain camp, Cameron's strategy I guess looked clear and straightforward. Sell his renegotiation hard, well in advance of the referendum. Then enrol lots of institutions to warn against the consequences, especially the economic ones, of leaving ('Project Doom'). Nearer the date, attack 'Leave' for not having a well-thought-plan for leaving. Remain was not 'boxed in'- economics was their strategy.

Personally, I suspect that Project Doom was somewhat overdone, so that a reaction to it set in, and as it wasn't getting enough traction, Remain doubled and redoubled and this resulted in credibility issues for the previous warnings as well as the newer ones. I also think that Remain attacking the disparate groups comprising 'Leave' for not having a coherent plan was an error: each voter voting for leave could have a different reason for leaving than the guy next to him, so coherence was not a prerequisite for a Leave vote.

Sorry, think I've strayed well into POV territory. Will look for sources at the weekend if I get a chance.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Eurosketpicism and the split right wing

Contributary factors to Brexit also include the attitudes twards the EU particularly of the right of British politics. This exacerbated calls for a referendum, but were generally confined to the right.

The Conservative party were split with a strong Europskeptic wing since at least the late 1980s. In the 2000s it was seen as essential to bring these two wings together in order to persuade the public to elect a Conservative government. The price paid was the offer of an in / out referendum.

The rise of UKIP added to the pressure within the Conservative Party for a referendum both to compete with UKIP in the short term, and longer term, to neutralise them.Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Long term unsettled relationship with the EU and decline of UK influence

Themes here include the apparent desire of UK politicians to belittle the EU, to claim victories over it, particularly on the Conservative side of politics. This was fuelled by the party's Euroskepticism and the appetite for these stories in the tabloid press.

Other factors would include the tensions between the UK's economic and legal models and other EU states, being less regulatory, and less focused on rights, including workers' rights, the 'social model' and human rights guarantees such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The tradition of strong executive and legislative power in the UK and the traditional doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, are in tension with the notion of the supremacy of EU law, which caused political disquiet particularly on the right of politics.

It can be argued that the UK has lost influence, for instance as a result of the emergence of the Eurozone, and the need for those countries to work closer together. Similarly the UK appears to have lost influence within the EU Parliament and significant parties of government as a result of the Conservative Party leaving the Christian Democrat grouping to ally with more Euroskeptic parties. Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Inflexibility of the EU model

Arguably, the EU model found it hard to accomodate the differing views of the UK. The UK had already developed an arms length approach to the EU, opting out of Schengen and the Euro, and maintaining legislative opt outs in other areas such as law enforcement.

Faced with a new desire from the UK that would require potential treaty change, the EU was not able to make an offer to the UK without being subject to national referendums and vetoes - which would probably be lost. Both the treaties, and the enlarged, 28 member EU, could be cited as causes of this inflexibility.Jim Killock (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, the EU is not precisely very flexible with its member states, we all can think of Greece and what happened after the Greeks voted very clearly to reject the terms of their bailout. The EU, i.e. Merkel and its henchmen decided that this was against democracy and force the Hellenic government to adopt the big picture of the terms.

However, the UK had already secured a long list of opt-outs (similar to the Danes, ok) which made the second-large economy of the EU and one of the most influential countries stand alone from the continent. This had an obvious consequence: who on earth can believe the strength of an European Union where some members have such huge privileges. Every project has its crisis and the EU had a serious crisis in 2011: all the member states but one agreed a treaty which stablished that the Euro was the official currency of the EU. David Cameron decided to veto this treaty just because this phrase. Come on, the treaties already secured the continuity of the Pound Sterling and it would have never contained provisions to force the British to adopt the Euro. However, this treaty was necessary to help with the Euro crisis we are already in and HM Government decided to screw their colleagues. You can't demand more flexibility when you already have a custom-tailored EU. Sam10rc (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This piece displays some degree of misunderstanding which needs resolving in case it appears in tne article itself. Any common-currency area has to include (massive) flows of money from the richer to the poorer areas to prevent the positive feedback loops which condemn regions, or in this case countries, to permanent poverty. The Eurozone has not established these flows of money on anything approaching the necessary scale, and has no democratic mandate to do so. So crisis and bail-outs are not one-offs: they will be a larger and larger part of the Eurozone future. So who will pay for this economic illiteracy? Not surely, those countries outside the Eurozone. That's what Cameron was vetoing. HM Government's 'colleagues' decided to screw themselves by getting into the Euro, and most of them are suffering as they try to cope with an overvalued currency relative to those parts of the Eurozone which have an undervalued currency. Similarly, Schengen has been suspended at various borders: is that temporary or permanent?

Gravuritas (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The EU has a lot of problems and a lot of things need urgent change, especially for those countries in the Eurozone. In my opinion, not only common-currency areas should include flows of money from the richer to the poorer areas, but it should be also implemented by common markets, and the EU has failed to do so. There are many so-called structural funds which are assigned to governments in order to develop the poorer regions but, in practice, they get lost in the way, as the point I wanted to raise in this talk page. How could the most opting-out member of a club complain of that club's lack of flexibility? Before Article 50 is triggered, HM Government was already out of Schengen (with Ireland), Economic and Monetary union (with Denmark and, in practice, with Sweeden), Charter of Fundamental Rights (with Poland), and the Area of freedom, security and justice (with Ireland and Denmark). If the Remain side had emerged as the winner of the vote, the UK would have opted-out of more aspects of the EU, in the terms agreed by Cameron on that summit. Perhaps Britons were used to rule the waves but we are living complicated days when union makes force if your population is below 200M and your military is not in the top-3. Sam10rc (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You may think it desirable for there to be flows of money in a common market from rich to poor. However, in a common-currency area it is not just desirable, it is utterly necessary, on a very large scale. Those creating the Eurozone who were economically literate no doubt hoped that a political mandate would develop in the rich countries for the necessary massive flows of money. That hasn't happened. The result is a slow- motion multiple car crash in which the participants are trying everything other than the bleeding obvious, which is to take their foot off the accelerator to more EU integration. So your focus on the minor outbreaks of sanity which are the various little opt-outs you list is misconceived: try to focus on the main problems which are those of a madhouse run by the inmates.

Gravuritas (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope you agree to me that the existing flows of money have failed since governments from a wide range of countries in Europe have been allowed to allocate those funds freely and, in the case of Spain, where I live, they have been spent in things like a toll motorway between two cities which already have a motorway between them. Unluckily, this kind of lavishness is repeated in the new members of the European club while the EU is not making anything to avoid it.

Sharply, you are describing the United States of Europe provided the opt-outs were removed. A political mandate to create such flows of money would be a real EU integration, which is a thing I personally favour. This would imply, sooner or later, the lose of national sovereingnity, which could result in a great success or an aircraft crashing against the rocks.

Last, let me stress that the flows of money are necessary not only on common-currency areas. They must be present to on single-markets. For instance, in the current EU: how could we hope that Romania or Hungary became good candidates for the Euro if their economies are simply not fitting the Eurozone standards? How could we possibly hope that Romania or Hungary don't become new ocurrences of a Greek debt crisis, with or without the common currency, if those benefiting more of the common market don't make their contribution to the poorer members of the market? But, in my view, those funds should not be administrated by national governments, who may use them to fulfil their manifesto instead of performing the necesary reforms in that country that the EU expects of them. Sam10rc (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your last paragraph, you are wrong. Asingle-market is perfectly possible without major flows of transfer payments, provided that it is not also a single- currency area. If one area is generally uncompetitive then the exchange rate provides a feedback loop to solve the problem. Prior to the ERM and the Euro, Italy for instance had an exchange rate vs the Deutschmark that allowed the lirato drift downwards. Since the exchange rate has been locked, Italian manufacturing in particular has suffered and will continue to do so. Basic economics.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Page title

I think, to be completely accurate, the page title needs to be changed to something "Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit" given that we have not yet left the EU, nor has the Brexit process been triggered as yet. Jim Killock (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Causes of Brexit → Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit – Title change on the grounds that this article is addressing the causes of something that has not [yet] happened. If it has not happened then it has no causes to document by definition. On the other hand, the vote in favour of Brexit very much has happened and therefore has causes which can be documented. I was going to be WP:BOLD and just move the article, but I decided to raise it here instead in case someone has a better title. --Elektrik Fanne 17:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Seems like a sensible suggestion to me. This is Paul (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Perfectly sensible. 85.255.237.66 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

--Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:16, 10 September 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.

£4300 claim by remain was considered misleading

@Elektrik Fanne: You said that the source does not support claim that this is a lie or misleading Here's the source in question: there are also others available http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36397732 The Treasury Select Committee... startquote1 And it says Remain's claims families would be worse off by £4,300 a year if Britain quit the EU were "mistaken" and had "probably confused" voters. endquote1 start quote2 The committee criticised Chancellor George Osborne over his claim that a Treasury analysis showed that "families would be £4,300 worse off" if Britain left the EU. "This is not what the main Treasury analysis found - the average impact on household disposable incomes would be considerably smaller than this number, which refers to the impact on GDP per household," the report said. "It may have left many readers thinking that the figures refer to the effect of leaving the EU on household disposable income, which they do not," the report added. The report said government departments and Remain campaigners should not repeat this "mistaken assertion," adding: "To persist with this claim would be to misrepresent the Treasury's own work." endquote2

so in your reading of English, a mistaken, probably confusing misrepresentation is not misleading. Don't be daft. Gravuritas (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Lies and misleading claims

Gravuritas keeps restoring the statement that the claim by the remain camp, "The most commonly criticised claim by the Remain campaign was that leaving the EU would leave British households £4,300 worse off" was a deliberate lie or misinformation (as it is the section entitled 'Lies and misleading information'). However, although the provided reference states that the statement was made, it does not state that it was made with the intention of deliberately misleading voters. Whilst there was considerable debate from both sides over the exact size of the financial impact (or indeed, if there was one), it should come as no surprise because financial forecasts are seldom reliable due to numerous unforeseen factors as the scenario plays out. As a result the actual figure can be higher or lower.

However, in this case, the vote leave campaigners, inadvertently confirmed the claim and the approximate financial impact in the weeks before the referendum. Doubtless anxious to rescue the referendum from what was (according to the opinion polls) becoming a clear victory for the remain campaign, vote leave invented yet another advantage of a leave vote.

They claimed that "... because Britain imports more goods from Europe than it exports to Europe, this will create about £80 billion pounds for the treasury because of tariffs which can be used for the benefit of the National Health Service" (as reported in The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 19th April - and doubtless the Daily Mail and Daily Express as well). Vote Leave probably had not noticed that they had 'reused' a claim made by the remain campaign 2 months earlier where they had claimed that every person would incur an extra burden of about £1,500 per annum due to the application of import duty to goods from Europe (a claim that Vote Leave dismissed as 'made up lies').

The goods exported are an irrelevance because there are no tariffs applied to them by Britain either way. It is only goods imported that attract tariffs (or import duty to give it its more common name) that count here. It would not make any difference if we exported more, the same or nothing to Europe. Vote Leave worded their claim cleverly to make it appear that the treasury windfall was somehow going to be created out of nowhere. Treasury funds never appear out of nowhere - someone has to pay them. In this case it is the buyers of imported goods who have to pay the import duty in the form of increased prices. Now if you divide the £80 billion by the population of the country, you get very close to £1,500, which means that the £4,500 claim is approximately valid for the average household (depending on exactly how large your average household is). Current figures for the average number of children in a 2 parent household is 1.7 (down from the traditional 2.4). Once the two parents are added in that is a household of 3.7. However, for single parent households, the number is smaller at 1.2 (making 2.2 with the parent). The £4,500 figure looking like a good approximation. --Elektrik Fanne 14:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think adding our two new sections overlapped in time. If you look at the section I've added, the quotes make it clear that the Treasury Select committee thought that the £4300 was misleading, in the normal English usage of the term. Weaselling a "deliberate" in front of the "misleading" in your argument above and then trying to attack it is a rhetorical flourish that is unworthy of any serious discussion. Was it misleading? Yes, the TSC said so. All the blather and arithmetic above and who agreed or disagreed does not matter: there is a WP:RS reporting that a body of significance said that is was misleading.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That was their opinion. And that is all it was - an opinion. An opinion is not fact. Others (including Vote Leave) disagreed. --Elektrik Fanne 14:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Try to get with the programme, old sport. If it's reported by a reputable source, and is of significance, it goes in. The BBC is generally considered a WP:RS, and the opinion of the Treasury Select Committee, especially when it is criticizing a Treasury Report, stands higher than many other opinions. It does not matter if you disagree; it does not matter if others disagree; it does not matter if someone in the Leave camp disagrees. Now please spend less time on a squiggly sig and more time reading up about what WP is and is not, and stop this painful repetition of deleting adequately-sourced material.

Off-topic but I can't resist: from your stuff above, you know crap-all about tariffs. Try looking up the world price of sugar.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No! You get with the programme. You are claiming that the statement was deliberately misleading. You need a reference that states that the claim was deliberately misleading. The BBC report is that TSC had an opinion that the sum of money involved was larger than they believed it to be. That is not a reference supporting the point that the original claim was deliberately misleading. On the contrary: it is a reference that the TSC's opinion was that the claim was valid, but that the actual amount involved was in question. That the TSC had that opinion, does not make it a fact. --Elektrik Fanne 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: & @Elektrik Fanne:: OK! I've watched this tooing and froing for some some time now. You both have valid points. It is true that the treasury committee did fundamentally support the position that households would be financially worse off. They questioned the degree to which that would happen. The current references do not fully support the claim as provided in the context with which it is given so continually reinserting it unaltered is disruptive editing (intended or otherwise). Similarly, repeatedly removing it is not achieving anything. Basically: you are both edit warring and risking blocks. I suggest you stop right now.

Rather than try to keep reverting the same point over and over why not try to agree on some more neutral or compromise wording? There is good material that is salvageable from the wreckage. It could be stated that the claim was made but that the magnitude of the financial burden was challenged by (whoever). At least that is something that can be backed up by the existing references. However, I would still be uncomfortable with the claim that it was deliberately misleading because there is no reference yet provided that says so. I have tried to find one but the only claims I can find originate from those who wanted a 'leave' result, which must be regarded as unreliable. If no such reference can be found, perhaps the material needs to put somewhere else in the article to remove the implication that it was deliberately misleading. 85.255.237.66 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

your entire point is devalued because you are makng the same error as EF. The heading of the section is 'Lies and misleading claims'. You and EF both slur this into '...deliberately misleading...', which is clearly a higher bar to jump than just 'misleading', and EF has repeated the error. I've already made this point above, so it is a surprising omission from you- someone trying to sound neutral. Further, the TSC made a series of points against the use of the figure of £4300, which most people would accept can be adequately paraphrased as 'misleading. Your double tepetition of EF's error makes you sound like a sock of EF. Are you?

Gravuritas (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because two people are pointing out where you are wrong does not mean they are making the same error. The only one making an error here is you. You are continuing to assert that both the claim that households would be worse off and the amount involved were made with deliberate intent to mislead (implicitly by its inclusion in the lies and misleading information section of the article). The treasury select committee voiced an opinion that the Chancellor of the exchequer was fundamentally correct in his assessment that households would be worse off (which the references support). Their opinion was that the £4500 figure was too large. But financial prediction is a notoriously unreliable art. The Chancellor's opinion was that the select committee was incorrect in its assessment. The Chancellor has to be considered as reliable source (if not more reliable) than a committee. As to who supports whos assessment: that rather depends on whether they supported reamin or leave. Your continued obsession to hammer an unsupported point into the article is obvious evidence that as a supporter of Brexit, you are trying do what the rest of them tried - to tar the remain campaign with the same tactics as used by Leave. You have currently disruptively restored the claim that that it was deliberately misleading four times. That is clear edit warring and disruptive editing and worthy of a block. Of course, anyone is entitled to remove your continued addition with impunity because it is unsupported by any references so far provided. 85.255.237.66 (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because two people, or twenty two people, construct a bent argument by repeatedly changing 'misleading' to 'deliberately misleading' does not mean that they are anything but twisters. Try going back though your arguments, remove the falsely-inserted adverbs, and weep. Lets's look at one sentence, in which you say of me "You have currently ...restored the claim that it was deliberately misleading four times." It is not true. I have restored a claim that it was misleading. I have not restored any claims that anything was deliberately misleading. You and your alter ego keep talking about 'deliberately misleading' which nowhere appears in the article. As I have raised this point at least twice before, then you are not being accidentally misleading about the article, you are being deliberately misleading. Is that the same as lying? Gravuritas (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: I'm not pursuing this further here as I am clearly wasting my time. Since you were already warned: I am sorely tempted to take your repeated allegation up the hall to ANI which would mean that the admins would automatically perform a check-user, discover you're wrong and block you. If you restore the uncited claim, I most certainly will along with the disruptive editing. --Elektrik Fanne 15:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Introducing irrelevances such as the world price of sugar is achieving nothing and impressing no one. Tariffs and import duty are exactly the same thing. One is just an obfuscated word for the other. Import duty adds to the price that the end user pays. One major point is that if the treasury receive 80 billion, then the end consumers pay around three times that amount as every business in the chain from importer to retailer adds his profit on the originally paid import duty so, if the analysis is valid, the amount paid by each household would be much much larger. Either that, or the treasury only gets a fraction of the money, if the £4500 figure is valid. 85.255.237.66 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the world price of sugar was irrelevant: the hint was in my words 'off-topic". And you are repeating EF's error of arguing the case, not improving the article. Just cut the masquerade and admit you are EF. Gravuritas (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: Gravuritas' editing behaviour has been observed by me as not as constructive as it could be. This is yet another example. In this situation, I strongly suggest removing Gravuritas' unsourced claim. BTW: I would have liked to see the Remain campaign to succeed, and I hope peace in Europe will endure nonetheless. But this personal opinion will not cause me to distort the facts, at least not deliberately. --Mathmensch (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mathmensch. You've taken your little tantrum to various WP fora and got ignored, and now you are stalking me. Try not to be a twerp all of your life. Read WP:Talk- this is not a forum for your hopes for peace or your opinions on anything other than the content of the article in question.

Gravuritas (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This I have been doing. I have also tried to be neutral. I had added a footnote that a claim attributed to the Leave campaign was not actually made (their early literature did not make the claim). However, on re-examining the references supplied I discovered that Leave did explicitly make the statement, so I had to change the footnote to keep the article accurate. --Elektrik Fanne 14:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Making allegations of that sort without evidence is a sure fire short cut to an editing block. Just because two (now three) people disagree with you does not mean that they must be the same person supporting each other. It just means that you are wrong and three people have noticed. --Elektrik Fanne 14:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As the person who made this page, I'm baffled by this particular disagreement. The role of this section is to document that certain factual claims were frequently claimed to be misleading. The £4300 was one claim that more than a few people claimed to be misleading. It therefore deserves to be in this section. Please restore. TomASteinberg (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I am troubled by this section as it seems to conflate two different things. This first is misleading statements about verifiable facts. £350m/wk paid to the EU would be one. The second would be dire predictions such as Turkey joining the EU or Project Fear. Since the dire predictions concerned future events they were unverifiable matters of opinion. From your point of view they may be preposterous, but that doesn't make them lies. Suggest a split into "misleading information" and "dire predictions". Brownturkey (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The two different things that you refer to are positions on a continuum, and imo you would just be creating an artificial boundary that would be wrangled over. For instance, one of the scenarios in the Treasury's contribution to Project Fear was that the UK would sign no trade deals in the next 15 years. While that may technically be 'an unverifiable matter of opinion' about a future event, it's so laughably unlikely that it is very close to the 'verifiable fact' end of the spectrum. Or consider the £4300 per household number- a 'future prediction', but one which involved a verifiably false calculation. Where would that stand? Oppose the split.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Note: this section has been raised in response to attempts by the above disruptive editor to derail an ANI complaint regarding the above allegations of sock puppetry. This discussion belongs here, not at ANI.

Gravuritas has maintained in the article and here that the inclusion of this statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

“ The most commonly criticised claim by the Remain campaign was that leaving the EU would leave British households £4,300 worse off. ”

in the section of the article entitled "Lies and misleading information" is supported by the supplied references.

This claim can be broken into two parts.

First: that leaving the EU would result in British households incurring extra expenditure.

Second: that that extra expenditure would be £4,500.

It is important to note here that its inclusion in the section "Lies and misleading information" is a clear statement that the claim is a either a lie or misinformation.

So we need to look at what a lie or misinformation is, so off we go the Oxford English Dictionary:

lie: (noun) An intentionally false statement

misinform: (noun) False or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

Both of these definitions clearly encompass a deliberate attempt to deceive. Thus including the claim in the "Lies and misleading information" section clearly implies a deliberate attempt at deception. Gravuritas is claiming at the ANI that several editors are incapable of comprehending the references here and here. So what do the supplied references actually say? The first reference discusses the statement but doesn't actually say very much beyond a discussion of it. It is the second reference that Gravuritas is relying on (and the one he provided in support of his disruptive editing). The BBC report includes a report of a statement made by the Treasury Select Committee. It says:

“ The committee criticised Chancellor George Osborne over his claim that a Treasury analysis showed that "families would be £4,300 worse off" if Britain left the EU. ”

... but goes on ...

“ the average impact on household disposable incomes would be considerably smaller than this number, which refers to the impact on GDP per household ... ”

This clearly implies that the Treasury Select Committee accepts that there is an impact to UK households. They then express an opinion that the impact will be less than the Chancellor claims. However, that is just an opinion, and committees are notoriously unreliable as any statement is usually a compromise on what the individual members believe. And the Treasury Select Committee has a large representation by Vote Leave campaigners who, no doubt, ensured any compromise statement was favourable. Further financial forecasts themselves are seldom completely reliable. That the Treasury Select Committee and the Chancellor have a difference of opinion over a financial forecast is not conclusive evidence that the forecast was made with intent to decieve as claimed (or even wrong).

The important point here is that neither the BBC nor their report on the Treasury Select Committee states or even implies that the statement made by the Chancellor was made with intent to deceive. It just is not there, yet Gravuritas somehow manages to interpret the report as saying that it does. He has failed to show where the BBC report states that the Treasury Select Committee claimed that the Chancellor made his statement with intent to decieve, yet continues to claim that everyone else is incapable of comprehending a claim which just is not there.

And what is more, someone else spotted that the reference does not state this, but because they also pointed this out, Gravuritas then tries to bolster his claims by claiming two editors who are able to spot claims not supported by the references must be the same person as they are equally incapable of comprehending English that is just not there. I'm surprised he did not make the same claim to the third person who realised he was in the wrong. --Elektrik Fanne 17:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Utterly astonishing. Your long piece fails at the first hurdle. After all my attempts to show you how your arguments are all straw men, you've just built another one. When you are attempting to discuss the defintion of 'misleading information', the only dictionary definition of interest is that for 'misleading'. So using the definition of 'misinform' doesn't cut the mustard, sweetie. When you have clarified in your own mind that 'misleading', 'deliberately misleading' 'the entire statement was meant to deceive', 'intent to deceive', and 'misinform' are not to be used interchangeably, then you will be fit to debate with. Until then, all your words are just irrelevant maunderings about your own version of reality. Go and look up 'misleading', not the word next to it, quote the defintion here, and then at least your argument will start with a sound base instead starting in your own lala land.

So please take away this message. The relevant word is misleading. Just misleading. Not any adverb misleading. Not any word other than misleading. Not your own construction of what you think somebody possibly meant when they wrote the title of the section. Not the word you wish was there instead of misleading, because you would find it easier to argue against. Just misleading.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this slow edit war for a few days, and have to say both parties are being pretty disruptive. You both need to reach a compromise. This is Paul (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice idea, but don't see how it applies in these circs. The criterion for inclusion in the 'Lies and misleading info' can only be that some material is reported by a WP:RS as either a lie, or misleading information, or something that has the same meaning. EF, from her/his arguments, wants the criterion for inclusion to be her choice of deliberately misleading; meant to deceive; or whatever s/he dreams up next. That's not a reasoned discussion on a WP talk page- that's Alice and the caterpillar. By all means propose a compromise, but if the compromise is to move halfway between English and EFEnglish, then I'm not playing.

Further, not only does EF want the criterion to be different from 'misleading', she repeatedly says that I have been claiming that some material is 'deliberately misleading', 'meant to deceive' etc as opposed to plain 'misleading', which a straightforward reading of the record will show is not true. The other thing with which no compromise is possible is multiple repetitions of falsehoods like those.

Gravuritas (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition of 'lie' includes the word 'intentionally'. The definition of 'misinformation' includes the word 'deliberately' ('Misinformation' just being a portmanteau of 'misleading information'). The criterion for inclusion in the 'Lies and misleading information' section must therefore be that the information is deliberately' misleading as required by the definitions. It's not a question of 'my' English. I, and everyone other than you, uses English words as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, the meanings of which I reproduced above. If you want me to spell out the full title of the section, then it is, "Intentionally false statements and False or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive". Now please explain which part of that incudes information that is inaccurate but not intentionally so?

The only one guilty of a straw man argument here is you because you still have not explained how the reference is proof that the claim was misleading let alone deliberately misleading. The BBC report is of an opinion. Opinion is not proof. It is my belief that you are intentionally attempting to synthesise the point that the Chancellor's claim was misleading from nothing more than an unreliable opinion that the financial part was inaccurate. The opinion must be unreliable because the TSC is made up of supporters of remain as well as supporters of Leave (11 members, 6 of whom supported 'remain', 5 of whom supported 'leave' - so roughly even). We know that the supporters of leave wanted the Chancellor's claim dismissed as a lie (because they said so before the TSC met). Similarly, the supports of remain supported the claim (and again had said so before the TSC met). As ever, what the committee actually reports is a compromise between the two positions (which is why it is unreliable and cannot be used to support your claim). Although there has been plenty of opportunity, you have not produced any further reference supporting your position. --Elektrik Fanne 12:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not just rename the section something like "Allegations of misleading information". At the moment you're both just going round incircles and nobody's achieving anything. This is Paul (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the current section heading, though I have no objection to the change you suggest. We're not going round in circles though, we're stuck immovably in the Remedial English lesson until EF gets off the mushroom and emerges from Wonderland.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: For clarity, I am not engaging with the second half of your argument because it rests on the first, and the first half makes the same mistake for the fifteenth time. Don't bother defining 'lies', because a section headed 'Lies and misleading information' can clearly include stuff in either of the two categories, and we are interested in the second. Assuming that you don't start differing about what 'information' is, all attention has to be focussed on 'misleading'. So why in the blue blazes are you twittering on about the definition of 'misinformation'? It may or may not a portmanteau term, but by your own definition it accretes the word 'deliberately' which was not in the original term. That, no doubt, was your intention- having got it wrong in the first place you are desperately twisting and turning through 'intent to deceive' and the rest of the red herrings you have introduced.

In desperation at your multi-repetitions of different flavours of the same error, here is a crash course in how to use a printed dictionary, as on-line ones are clearly causing you so much trouble.

Open the dictionary at 'M'. Turn the pages until you come to the second letter of interest. That's an 'i'. Continue through the successive letters s l e a d i n g. There. You've got it. You've found the defintion of 'misleading'. Now bring the definition back to class like a good little person, and don't bother with all those silly other words beginning with 'mis' that might distract you. Then you can participate in class with all the rest of the boys and girls. Today we are going to be learning about 'The causes of Brexit'.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I do hope that's not aimed at me for trying to resolve this issue. @Gravuritas, might I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. Neither of you appear willing to compromise, and the argument is getting out of hand now. This is Paul (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@This is Paul. Apologies for the way the edits appeared: I Think our editing overlapped and the top-to-bottom order and indents are now not very clear, and I am very sorry if my frustration at EF appeared to be aimed at you. My response to you was the 'There's nothing wrong....'. I think the text on this page could be moved around and re- indented for clarity, but I'm on an ipad at present and if I try it would just make a bigger mess.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, editing with a mobile device does seem to present its challenges. Sadly what I've discovered about this issue is it's quite a contentious one about which people have strong feelings. This is Paul (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Even with the definition of misleading, the source still does not prove that its misleading. I don't know what your first language is, but you are giving the impression that it certainly is not English. As already said, you are clearly a Brexiteer who is determined to tar the remain campaigners with the brush which which you are more than guilty. You have still not explained how a difference of opinion is evidence of the claim being 'misleading' let alone 'deliberately misleading'. --Elektrik Fanne 17:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I did make the case that the source showed it was misleading, about 5000 words of yours ago, but the whole thread as well as your efforts on ANI and my user talk page got drowned by your homopalaephilia. I'm not convinced you can get over it- you've done it again with the last clause in your para- but here's hoping. If you can stick with the criterion for entry being whatever the heading of the section is- see below- then I would be delighted to make the case as requested.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This was suggested by someone else above, but Gravuritas completely ignored it and continued to attempt to hammer in his point.

A change of heading to something more neutral would be a perfectly good solution. "Allegation of misleading information" would certainly be more neutral as it removes the implication that anyone actually was deliberately misleading. How about "Allegations of attempts to mislead voters"? It just might be a little more toned down and the current disputed claim would easily fit in with it without implying deliberate intent. --Elektrik Fanne 15:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You'll find that I replied to User:This is Paul at 14:29 with a 'I have no objection..', but the thread's formatting is a bit messed up so you apparently missed it. I somewhat prefer his suggestion, but I have no objection to yours, either. I welcome the positive tone, and hope we can jointly get back to the business of improving the article. I think TiP deserves thanks for apparently brokering a positive move forward.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry: just reviewed and noticed that your suggested title introduces intentionality into it, raising the hurdle for inclusion. So I'd like to stick to the current one or change to TiP's

Gravuritas (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I take your point, but I would make the observation it would be saying allegations of attempts to mislead. Fundamentally, the allegation in both of the cases was that the other side was attempting to provide misleading information. That an allegation was made that there was an attempt to deceive remains true regardless of whether there was or was not any actual attempt to mislead. Having said that, I am not going to get over excited about the exact section title, and if you fell happier with This is Paul's offering, then I will go along with it. --Elektrik Fanne 11:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Daily Mail as a source

I would usually shy away from the Daily Mail as a source for anything, but the quote in this edit, which I restored with the citation, was bang on the mark and by Dominic Lawson, a respected commentator and son of Nigel Lawson.Howard Alexander (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the comments are "bang on the mark" or not, it has long been agreed on Wikipedia that the Daily Mail is an unreliable source, and there are numerous discussions on the matter. If you just want to use something to support the Project Fear name then there are plenty of other sources that made reference to it. If you want a quality newspaper that supported Brexit then try the Telegraph or Sunday Times. This is Paul (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have used citations from journals which opposed Brexit. Howard Alexander (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine now. Just a note though, as most usable sources (i.e., non-tabloid) opposed Brexit, some feel it is difficult to strike a balance. However, The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Times came out in favour of leaving the EU, so anything from those would also be ok. This is Paul (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

About immigration

Although perhaps delicate, I think the article could enlighten readers more explicitly what is known about that subject. I mean Hungary build a wall of some kind, in order to stop mass-immigration but has not been thrown out of EU. Did the voters - who voted in favour of Brexit due to the immigration issue - believe there was no other way ? (And what about foreign football players, managers and club owners ? Were they mentioned before the referendum ?) Boeing720 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

More about immigration

The article refers to immigration out of context. It states that many leave voters wanted to take control of immigration, and then goes on to say that 170k immigrants came from the EU while 190K came from outside the EU. This implies, misleadingly, that these ignorant Brexit supporters were wrongly blaming the EU for excessive levels of migration, when actually more immigration was coming from outside the EU - so voting for Brexit was a mistake. In context we can see that this is not quite right. Many supporting Brexit did not oppose immigration per se, they opposed uncontrolled and unfair immigration. Thus, whether or not you agree with this, it is surely worth pointing out that the EU was massively over-represented in terms of immigration to the UK. The EU's population is less than 10% of the world's population, yet it accounted for nearly half of immigration to the UK. This was because immigration from the EU was not tightly controlled, while immigration from outside the EU - especially in the period from 2014-2017 - had become severely controlled. I think it was right to favour EU citizens in this way as the UK was part of the EU, and that was the price of membership. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the point. The UK had made a conscious decision to lift restrictions on immigrants from a relatively small part of the globe, meaning that immigration demographics were skewed. The point was made by many on the Leave side and lost on vocal Remainers, who found it easier to portray themselves as "open" to immigration in comparison with Leave voters who were frequently portrayed either as less open to immigration or in some cases as racists. --Bacon Man (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Restructure this article?

I am a bit concerned about this article - I'm not sure it is possible to cover an issue like this objectively, but I feel that it includes a lot of irrelevant or speculative stuff, and leaves out most things of importance. I don't think that it will really leave anyone better informed.

There is no summary of the main arguments used by the high-profile pro-Brexit figures. Also, there's limited background. Things that are not mentioned include

The negotiation, particularly the issues around benefits for EU workers

• # Prospect of further integration within EU if we stayed, and move to single state
• # The ERM and the Euro. Not mentioned at all!
• # Greek financial crisis
• # Free movement is mentioned, but not in relation to benefits, or to Cameron's promises on immigration.
• # Prospect of better trade agreements with other countries

I have not edited it, because I believe the article requires complete reconstruction, rather than a few tweaks - I'm new to being an editor, and don't want to start on such a contentious issue. I would propose the following re-structure

1. Start with background - joining, ERM, conservative promises to repatriate powers, etc, but only listing events that are likely to have made
2. Summary of pro-leave arguments used
3. Details on pro-leave politicians and public figures, and why they may have had credibility
4. A factual session on survey results - top reason, etc
5. Possible section on the campaigns themselves, analysis of what Leave did right, Remain did wrong.

At the moment, it feels like "why Remainers think Brexit won"

I entirely agree. As I read the article (June 2018) it strikes me as being written wholly from the Remain perspective. It fails to recognise, in particular, on the financial/economic consequences of leaving, that many voted to Leave in the full knowledge and understanding that the country might be worse off as a result; crucially, they took the view that this was a price worth paying, in view of the importance of extricating the UK from the EU superstate juggernaut. There would be considerable value in a neutral pov rewrite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8E0A:2200:6D98:58E4:D0D:D86F (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 

Or it may be better not to have this page. Would be interested to hear what other editors think before I make any edits, I'm not keen to make a lot of edits and have them removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trbl0001 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Some additional resources

These links contain material which might be useful to add (I'll come back to it unless someone beats me to it):

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NatCen_Brexplanations-report-FINAL-WEB2.pdf

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39149/bsa34_brexit_final.pdf

http://www.cultdyn.co.uk/ART067736u/Brexit1.html

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit. 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/20160708115949/http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-send-350m-week-brussels/22804 to http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-send-350m-week-brussels/22804

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) 11:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Dominic Cummings (Vote Leave) analysis in The Spectator

I think Dominic Cummings analysis may be helpful so have added a section on this (under Presentational factors).

I'm not sure how much should be direct quotes, or how they should be entered. It is a long article but I have extracted what I think are a couple of key statements. Is this the right way to do it? Robertm25 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

EU: democratic deficit & performance

Just had a quick look. I am stunned that the article does not have a section on EU a) democratic deficit b) performance, aluded by some section in talk (credibility, inflexibility). For a) you could just have linked an existing article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union For b) there is mention of the migration crisis (freedom of movement in Schengen zone and inability (?) to protect EU borders). Arguably, you could extend it to a policy of centralisation (see a) that unfortunately upholds the Euro at all cost (Greece!) despite different economic structures. The result has been burgeoning youth unemployment in Italy/Spain and persistent long-term unemployment in most western European countries. Update: It does, though hidden under Sovereignty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.150 (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The UK isn't in the Schengen area; it has an opt out from the common migration system and so does not participate in the EU's common refugee or migrant redistrbutions schemes; it has a permanent opt out from the single currency, otherwise known as the euro. All of these things are verifiable on wikipedia, or indeed any standard textbook on the EU. Precisely none of the things you mentioned effects the UK directly, and will effect it just the same indirectly whether it is in or out of the EU. Unfortunately you rather demonstrated that proponents of Brexit deliberately conflated and misled UK voters about the terms of the UK's EU membership and how the EU works. 103.92.212.34 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Reducing the title

@Amakuru:, editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply: No article exists at the new target title, There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title, It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move, or at least that's what RM says. You refer to the previous request further up the talk page. It's not relevant to the move I made and the issue it addresses is now defunct. I haven't changed the meaning or apparent intention of the title. Can you not just let the edit stand and if anyone has an objection they can make it? ~ R.T.G 03:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

By definition, someone reversing your move is an objection. And it's simple, even though you genuinely believed there would be no objection to the move there has been. No one has suggested you should be sanctioned for your bold move. You made your bold move, whether or not it was wise to do so, and it was reversed. It's now on you to establish consensus for your bold move. Particularly in cases of moves, 'I think this needs to be discussed first' is an entirely reasonable objection even if that is the only concern. (Given that page names can be a bit of a binary and an area where consensus often cannot be achieved and where it's not uncommon that we have to default to things like first contributor's choice.) And I've seen no suggestion it is the only concern anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

They didn't say any of that, Nil. The change I made didn't change the meaning of the title at all. In some forums on the site, you aren't even allowed to simply vote no. You must state an objection. This was an administrative action. I've pinged the admin to discuss. They've not responded. They've carried on edited during the course of the day. There are three parts to BRD, which is quoted in the edit summary. "First contributors choice" would be, Causes of Brexit, which is not totally unlike the change I have tried to make. The reason it was changed originally was that Brexit had not happened. Well it has now. Have you read the discussion? 2 contributors. Want to make a fuss without any constructive input? Cya. ~ R.T.G 19:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants

In the European Migrant Crisis section there's the sentence, "U.S. President Donald Trump stated that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to open her country's borders for more than a million refugees and illegal immigrants was a "catastrophic mistake"". I'm not totally familiar with Wikipedia policy, but isn't the way this is worded a NPOV violation? At the very least the sentence is missing an explanation of how a person could be an illegal immigrant (as opposed to a legal migrant) after the borders were opened to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.150.21 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump stated that practically word for word. The article presents it in his voice, not that of wikipedia. --203.40.123.119 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)