![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Withdrawal from the European Union, due to size or style considerations. |
This article looks almost entirely at the withdrawal side of the argument, and says nothing about the people and groups who support the UK's continued membership, or about the arguments against withdrawal. It looks like it was written by eurosceptics. I propose working on some additions that would make it more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno2010 ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Juno2010 ( talk) 13:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Juno2010 ( talk) 13:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This seems to have reversed since this comment was written. I'm pro-EU but 'Xenophobia against Europeans' and 'Inaccurate statements about European Union membership' sections are not neutral and clearly lean to a pro-EU stance. I'm going to go ahead and remove those sections and hope that someone can make relevant points for and against in a more neutral way. Wight1984 ( talk) 16:26, 09 June 2015 (GMT)
This article is (rightly) a subarticle to Withdrawal from the European Union and is mainly about the concept rather than the term. It is not primarily a lexicological or etymological article about the word Brexit. I would therefore suggest that it be renamed (moved) to Withdrawal from the European Union by the United Kingdom, a more encyclopedic description of the concept. Would this be controversial?
I would also suggest that the contents of Withdrawal from the European Union#United Kingdom be merged here (and summarized there). -- Boson ( talk) 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it strange with the title of this article that we launch straight in with "Brexit and Brixit ("British exit" or "Britain's exit") are neologisms that refer to the concept of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a member of the European Union." Surely we should be discussing first and foremost what United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union is. To my mind it should begin something like "The argument for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union is a political stance supported by groups and individuals who are opposed to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union." Brexit and Brixit belong further down, with a mention at Wiktionary. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott ( talk) 22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to know what people thought should be done about the Populus poll numbers. The source emphasises a weighted yes/no voting result prediction whereas the table shows the raw results. I think both sets of numbers should be included somehow. My question is, should the voting prediction be shown as the main result in the table and the raw numbers mentioned in the notes box or the other way around? -- U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
For the table under "Proposed Referendum Question 2015" it's not entirely clear what the "yes" or "no" vote stand for. The previous paragraph leaves it particularly unclear. Please, add a clear question so that we know that "yes" stand for "stay in", not for "yes, get out". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.9 ( talk) 07:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It should not be first, I'd do it but I can't cut/paste on my tablet. Would someone oblige, pls.
BTW, we need to be a lot more careful about giving unsourced personal opinions. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Why does this part of the article even exist? It simply contains arguments for Britain staying in the EU when, as far as I can tell, there is no section discussing the arguments in favour of withdrawal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.250.126 ( talk) 14:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The 1975 referendum was proposed by Labour while in opposition. Standard & Poor's are making the point that no government has ever proposed a referendum while in office. I guess it's a fairly subtle distinction, but it could be made clear. Does anyone else think it is worth adding? TwoTwoHello ( talk) 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This article's title is too generic and could in theory cover any number of campaigns in the UK to leave the EU. In contrast most of it's content relates to the current controversy in the UK. The Referendum Party isn't mentioned, for example. I'd suggest moving it to a title more specific to the current referendum proposal. Perhaps "Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union"? I suspect this article will ultimately develop into an article about the referendum itself. A generic topic article could then be created if anyone wants to. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to propose merging the article European Union (Referendum) Bill into this one. As far as I see it the articles are about the same subject matter: the proposed referendum. We do not normally have articles on private member bills. While this bill has received its fair amount of attention it is within the context of the proposed referendum. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Lots of good material in this article, but I find its focus (and thus title) confusing. Is it about the UK's possible exit from the EU ("Brexit"), is it about the Conservatives' proposed referendum on the EU, or is it about all proposed referendums on the EU? If the article is about referendums, material on the legal aspects of EU exit can be omitted and left in the separate article on that. If the article is about the specific Conservative proposal, then we need more on the details of that, i.e. that it would occur after some sort of re-negotiation of powers, and the polling section is irrelevant as it is not polling for that context. If the article is about all referendum proposals, it needs more history, e.g. on the Referendum Party.
I also find the list of supporters and opponents confusing. Who gets in? Given all UKIP oppose, why then list certain UKIP politicians and not others? Ditto the LibDems. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've just come across an EU Referendum tracker on Opinium's website. This appears to include a number of polls not listed in the wikipdia page, but I've not been able to tie the graph, to the voting intention poll archive. 86.2.12.245 ( talk) 08:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
For example : 20–21st May 42% 37% 16% 6,124 42%+37%+16% = 95%
Is there something I'm missing?
I'm not sure this is the correct place for the TV debates to be mentioned, as they were not technically about this proposed referendum, but were more a part of campaigning for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). Lacunae ( talk) 15:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that the most of the polls (i.e.YouGov's) don't weight by likelihood to vote, I have changed the Nov 9 2014 Survation entry in the table to use the figures from the table which is not weighted by likelihood to vote so that the figures are comparable.
I believe that where a pollster gives both figures that we should use the one that is weighted 'normally'. Thoughts? -- M2Ys4U ( talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I strongly believe these two sections should be switched rounds. Renegotiated should be after standard polling. It puts it in a better context and limits confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R0439564 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
What is it about the reference to Flexcit that requires its instant removal? This is naked censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.67.67 ( talk) 12:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
So it would seem Wiki is claiming it is not here to inform people and is censoring FleXcit! Despite it being the work of a widely published author and a well known and well informed commentator of the EU. Dr. Richard North has had many articles published in the media and is a regular public speaker on the subject of the EU. May I strongly advocate Wiki is not only there as a source of education and should act responsibly in avoiding being seen to be prejudiced on issues. Reference to FleXcit as a responsible and comprehensive publication, unlike the brief and ill considered BreXit essays, should not be a matter of judgement by propaganda from Wikipedia pundits! I have deliberately refrained from giving my sources with a link to the 400 page eBook on the internet on the detailed subject of Britain's eventual withdrawal from the EU provided by FleXcit, which might break your rules and lead to censorship of my submission. G.L-W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.55.160 ( talk) 01:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The criticism section is a collection of apparently factual information, which seems to have been assembled to demonstrate the benefits of Britain's EU membership. None of this information is specifically relevant to the proposed referendum. If we are to have a criticism section, it should specify critics. As it stands, there is no reason for this section to exist. I will remove it in due course. - Crosbie 16:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the following: 'According to the European Commission the single market brings between £30 billion to £90 billion into the British economy' sourced to http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-uk-and-the-eu-budget-the-facts/. As far as I can see, the relevant quote from the source is 'overall, the UK government estimates that that the single market brings in between £30 bn and £90 bn a year into the UK economy: or between five and fifteen times the UK net contribution'. There were multiple problems here.
On top of all this, there is no point to the statement in the context. The context is a discussion of ways in which Britain could remain in the single market despite exiting the European Union, therefore the costs of leaving the single market are not of relevance at this point in the text. - Crosbie 04:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
From the end of may 2015, Labour has changed its position and now back the referendum. Look the news to get more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 ( talk) 12:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is about the referendum only. IMO, the arguments pro and con continued membership belong in another article, not this one. If it is left here, the article will become clogged with recording every opinion on the topic made in the next two years - and this talk page clogged with arguments about equal time, 'censorship', etc., etc.
I propose that the section Consequences of withdrawal be deleted. [It may be moved elsewhere]. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
22:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - No credible article about the referendum can be written without a discussion on the national debate on the subject. At the moment we have 4 short paragraphs, which hardly qualifies as "clogging". If and when this content becomes large enough to justify a WP:SPLIT then of course a new article could be created on the larger debate. But even in that case, this article would require a summary of the broader concept article. Under no circumstance could the referendum article not explain the subject of the referendum.
Compare this article with Scottish independence referendum, 2014 for example. Much of the content in that article is about the debate and consequences of the referendum, not simply the mechanics of the referendum. TDL ( talk) 05:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose For similar raesons to TDL. This article should definitely cover the arguments behind the referendum choice, obviously in a neutral way. I have long felt that this article is trying to do too many things, so I would be happy to see a split of some sort (maybe the general topic of Brexit and its history, including polling, versus the details of the forthcoming referendum). Bondegezou ( talk) 16:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Is for exiting the EU just a majority needed? Or is there a need for 2/3- or 3/4-majority? Is there a minimum vote turnout? -- 2A02:908:C30:EBE0:2048:783D:5387:8407 ( talk) 14:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we please drop the word "proposed" out of the title place now that we know that the vote is going to take place. Thanks ( 46.64.3.128 ( talk) 21:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC))
Do Brits living in the EU get to vote in the referendum? If so, how? Where do they register? When must they register? Surely this information should be included in this article. 213.114.5.127 ( talk) 09:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It makes no sense to make a chart sortable if you can not sort it! The dates won't be sorted correctly. -- 2A02:908:C30:EBE0:D825:8A15:136:15B1 ( talk) 14:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Withdrawal from the European Union, due to size or style considerations. |
This article looks almost entirely at the withdrawal side of the argument, and says nothing about the people and groups who support the UK's continued membership, or about the arguments against withdrawal. It looks like it was written by eurosceptics. I propose working on some additions that would make it more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno2010 ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Juno2010 ( talk) 13:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Juno2010 ( talk) 13:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This seems to have reversed since this comment was written. I'm pro-EU but 'Xenophobia against Europeans' and 'Inaccurate statements about European Union membership' sections are not neutral and clearly lean to a pro-EU stance. I'm going to go ahead and remove those sections and hope that someone can make relevant points for and against in a more neutral way. Wight1984 ( talk) 16:26, 09 June 2015 (GMT)
This article is (rightly) a subarticle to Withdrawal from the European Union and is mainly about the concept rather than the term. It is not primarily a lexicological or etymological article about the word Brexit. I would therefore suggest that it be renamed (moved) to Withdrawal from the European Union by the United Kingdom, a more encyclopedic description of the concept. Would this be controversial?
I would also suggest that the contents of Withdrawal from the European Union#United Kingdom be merged here (and summarized there). -- Boson ( talk) 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it strange with the title of this article that we launch straight in with "Brexit and Brixit ("British exit" or "Britain's exit") are neologisms that refer to the concept of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a member of the European Union." Surely we should be discussing first and foremost what United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union is. To my mind it should begin something like "The argument for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union is a political stance supported by groups and individuals who are opposed to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union." Brexit and Brixit belong further down, with a mention at Wiktionary. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott ( talk) 22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to know what people thought should be done about the Populus poll numbers. The source emphasises a weighted yes/no voting result prediction whereas the table shows the raw results. I think both sets of numbers should be included somehow. My question is, should the voting prediction be shown as the main result in the table and the raw numbers mentioned in the notes box or the other way around? -- U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
For the table under "Proposed Referendum Question 2015" it's not entirely clear what the "yes" or "no" vote stand for. The previous paragraph leaves it particularly unclear. Please, add a clear question so that we know that "yes" stand for "stay in", not for "yes, get out". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.9 ( talk) 07:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It should not be first, I'd do it but I can't cut/paste on my tablet. Would someone oblige, pls.
BTW, we need to be a lot more careful about giving unsourced personal opinions. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Why does this part of the article even exist? It simply contains arguments for Britain staying in the EU when, as far as I can tell, there is no section discussing the arguments in favour of withdrawal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.250.126 ( talk) 14:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The 1975 referendum was proposed by Labour while in opposition. Standard & Poor's are making the point that no government has ever proposed a referendum while in office. I guess it's a fairly subtle distinction, but it could be made clear. Does anyone else think it is worth adding? TwoTwoHello ( talk) 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This article's title is too generic and could in theory cover any number of campaigns in the UK to leave the EU. In contrast most of it's content relates to the current controversy in the UK. The Referendum Party isn't mentioned, for example. I'd suggest moving it to a title more specific to the current referendum proposal. Perhaps "Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union"? I suspect this article will ultimately develop into an article about the referendum itself. A generic topic article could then be created if anyone wants to. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to propose merging the article European Union (Referendum) Bill into this one. As far as I see it the articles are about the same subject matter: the proposed referendum. We do not normally have articles on private member bills. While this bill has received its fair amount of attention it is within the context of the proposed referendum. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Lots of good material in this article, but I find its focus (and thus title) confusing. Is it about the UK's possible exit from the EU ("Brexit"), is it about the Conservatives' proposed referendum on the EU, or is it about all proposed referendums on the EU? If the article is about referendums, material on the legal aspects of EU exit can be omitted and left in the separate article on that. If the article is about the specific Conservative proposal, then we need more on the details of that, i.e. that it would occur after some sort of re-negotiation of powers, and the polling section is irrelevant as it is not polling for that context. If the article is about all referendum proposals, it needs more history, e.g. on the Referendum Party.
I also find the list of supporters and opponents confusing. Who gets in? Given all UKIP oppose, why then list certain UKIP politicians and not others? Ditto the LibDems. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've just come across an EU Referendum tracker on Opinium's website. This appears to include a number of polls not listed in the wikipdia page, but I've not been able to tie the graph, to the voting intention poll archive. 86.2.12.245 ( talk) 08:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
For example : 20–21st May 42% 37% 16% 6,124 42%+37%+16% = 95%
Is there something I'm missing?
I'm not sure this is the correct place for the TV debates to be mentioned, as they were not technically about this proposed referendum, but were more a part of campaigning for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). Lacunae ( talk) 15:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that the most of the polls (i.e.YouGov's) don't weight by likelihood to vote, I have changed the Nov 9 2014 Survation entry in the table to use the figures from the table which is not weighted by likelihood to vote so that the figures are comparable.
I believe that where a pollster gives both figures that we should use the one that is weighted 'normally'. Thoughts? -- M2Ys4U ( talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I strongly believe these two sections should be switched rounds. Renegotiated should be after standard polling. It puts it in a better context and limits confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R0439564 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
What is it about the reference to Flexcit that requires its instant removal? This is naked censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.67.67 ( talk) 12:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
So it would seem Wiki is claiming it is not here to inform people and is censoring FleXcit! Despite it being the work of a widely published author and a well known and well informed commentator of the EU. Dr. Richard North has had many articles published in the media and is a regular public speaker on the subject of the EU. May I strongly advocate Wiki is not only there as a source of education and should act responsibly in avoiding being seen to be prejudiced on issues. Reference to FleXcit as a responsible and comprehensive publication, unlike the brief and ill considered BreXit essays, should not be a matter of judgement by propaganda from Wikipedia pundits! I have deliberately refrained from giving my sources with a link to the 400 page eBook on the internet on the detailed subject of Britain's eventual withdrawal from the EU provided by FleXcit, which might break your rules and lead to censorship of my submission. G.L-W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.55.160 ( talk) 01:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The criticism section is a collection of apparently factual information, which seems to have been assembled to demonstrate the benefits of Britain's EU membership. None of this information is specifically relevant to the proposed referendum. If we are to have a criticism section, it should specify critics. As it stands, there is no reason for this section to exist. I will remove it in due course. - Crosbie 16:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the following: 'According to the European Commission the single market brings between £30 billion to £90 billion into the British economy' sourced to http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-uk-and-the-eu-budget-the-facts/. As far as I can see, the relevant quote from the source is 'overall, the UK government estimates that that the single market brings in between £30 bn and £90 bn a year into the UK economy: or between five and fifteen times the UK net contribution'. There were multiple problems here.
On top of all this, there is no point to the statement in the context. The context is a discussion of ways in which Britain could remain in the single market despite exiting the European Union, therefore the costs of leaving the single market are not of relevance at this point in the text. - Crosbie 04:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
From the end of may 2015, Labour has changed its position and now back the referendum. Look the news to get more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 ( talk) 12:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is about the referendum only. IMO, the arguments pro and con continued membership belong in another article, not this one. If it is left here, the article will become clogged with recording every opinion on the topic made in the next two years - and this talk page clogged with arguments about equal time, 'censorship', etc., etc.
I propose that the section Consequences of withdrawal be deleted. [It may be moved elsewhere]. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
22:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - No credible article about the referendum can be written without a discussion on the national debate on the subject. At the moment we have 4 short paragraphs, which hardly qualifies as "clogging". If and when this content becomes large enough to justify a WP:SPLIT then of course a new article could be created on the larger debate. But even in that case, this article would require a summary of the broader concept article. Under no circumstance could the referendum article not explain the subject of the referendum.
Compare this article with Scottish independence referendum, 2014 for example. Much of the content in that article is about the debate and consequences of the referendum, not simply the mechanics of the referendum. TDL ( talk) 05:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose For similar raesons to TDL. This article should definitely cover the arguments behind the referendum choice, obviously in a neutral way. I have long felt that this article is trying to do too many things, so I would be happy to see a split of some sort (maybe the general topic of Brexit and its history, including polling, versus the details of the forthcoming referendum). Bondegezou ( talk) 16:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Is for exiting the EU just a majority needed? Or is there a need for 2/3- or 3/4-majority? Is there a minimum vote turnout? -- 2A02:908:C30:EBE0:2048:783D:5387:8407 ( talk) 14:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we please drop the word "proposed" out of the title place now that we know that the vote is going to take place. Thanks ( 46.64.3.128 ( talk) 21:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC))
Do Brits living in the EU get to vote in the referendum? If so, how? Where do they register? When must they register? Surely this information should be included in this article. 213.114.5.127 ( talk) 09:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It makes no sense to make a chart sortable if you can not sort it! The dates won't be sorted correctly. -- 2A02:908:C30:EBE0:D825:8A15:136:15B1 ( talk) 14:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)