Talk:British European Union membership referendum

One-sided

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)

Move proposal

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)

As the article creator, I support both proposals. I was actually intending to do both things yesterday, but I got caught up with work and family. (Some things are more important than Wikipedia.)

Please note that Wikipedia:Be bold applies here, especially when the article is (or was) a brand spanking new stub.

Incidentally, I was intending to move it to UK withdrawal from the European Union (or United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union), but I'm happy with Boson's proposed Withdrawal from the European Union by the United Kingdom too. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be just as happy with United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union; I see the advantages of both. So, if nobody else chimes in, it's up to you. --Boson (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

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)

I agree. I don't think the neologisms need to be in the lead at all. This resulted from a page move. I have now changed the first sentence. --Boson (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks ok now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Polls

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'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's really a weighted result, it's just one which excludes undecided voters. A weighted poll result implies that the pollsters adjusted the result to account for the over or under representation of a given social group. We could (like ITV) re-calculate the table to exclude undecided voters ourselves but I think it's preferable to leave the table as is. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right. Didn't notice that. Sorry.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 00:34, 29 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)

move 'criticism' further down

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)

Proposed by a sitting government

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)

I suppose the point could be made, though I think it is probably misleading to put it under "precedents", since there has been an actual referendum (which makes who the proposal came from in that case less significant). That also means that "sitting government" has to be stressed more, in order to avoid confusion, but that may be problematic, given the different meanings of "government" (particularly to an internetional readership), the temporally limited nature of "government" in the intened sense, etc. If mentioned, it would perhaps be better to put it later, after actually discussing the referendum (outside the lead). --Boson (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think S&P are being that unclear, they're just wrong. They're saying that while some political parties have proposed leaving the EU when they were in opposition, they didn't pursue the policy once in government. Labour did indeed first propose having a referendum in opposition, but in government they went ahead passed a bill and had the referendum. It was a significant enough event. I don't think any other country has had a referendum to leave the EU so I think it deserves a mention. Btw strictly speaking the current referendum proposal isn't one of a government at all. It was proposed by the Conservative party as a private members bill. It is their and not the government's. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And strictly speaking, the 1975 referendum was on membership in the European Economic Community, not the European Union (which didn't even exist in 1975), so S&P's statement is correct. That being said, I think the 1975 referendum is significant enough to be worth mentioning. TDL (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed page move

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 agree. Since the article predates the referendum proposal, some of the text might need changing. For instance, the Terminology section probably needs to be renamed and modified to present a brief introduction to the situation before the referendum proposal. The suggested title also has the advantage of including the word "proposed". Till now the title might have implied that withdrawal was a done deal (since article titles normally designate something real if they don't include a word like "proposed"). --Boson (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just lending my support for this move after the fact. A very imaginative improvement to the article. --Tóraí (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

European Union (Referendum) Bill

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)

I am the article creator, for reference. I understand your view, but have to disagree with the proposal. You're right that PMBs don't often have articles written about them here, but as you are no doubt aware, this is no ordinary PMB. It has tacit (actually, pretty bloody obvious) Government support. It has made it through the Commons, something 80%-odd of other PMBs rarely do. It is likely to become law OR at the very least, influence future law as no other similar Bill has done for some time. By keeping the separate article, we are surely giving an audience exactly what they need - the background in one article, and the 'meat' in another? Why reduce an entire article on such a significant Bill to a sub-paragraph below the line, when it could be used to provide far much greater detail? doktorb _words^deeds 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think wait. This article has only recently been renamed. If the bill becomes law then it will warrant an entry of its own (in the same vein that it appears all acts do). If it doesn't then I think it will deserve merging as a being something that was part of the larger story. But for now, let's wait and see what happens to it. --Tóraí (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Focus?

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)

There is also the complication around supporters and opponents that there are two intertwined but distinct questions here: should we withdraw from the EU, and should we have a referendum on the issue? With a referendum still only a possibility, there are those who are in favour or opposed to holding a referendum, and then there are those who, if we have a referendum, are in favour or opposed to withdrawal. There are some, including the Conservative leadership and several in Labour and the LibDems, who support having a referendum, but oppose withdrawal. Generally those in favour of withdrawal want to see a referendum, but they don't necessarily see it as necessary. I've not checked, but as I understand it, were UKIP to win a majority in the Commons, they'd just take us out of the EU without bothering with a referendum first. So, when this article talks about supporters and opponents, it needs to be careful about what it means. Bondegezou (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article's focus has changed over time. Currently, it's meant to be about the specific Conservative proposal to have a referendum in 2017. For a time it seems possible that the Labour Party would also propose a referendum. Perhaps the title could be change to better reflect this?
• I don't see any reason to completely exclude discussion of the process of leaving the EU. Precedents and the lack of them seem relevant enough.
• I would agree with removing individuals who support/oppose the referendum proposal.
• I would also agree with removing the previous campaigns section. This is a holdover from when the article's title was "United Kingdom withdrawal fromt he European Union". And as you point out notable campaigns are still omitted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel we'd be better with a broader article on Brexit, within which there is discussion of Cameron's proposed referendum. Making the article specifically about the proposed referendum seems likely to date it and makes things complicated as you keep having to differentiate between those supporting exit (who may not feel a referendum is required before exit) and those supporting having a referendum (who feel that's the best way of deciding the matter, but want the UK to stay in). Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinium polls

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)

Figures from opinion polls don't add up to 100%

For example : 20–21st May 42% 37% 16% 6,124 42%+37%+16% = 95%

Is there something I'm missing?

Some of the polls also have a 'Will not vote' category that isn't displayed. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

TV debates

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)

Weightings in polls

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)

Most political polling weights by likelihood to vote, because that best predicts the result. Polling for a hypothetical referendum is different, however. The solution, I think, is to add footnotes or explanatory text to explain the choices made, whichever way they are made. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard Polling and renegotiated Polls order

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)

Support for the same reason and less party political. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the censorship?

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)

We aren't here to promote people's WP:BLOGS. I can't find any mention of this "FLEXCIT" plan you are writing about in any WP:reliable sources. If it's only been published on a blog without any coverage by legitimate sources then it's WP:original research and not notable enough to mention in the wiki article. TDL (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are making the false assumption that the EU Referendum blog is not a "reliable source". The work is a self-published expert source, which Wikipedia says "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The author is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It is also co-produced by an established think-tank.

You should not in any case have deleted the entry, without explaining why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.67.67 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it was explained to you three times: [1], [2], [3]. In the future, you should really read the explanations you get and not keep making the same edits without explaining why.

I see no evidence that Richard A. E. North is "an established expert" of international law. (A PhD in food-poisoning surveillance certainly does not qualify.) Do you have any reliable sources which describe him as "an established expert" of international law?

Also, please read the rest of WP:BLOGS: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". If this "Flexcit" proposal is so notable, why can't Richard North get anyone else to write about it? Why does Richard North need to promote it on wikipedia to get it noticed?

Finally, you should read WP:COI. You should not be using wikipedia to promote your blog/proposal. TDL (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why you should decide to make the qualifying criteria for discussion on the EU, expertise in international law. Richard North is an expert in EU politics and history, and easily verifiable as such. Secondly, in common with many, you misunderstand the nature of a PhD. This is a research degree - the qualification is thus in research - the subject matter is not of concern. Further, the degree was gained over 20 years ago ... then and since, Richard North has been actively engaged on EU politics and research. Third, if you insist on imposing oppressively rigorous criteria, you will yourself (wiki) end up being irrelevant. Can you seriously suggest that nothing has happened by way of response to Cameron's referendum proposal for over a year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.67.67 (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"you misunderstand the nature of a PhD" - No I do not. I have earned a doctorate myself, so rest assured that I am intimately aware of what is involved. PhDs do not make one a world expert at everything involving research, as you seem to suggest.

"you seriously suggest that nothing has happened by way of response to Cameron's referendum proposal" - Of course not, and clearly this is a straw man and false dilemma. New updated information on proposals should be included, but only if they are notable. This is a serious encyclopedia, and we can't and shouldn't include every proposal ever made on a blog. This "FLEXIT" plan has got absolutely no coverage in the media.[4] If no reliable sources are not paying attention to your proposal, then why should wikipedia? We aren't here to promote your blog/proposal. TDL (talk) 14:55, 12 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)

At the moment, it fails the wp:notable test because of lack of notable secondary sources that describe it. If that ever happens, it will get a [proportionate] mention. But not before. Same rule applies to my pet theories too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a brief description of Flexcit to the Richard A. E. North article. It is notable in the context of its author, and also in that Flexcit originated in a submission to the IEA Brexit prize - I linked the IEA website as a reference. - Crosbie 10:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

'Criticism' section

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 think a discussion in the article on the arguments in favour and against withdrawal are necessary to put the subject in context. How else will readers understand what the dispute is all about? Perhaps it just needs some balance by expanding the arguments in favour of withdrawal?

Also, Brexit redirects here, and we have no other article on United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union, so there doesn't seem to be anywhere else at the moment for a discussion on the wider debate on EU membership. TDL (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What about splitting this article (maybe not quite yet, but in a while?) into one on United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union/Brexit that considers the broader issue and the history of debate, and another specifically about the expected referendum now the Conservatives have won the 2015 election? Bondegezou (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a need to tell readers what arguments in favour and against withdrawal exist. However, it is not obvious this is the correct place to make them, as Bondegezou suggests. More importantly, Wikipedia *itself* should not make the arguments - it should report the criticisms of notable parties, and the reported criticism should be explicitly and directly critical of British exit of the EU. Currently the 'Criticism' section states 'Britain would have to continue implementing European Union Law relevant to the Internal market, but would no longer have the authority to influence its formation.' The given source says 'During the decision-making process on the EU side, the EEA EFTA States have little or no formal opportunity to influence the Council or the EP'. This is WP:SYNTH - there is no criticism in the source, but it becomes criticism in the article. In this case, I am sure that notable parties *have* made this criticism of British EEA membership, but the criticism of these notable parties should be found and attributed. I see for example, Norway's position in Europe is not the right one for Britain, from 'British Influence', so I may try to substitute this - Crosbie 18:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Immediately after that we have 'The EEA agreement does not cover the following policy areas: common agriculture and fisheries policies, customs union, common trade policy, common foreign and security policy, direct and indirect taxation and justice and home affairs'. By including this in the criticism section, we imply it is a failing of a proposal to exit the EU. Again, the source does not present this as a criticism, but as a statement of fact. Indeed, this same factual statement could be presented as a *recommendation* to exit the EU by some proponents of exit. Again, by limiting ourselves to sources specifically critical of UK EU exist we avoid this problem. I am inclined to simply remove that sentence. As it is not explicitly a criticism, it is hard to substitute it with a suitable sourced criticism. - Crosbie 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to a broader article dedicated to Brexit, but as Bondegezou implies above, 4 paragraphs really isn't enough to justify a WP:SPLIT. And even if it was, this article would still require a WP:SUMMARY section of the new article. I'd suggest being bold and expanding the section until it is large enough to justify a split.

I certainly agree that Wikipedia should not be making arguments itself, but I disagree with you that we should present facts as the opinions of critics. We should present facts as facts. For instance, that EFTA EEA members must adopt legislation with minimal influence on their content is a straightforward consequence of the treaties that can be easily sourced. See for example this from the EEA: "the Agreement grants them no formal access to the decision-making phase in the EU, and they thus have limited ability to influence the outcome of this process" and "EEA EFTA States adopt legislation which has been decided without their participation". This is not an "argument", it is a fact. I fail to see how referring to McIntosh's article is helpful. It's better to just present the facts. The way you have written it makes it seem like this is but some theory of a critic. (Compare this with the NYT example at WP:INTEXT.) Where we include some analysis (ie the benefit to the economy), then that of course this requires attribution. But uncontroversial and straightforward facts are better presented as such.

I agree that the list of policy areas outside the EEA is not a "criticism". However, it is directly relevant to the previous sentence. It's purpose is to clarify that the point does not apply to the other policy areas. Much of the section isn't actually about criticisms (ie the paragraph on the Commonwealth FTA), but rather possible outcomes. I've retitled the section to "Consequences of withdrawal" to address your concerns, and so that we can stick to facts rather where possible rather than a for-or-against argumentation. TDL (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

TDL - I haven't looked through your last edit in detail, but a 'Consequences of withdrawal' is exactly the kind of section we *should* have in the article, and the title better fits the content that was there. As you have done, it makes more sense to change the title than change the content. If there is a need to include any specific criticism of the referendum plan itself, this can go in the existing 'responses' section. - Crosbie 04:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, change the section title. By the way, if there is to be a real 'criticism' section, what is it critising? The referendum? If not, then this is not the article for it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

European Commission on British economy

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.

• The claim is attributed to the European Commission, and is indeed hosted on the European Commission website. However, the claim is made in a blog. It is not clear this blog carries the authority of the European Commission.
• It is not clear what is meant by 'brings in'
• The source itself is *not* making this claim - it is attributed to the UK government
• If this is attributable to the UK government, it would be better directly attributed to an attributable UK government source so we can directly verify it.

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)

Agreed that the claim and source are too vague to be useful.

As for the context, the point is to motivate the rest of the section: why might the UK want to leave the EU but stay in the single market? This isn't obvious. If we could find a better source (say contribution to GDP or even public opinion polls) this would be helpful to motivate the remainder of the section. TDL (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

NO! This article is about the referendum, including arguably the case to have it, NOT about the pros and come of EU membership. We should not clog this article with that information. Take it to another article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Labour supports Referendum

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)

Request for deletion of section 'Consequences of withdrawal' as off topic and flame bait.

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)

• Comment. This isn't a properly-formatted Wikipedia:Requests for comment. To comply, it needs the RfC template (to ensure that outside input is actually requested), and the question itself needs to be neutrally worded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's somewhat premature to be having a proper RfC, so I've removed to from the header. (As AndyTheGrump pointed out it requires a template.) The substance of what a LEAVE vote would mean is of obvious relevance to this article and should be kept. If anything it should be expanded. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I never intended a formal RfC! I just wanted to take soundings before going ahead with deletion, as I guessed it might be controversial. I guessed correctly! I accept that there is a consensus to retain and will not delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Majority

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)

The legislation is still working its way through the legislature, so nothing is 100% confirmed yet, but the plan is just a straight majority will be needed, with no minimum turnout requirement. Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Title

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))

Strictly, it remains a proposal until the Bill receives royal assent. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

British citizens living in the EU - how to vote

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)

The bill has not yet passed so while we have some idea of who will probably be allowed vote, it's a bit premature to be detailing specifics in the article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

True. But once the bill has been passed, as the idea of an article is to inform and educate, then such information should be included. 213.114.5.127 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

dates/polls

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)