2a02:c7f:5621:2a00:ad50:4ee8:3910:64aa (talk) |
87.102.116.36 (talk) |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
How do you access the referendum results toolbar As there needs to be a correction to the number of eligible voters as the final total total was in fact 46,524,120 according to official figures and not 46,500,001 but I have no access to the toolbar itself I cannot change this figure. ([[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:AD50:4EE8:3910:64AA|2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:AD50:4EE8:3910:64AA]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:AD50:4EE8:3910:64AA|talk]]) 17:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)) |
How do you access the referendum results toolbar As there needs to be a correction to the number of eligible voters as the final total total was in fact 46,524,120 according to official figures and not 46,500,001 but I have no access to the toolbar itself I cannot change this figure. ([[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:AD50:4EE8:3910:64AA|2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:AD50:4EE8:3910:64AA]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:AD50:4EE8:3910:64AA|talk]]) 17:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)) |
||
== Reason why legitimacy of political or politicsed sources claiming Referendum non-binding (potentially made in bad faith) can be questioned and challenged == |
|||
{{rfc|pol}} |
|||
The claim that the results of the Referendum of the United Kingdom on the Membership of the United Kingdom in the European Union (2016), are "not legally binding", is tainted, or, is put into doubt by the fact that it was <b><u>NEVER</u></b> actually widely made (and was certainly never made on THIS article, here, on Wikipedia, and cited) <u><b>BEFORE</u></b> the (provisional) final results were announced and confirmed by the national chief Returning Officer from the [[Electoral Commission (United Kingdom)|Electoral Commission]], in Manchester, based in one of the premises of Manchester City Council, sometime on June the 24th.. |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016&oldid=726726423 One of the last "clean" versions of the article, and the last version dated June the 23rd..<nowiki></nowiki>] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016&oldid=726800691 When a ""non-binding" claim" source (conveniently dated June the 24th., AFTER the all-UK national provisional final results) started to get specifically reinstated, on the same date.<nowiki></nowiki>] |
|||
This question is in fact not first raised by me, but by [[Peter Lilley]] MP (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Conservative), a truly splendid chap, and also a truly and a most learned, wise and eloquent chap, who brilliantly retorted and repudiated (slapped down) the claims of the "Remainers", in the [[Palace of Westminster]], in [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]], in [[Westminster Hall]] of the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] ([[Hansard]]: House of Commons; 5 September 2016; Volume 614), by his speech in the debate (regarding the e-Petition Number 131215; relating to EU referendum rules [https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215<nowiki></nowiki>][https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2016-0157<nowiki></nowiki>][https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2016-0157/CDP-2016-0157.pdf<nowiki></nowiki>][https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a1e9sIVZkfMJ:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2016-0157/CDP-2016-0157.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us<nowiki></nowiki>]), in which he said, that, |
|||
{{Quote box |
|||
|quote = |
|||
"The final argument I want to deal with is that the referendum was only advisory. I debated daily with remainers—sometimes three times a day—but not once did a remain opponent say to the audience, “Oh by the way, this referendum is just advisory. If you give us the wrong advice we will ignore the result and remain in the EU anyway or perhaps call another referendum or vote against application of article 50 and the referendum result until we get the right result.” Did any Opposition Member say that to an audience and can they give me chapter and verse of them saying that they would treat the result as advisory and ignore it if they did not like it? Not one of them did. Now they are pretending that the whole thing was advisory. I forget which hon. Member said that was made clear during the debate. |
|||
"On the contrary, the then Foreign Secretary, who introduced the Referendum Bill, said that it was giving the decision to the British people. When launching the campaign, the Prime Minister said: |
|||
{{Quote box |
|||
|quote = "<i>"This is a straight democratic decision—staying in or leaving—and no Government can ignore that. Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. For a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would be not just wrong, but undemocratic."</i>[https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/column?VolumeNumber=606&ColumnNumber=24&House=1 —(Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 24.)<nowiki></nowiki>] |
|||
}} |
|||
"It was spelled out at the beginning of the referendum debate and again and again during it that this was a decisive choice for the British people. If we ignore that choice now and treat the British people with contempt, we will undermine their respect for democracy and prove how little faith we have in it."</br> |
|||
[https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-09-05/debates/1609058000001/EUReferendumRules Hansard transcripts<nowiki></nowiki>]</br>[http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/cb2f33f6-f9fe-463e-a6d5-40eca4b614c0 Recordings of proceedings in audio and video, or Audio-only<nowiki></nowiki>]</br>[http://dl.parliamentlive.tv/ukp/vod/_download/cb2f33f6-f9fe-463e-a6d5-40eca4b614c0_01_64.mp3?dln=20160905_westminster_hall Recordings of proceedings (Audio-only)<nowiki></nowiki>] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[David Lammy]] MP (Tottenham) (Labour) had indeed, on the same debate, cited the Briefing Paper issued by the [[House of Commons Library]]. He, however, erred, in that he either omitted by oversight, or he conveniently, for his own purpose, deliberately ignored and omitted the disclaimer, at the end of the document, which clearly states, at the end (Page 33 of 33 pages according to the Printers), that, |
|||
{{Quote box |
|||
|quote = "Disclaimer - This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice." </br> |
|||
[https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/europeanunionreferendum/documents.html Bill documents — European Union Referendum Act 2015 (2015 c. 36)<nowiki></nowiki>]</br>[https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7212#fullreport European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 (Briefing Paper) (Number 07212, 3 June 2015) (summary)<nowiki></nowiki>]</br>[https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf (in full) (.PDF)<nowiki></nowiki>]</br>[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Az25A_CoS5oJ:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (cached) (Google)<nowiki></nowiki>] |
|||
}} |
|||
Essentially, the cited Brief Paper <b><u>cannot</b></u> be used or otherwise cited as an acceptable or reliable legal advice. |
|||
Be that as it may, I myself shall let the offending wording stand, for now; however, once Article 50 is invoked, or once all the legal challenges (applications for judicial review) in the Courts have failed (hopefully!), or both, then they would surely have to be taken out; and I shall—if not by me, then someone else would! |
|||
Wikipedia is surely <u><b>NOT</u></b> the correct (campaigning) forum to have the results of the Referendum overturned or ignored; try the <u><b>next</u></b> [http://www.marchforeurope.net/ March for Europe<nowiki></nowiki>] (if there is actually to be one, and not a one-off!) The "Remainers" have lost; and the Leavers (and I included, obviously!) have won, and that is that, really! [[Flogging a dead horse]] here on Wikipedia wouldn't change a God-forsaken thing about the Referendum! Brexit means Brexit! -- [[Special:Contributions/87.102.116.36|87.102.116.36]] ([[User talk:87.102.116.36|talk]]) 22:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:42, 12 September 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Friendly search suggestions
Requested move 22 July 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: No move. No such user (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Brexit referendum – Now that Brexit has been accepted as the WP:COMMONNAME, we should simplify this unsightly title. — JFG talk 23:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support per nom, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY. juju (hajime! | waza) 01:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose We had a discussion on this very recently: see Talk:United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016/Archive_3#Requested_move_25_June_2016. The idea was rejected then. Nothing has changed since. Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- A lot has changed in a month: the UK has a new government who pledged to execute the withdrawal, and here on Wikipedia Brexit was now decisively accepted as the common name, so it's worth asking the question afresh. — JFG talk 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- A lot has changed, but most of it has nothing to do with what this article should be called. The points in the previous discussion all still hold: this simply wasn't usually referred to as the "Brexit referendum" by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- A lot has changed in a month: the UK has a new government who pledged to execute the withdrawal, and here on Wikipedia Brexit was now decisively accepted as the common name, so it's worth asking the question afresh. — JFG talk 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, User:Bondegezou made a good point in the previous discussion that there are few people referring to it as the 'Brexit referendum'. I suspect that's what it will be called in a few month's time, however.
Gravuritas (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. The current name suffers from WP:TLDR. Note that this discussion just moved United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union to Brexit. The sources are using this; we should as well per CONSISTENCY, COMMONNAME, CONSISE, as noted above. (Though several sources are simply calling it the "Brexit vote", I'm fine with "referendum".) --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 21:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, while the actual process of withdrawing from the EU is widely known as Brexit the referendum on whether or not to withdraw has generally been called the 'EU referendum' or 'EU memebership referendum' - the current title reflects this. Somehow I feel that if Britain had voted remain then we would still have an article entitled 'Brexit' but there wouldn't have been proposals to move this page too. Ebonelm (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alt rename to European Union membership referendum in the United Kingdom, 2016. While not shorter, this is less of a noun chain and more natural language. --PanchoS (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Question/comment The focus seems to be on the word "Brexit", but I am a bit confused by the word "referendum". I am sorry if this seems profoundly ignorant (I'm not a Brit), but isn't a referendum a binding vote on an issue? In the US, the voters of California, for example, have initiative and referendum, meaning that voters can directly enact and repeal laws by popular vote. A referendum is always binding. (In Minnesota we do not have initiative or referendum.) The online dictionaries are mixed on this question, as far as I can tell, but most seem to agree that a referendum yields an official result, not a measure of popular opinion. As the vote in the UK is not binding on Parliament, isn't it an advisory vote? To avoid all of these issues, which I admit might have more obvious legal answers in the UK, maybe calling it the "Brexit vote" would be better? I don't get on WP much anymore, and I'm quite content to leave this decision to you who know more than I do. I just want to raise this issue to make sure we're not overlooking something because of the focus on the word Brexit. Dcs002 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Before the vote, no reliable sources called it the "Brexit referendum" and the proposal feels like a tabloid title, not for a encyclopedia. At least, it should maintain the year as Brexit 2016 referendum. Today you all know it is 2016; ten years down, somebody would have difficulty remembering it was the 2016 referendum.--Robertiki (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- But there is only one "Brexit referendum". We don't have "American Revolution of 1776" or "American Civil War of 1861" because each of those events only happened once. If somehow there were ever a second "Brexit referendum", only then would it be appropriate to include the year in the title like you suggest. juju (hajime! | waza) 06:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- But it should be that way. Forcing American Revolution of 1776 I get about 32,000 hits with Google, the most from books. And there is another: The American Revolution of 1800: How Jefferson Rescued Democracy from ... --Robertiki (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here a source. --Robertiki (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- But there is only one "Brexit referendum". We don't have "American Revolution of 1776" or "American Civil War of 1861" because each of those events only happened once. If somehow there were ever a second "Brexit referendum", only then would it be appropriate to include the year in the title like you suggest. juju (hajime! | waza) 06:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. This has recently been discussed and the same arguments apply. We should avoid tabloid terms as article headings.Charles (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment from OP – I would support an alternate shorter name such as "British EU referendum" or "British EU membership referendum" if there is no consensus on "Brexit referendum". My main criticism of the current name is that it's entirely made up by Wikipedia (see prior discussions for detailed arguments about this) and that it's way too long, especially when you consider the sub-articles Results of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, etc. In article titling decisions, we must strive to be both WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. We must also strive to be grammatically correct, hence using the proper demonym adjective "British" instead of the clumsy noun adjunct "United Kingdom", which if we keep it would need a possessive 's. In fact this title features a whopping triple noun adjunct, with "United Kingdom", "European Union" and "membership" all struggling to qualify "referendum"… We need WP:CLARITY, my friends, think of the readers! — JFG talk 09:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would be happy to see "membership" dropped from the title. Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - too colloquial and potentially misleading. The referendum was not "about Brexit" - there were two options which carried equal weight, and we should not name the article based on how the eventual vote turned out. While it is reasonable (just about) to term the entire subsequent process as "Brexit", that does not mean that every article associated with it should use the same colloquial term. For clarity, the current article title should remain - I would oppose any changes to alter the word order, add possessive apostrophes, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment What do reliable sources call it? The UK government called it the "EU referendum". That was The Guardian's term too. Ditto the BBC. And The Independent. And the Electoral Commission. It is obvious that "Brexit referendum" is a poor suggestion that fails WP:COMMONNAME: it was rejected before, suggesting it again so recently does not seem particularly useful to me. The question is how we should wikify "EU referendum", the term everyone uses. Do we need to spell out "EU": yes, I think that's standard. Do we need to add a year? That seems to be the usual approach. Do we need a country qualifier? Yes, and "United Kingdom" is used rather than "British" on other articles. Ergo, we should go for "United Kingdom European Union referendum, 2016". Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose We have a naming guideline for election and referendum articles (WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums), which the proposal is clearly not in line with – and this is the ultimate policy/guideline with which the title must comply. Plus any deviation from this would be a violation of WP:CONSISTENCY (see the contents of Category:Referendums in the United Kingdom and Category:2016 referendums). Number 57 11:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Quoting from the guideline:
For elections and referendums, use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date"
, so this should be "British EU membership referendum, 2016" or just "British EU referendum, 2016" to follow common usage of "EU referendum" by most sources. — JFG talk 02:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)- The demonym used for UK elections is "United Kingdom" (presumably because of the whole Britain/UK distinction): see United Kingdom general election, 2015 all the way back to United Kingdom general election, 1802, plus United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 and United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, "British" is the appropriate demonym for the whole United Kingdom. Quoting from the article that you cited, Terminology of the British Isles:
British is an adjective pertaining to the United Kingdom; for example, a citizen of the UK is called a British citizen
. See also British people, British Army, etc. Methinks we should use "British election" to designate any election happening in the United Kingdom. To take another example where the demonym doesn't sound like the country name, take "Dutch" as the demonym for the Netherlands (or Holland). We have Dutch general election, 2012 and friends, not Netherlands general election, 2012. — JFG talk 08:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)- Personally I agree that "British" is preferable, but having all the UK's election and referendum article stuck with "United Kingdom" rather than "British" is a historical legacy of some Irish nationalist editors objecting to the term "British" referring to the whole of the UK in the early days of Wikipedia. Similarly, American elections are at "United States presidential election, 2016" etc because of objections to the term "American". If you were to start an RM suggesting all the UK articles are moved to "British..." (we can't do it piecemeal) then I would fully support it. Number 57 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll gladly launch this process. Can't name hundreds of pages realistically, so I'll drop the RM at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015 and mention that the effects are intended to apply to all articles about British elections. — JFG talk 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I agree that "British" is preferable, but having all the UK's election and referendum article stuck with "United Kingdom" rather than "British" is a historical legacy of some Irish nationalist editors objecting to the term "British" referring to the whole of the UK in the early days of Wikipedia. Similarly, American elections are at "United States presidential election, 2016" etc because of objections to the term "American". If you were to start an RM suggesting all the UK articles are moved to "British..." (we can't do it piecemeal) then I would fully support it. Number 57 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- "The demonym used for UK elections is 'United Kingdom'"... but Gibraltar also voted. They are British, but they are not part of the United Kingdom. Opera hat (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, "British" is the appropriate demonym for the whole United Kingdom. Quoting from the article that you cited, Terminology of the British Isles:
- The demonym used for UK elections is "United Kingdom" (presumably because of the whole Britain/UK distinction): see United Kingdom general election, 2015 all the way back to United Kingdom general election, 1802, plus United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 and United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Quoting from the guideline:
- Oppose: I agree with Number 57 that it is preferable to adhere to the naming guideline for election and referendum articles. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: The term "Brexit referendum" is a colloquialism and shouldn't be used for the title of an article. Whatever next? Indyref and Indyref2? This is Paul (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: I also agree with Number 57 that it is preferable to adhere to the naming guideline. Also with others that "Brexit" is a colloquialism. I'm now seeing "Scoxit", re Indyref2 (and dread what might be invented if Portugal wished to leave the EU). Wikiain (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Portugo" or "Departugal"? Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Brexit referendum is used as a shorthand and is rarely used, except in tabloid headlines as an editor commented above. Whilst Brexit is the name of the process, 'Brexit referendum' is a plausible redirect but definitely not a plausible title. --st170etalk 17:59, 26 July 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.
Re-organize Non-European Responses and Economists sections?
The Non-European section includes some sub sections that should probably be in the Economists section.
Yes, I added one a few minutes ago (G20) but only because the IMF sub section is under Non-European. Should the IMF and G20 sub sections not be moved to the Economists section? I can do so but wonder if there is consensus on this. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Separate Parts for pre-Brexit and post-referendum content?
I wonder if this article needs to be reorganized extensively, into pre-referendum and post-referendum Parts? For example, the Economists and Non-European Responses sections now include content from before the vote and from after the vote. Yes I added some a few minutes ago to the IMF and G20 sub sections, for example; this was when I began to wonder if the entire article needs a separate Part 1: pre-referendum and Part 2: post-referendum. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree the two should be largely separate. But I think this article should focus on the pre-referendum content, as the post-referendum stuff is in Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes that makes sense. The Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 definitely needs work. Perhaps we could move chunks from this Brexit article to that article. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I moved the sections of Economy and Scotland that related to post-referendum to the Aftermath article. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Should this article be closed?
See the previous two Talk sections.
This article relates to a past event: leading up to the Brexit referendum and the outcome of the vote (Leave the EU). That is all in the past now. Unless some incredible information about pre-referendum comes to light at this late date, this article should be closed to edits, in my view. I have removed the post-referendum sections from Economy and Scotland and moved them to the Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 article. If there is other such content that I did not notice, that should be moved too. I am not a Senior Editor so it's not up to me to close an article down, but someone should probably do so. OR at least post a note to editors DO NOT ADD INFORMATION ABOUT POST-REFERENDUM TO THIS ARTICLE - THAT SHOULD BE IN THE AFTERMATH ARTICLE. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Peter. Just a couple of friendly comments. All articles on WP are considered to be a "work in progress" so there will not be any support for "closing down" the article. However, I also agree with your point. To my mind, this subject area should be split into 3 articles (Pre-vote, the result, post-vote), with possibly more in the future. This "pre-vote" article should now largely be left alone, unless further relevant information come to light. You can leave a note to editors by using (please view this in edit mode) in the first line of the article. There is no such thing as a "senior editor" - you might be meaning an "administrator". All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, [[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]; OK, I will add a note suggesting that it not be updated with content that occurred after the referendum. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also added this: For the coverage of developments after the referendum, see Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, [[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]; OK, I will add a note suggesting that it not be updated with content that occurred after the referendum. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There are three articles, this one on the aftermath AND the British withdrawal from the European Union, see Brexit and the referendum, see United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the hatnote. The Aftermath article should only cover the events immediately arising from the referendum result - not "developments after the referendum" more broadly construed. Over the medium and longer term, more specific developments will have their own articles - for example, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. And, over time, there will no doubt be many new reliable sources published that provide new information on the referendum process itself, which will need to be incorporated into this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I agree with the revision. Peter K Burian.
Lead section
I can't tag the lead section yet, but I might someday. The lead section is too long for most readers. The referendum is very recent; it's not a century old (or half of it). While the article "Napoleon" has exceptions to MOS:LEAD, the topic (referendum itself) isn't that complex compared to Napoleon, the French dictator. Time to have it reworked or skimmed to... say, three or four paragraphs? --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Referendum result toolbar correction needed
How do you access the referendum results toolbar As there needs to be a correction to the number of eligible voters as the final total total was in fact 46,524,120 according to official figures and not 46,500,001 but I have no access to the toolbar itself I cannot change this figure. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:AD50:4EE8:3910:64AA (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC))
Reason why legitimacy of political or politicsed sources claiming Referendum non-binding (potentially made in bad faith) can be questioned and challenged
The claim that the results of the Referendum of the United Kingdom on the Membership of the United Kingdom in the European Union (2016), are "not legally binding", is tainted, or, is put into doubt by the fact that it was NEVER actually widely made (and was certainly never made on THIS article, here, on Wikipedia, and cited) BEFORE the (provisional) final results were announced and confirmed by the national chief Returning Officer from the Electoral Commission, in Manchester, based in one of the premises of Manchester City Council, sometime on June the 24th..
One of the last "clean" versions of the article, and the last version dated June the 23rd..
This question is in fact not first raised by me, but by Peter Lilley MP (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Conservative), a truly splendid chap, and also a truly and a most learned, wise and eloquent chap, who brilliantly retorted and repudiated (slapped down) the claims of the "Remainers", in the Palace of Westminster, in Parliament, in Westminster Hall of the House of Commons (Hansard: House of Commons; 5 September 2016; Volume 614), by his speech in the debate (regarding the e-Petition Number 131215; relating to EU referendum rules ), in which he said, that,
"The final argument I want to deal with is that the referendum was only advisory. I debated daily with remainers—sometimes three times a day—but not once did a remain opponent say to the audience, “Oh by the way, this referendum is just advisory. If you give us the wrong advice we will ignore the result and remain in the EU anyway or perhaps call another referendum or vote against application of article 50 and the referendum result until we get the right result.” Did any Opposition Member say that to an audience and can they give me chapter and verse of them saying that they would treat the result as advisory and ignore it if they did not like it? Not one of them did. Now they are pretending that the whole thing was advisory. I forget which hon. Member said that was made clear during the debate.
"On the contrary, the then Foreign Secretary, who introduced the Referendum Bill, said that it was giving the decision to the British people. When launching the campaign, the Prime Minister said:
""This is a straight democratic decision—staying in or leaving—and no Government can ignore that. Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. For a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would be not just wrong, but undemocratic."—(Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 24.)
"It was spelled out at the beginning of the referendum debate and again and again during it that this was a decisive choice for the British people. If we ignore that choice now and treat the British people with contempt, we will undermine their respect for democracy and prove how little faith we have in it."
Hansard transcripts
Recordings of proceedings in audio and video, or Audio-only
Recordings of proceedings (Audio-only)
David Lammy MP (Tottenham) (Labour) had indeed, on the same debate, cited the Briefing Paper issued by the House of Commons Library. He, however, erred, in that he either omitted by oversight, or he conveniently, for his own purpose, deliberately ignored and omitted the disclaimer, at the end of the document, which clearly states, at the end (Page 33 of 33 pages according to the Printers), that,
"Disclaimer - This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice."
Bill documents — European Union Referendum Act 2015 (2015 c. 36)
European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 (Briefing Paper) (Number 07212, 3 June 2015) (summary)
(in full) (.PDF)
(cached) (Google)
Essentially, the cited Brief Paper cannot be used or otherwise cited as an acceptable or reliable legal advice.
Be that as it may, I myself shall let the offending wording stand, for now; however, once Article 50 is invoked, or once all the legal challenges (applications for judicial review) in the Courts have failed (hopefully!), or both, then they would surely have to be taken out; and I shall—if not by me, then someone else would!
Wikipedia is surely NOT the correct (campaigning) forum to have the results of the Referendum overturned or ignored; try the next March for Europe (if there is actually to be one, and not a one-off!) The "Remainers" have lost; and the Leavers (and I included, obviously!) have won, and that is that, really! Flogging a dead horse here on Wikipedia wouldn't change a God-forsaken thing about the Referendum! Brexit means Brexit! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)