Talk:Aftermath of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum/Archive 1

Orphaned references in Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto": From NBC News:  From Standard Chartered:  From Jeremy Corbyn: "Labour MPs pass Corbyn no-confidence motion", BBC News website 28 June 2016, accessed 28 June 2016 From United Kingdom general election, 2015:  From Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016:  From David Cameron:  From United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016:  From HSBC: </li> <li>From 4chan: January 19, 2011, Why were /r9k/ and /new/ removed? – Statement by him regarding the removal of /r9k/ and /new/. Archived from the original on August 21, 2011.</li> <li>From Sigmar Gabriel: Gernot Heller (July 20, 2015), Germany, Iran pledge to revive economic ties after long freeze Reuters.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article title
Is the title of this article neutral? I have looked up several definitions of "aftermath" and this is typical - "The consequences or after-effects of a significant unpleasant event"[my emphasis]. As a UK voter, the referendum was not at all "unpleasant" although the (political) consequences are. DrChrissy (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "...the period of time after something such as a war, storm, or accident when people are still dealing with the results".  I understand the problem... but what is undeniable is that the result was widely unexpected - it seems that no-one had firm plans to deal with the outcome - and certainly "people are still dealing with the results".  The article addresses the unplanned and unexpected political, economic and social consequences of a surprising (to most) and unprecedented event, and I can't think of any better word than "aftermath" to describe the current uncertain state of affairs.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be a case where dictionaries simply do not follow common useage. I think to the vast majority of native English speakers, the "aftermath" indicates negative consequences, not necessarily the event.  For example, if there was a really good music festival which everyone enjoyed but a newspaper was writing about the cleanup afterwards, they might title this "The Aftermath of Music Festival X". DrChrissy (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, "aftermath" is what remains in a field after it has been mown for hay: "math" is an old word for mowing. Any farmer would tell you that!
 * That said, it has unfortunate implications in popular understanding. Perhaps "Events following the [etc, etc]"
 * This is an ongoing topic and will develop over years. The immediate consequences (stock market jitters, political resignations, a clutch of racial attacks, foul language and threats of violence against prominent Leavers, 'Dianafication' etc) are of interest.  Later will come the new trade treaties, deregulation and a possible realignment of politics - the latter not caused by leaving the EU as such but by the way the conduct of the Referendum campaign lifted the lid on existing differences. Hogweard (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We may as well be guided by reliable sources. Here are a few using the word "aftermath":  , , , , , , , , , ..... etc.   "Aftermath" is OK.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Aftermath" does not have negative connotations to me (as a native English speaker). Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the title is not neutral. The OED gives "A period or state of affairs following a significant event, esp. when that event is destructive or harmful" and "A (usually undesired) thing remaining or left after the end or exit of something; an unwelcome consequence or effect". Longman (based, importantly, on a sizeable corpus of actual usage) gives "the period of time after something such as a war, storm, or accident when people are still dealing with the results". Go to a corpus such as the British National Corpus and search for "aftermath". You'll find a few instances that are neutral, but most are associated with negative or highly negative events. Using the term "aftermath" in the title is clearly supportive of the notion that the outcome was negative, which is a bias we should seek to avoid and, thus, in this instance, remove. EddieHugh (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hogweard's "Events follwing the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016" would be neutral. EddieHugh (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What do other Wikipedia articles do? They use "aftermath" as a neutral term, e.g. Spanish_general_election,_2015. If it's OK there as a subsection header, why is it a problem here? Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No other language has a directly equivalent term to "aftermath" (a Middle English agricultural coinage). Given the arguably negative connotations, I would go with "Events following the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016". Hogweard (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't like "Events following..." because it removes any sense of causation. These aren't just events that happen to have occurred since the referendum. These are direct consequences of the vote. We are describing the changed world following the result. That's all captured in "aftermath". We could go with "Sequelae of the..." but that's a less common word. Bondegezou (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:Search/intitle:"Aftermath" shows all Wikipedia articles with "aftermath" in the title. Many are aftermaths of bad things (Aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Aftermath of World War I), but others are aftermaths of things that are not clearly negative, like Aftermath of the Bahraini uprising of 2011 or Aftermath of the Warsaw Uprising. "Aftermath" implies a "significant event" and big significant events are often negative things, but they don't have to be. Meanwhile, there are no articles containing "events following" in the title. Why go against common Wikipedia practice? Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly comfortable with "Aftermath", which is the term used in many reliable sources (see citations above) - but, if it is generally seen as a problem, how about "Events arising from the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merriam Webster says: "the period of time after a bad and usually destructive event" so it's not a neutral title. "Reaction to .." I suggest would be more neutral.  I think that the change of title would then allow an easier definition of the time horizon of this article- there may be problems determining when the 'aftermath' is over: the word has some connotations of immediacy but "Reaction to..", I suggest, has connotations of even more immediacy.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the matters covered by this article would not be covered by the word "Reaction". For example, Farage's resignation is not a "reaction" - but it is a part of the "aftermath" - and indeed an "event arising from..", as I suggested.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree about "Reaction". We have reliable sources using "aftermath", we have other Wikipedia articles using "aftermath". Those look like both strong arguments that the word is fine. But if some editors feel sensitive about the word, and given this has implications for other articles using the word, perhaps take it to WP:NPOVN for their expert input? Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why was Farage's resignation not a reaction? He stated that he had achieved what he set out to do 20+ years ago and he wanted his life back.  Presumably, if the vote had been to remain, he would not have resigned.  His resignation was a reaction to the referendum being in favour of Leave. DrChrissy (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a consequence of the result, rather than a reaction.   If this discussion cannot be resolved here, I agree that it may best to raise it at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no neutrality problem with "Events arising from the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016", suggested by Ghmyrtle. EddieHugh (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I still do not see the problem with "reactions", but I am happy to support "events". DrChrissy (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no other Wiki articles with that naming format, "Events after...", and it comes over as bad English to me. Bondegezou (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of "Consequences of..." articles, and even a Category:Consequences of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, so perhaps a move to that could be an alternative suggestion. This is Paul (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. $\langle\rangle$As the OP of this thread, that had been my original alternative - perhaps I should have stated that more clearly. DrChrissy (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Consequences of" has more than a whiff of negativity to it, too: look at the list that comes up here... Nazism, the Black Death, war, global warming, Spanish flu... they're all horrendous. It's also limiting & not very accurate: the FTSE may have fallen as a consequence of the referendum, but it didn't rise again as a consequence of it; reactions of people aren't really consequences either – they're reactions. "Consequences of" isn't appropriate here. EddieHugh (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Consequence" is a neutral word: it just means "that which follows from" (con- = 'with' + 'sequence'). There might be a point about what is a direct or indirect consequence, or whether an event following is consequential or coincidental - the article is though meant to be on events arising from the result, so "consequences" should be fine. If it is still causing a fuss though, I'd go back to my earlier suggestion; "Events following the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016". Hogweard (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Its etymology may indicate neutrality, but its usage – the more important point – does not, as shown by the list of "Consequences of ..." articles on Wikipedia. Here's some policy: "a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title." EddieHugh (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Both "consequences" and "aftermath" satisfy that. I find it hard to countenance that people are reading some judgement into the current title. "Events following..." is too vague, and I concur with EddieHugh that "consequences" is a poor fit. Stick with "Aftermath...", say I. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please (re-)read the above. It's been demonstrated that both "aftermath" and "consequences of" are associated with negative events. They are examples of "judgmental and non-neutral words" in the context of a referendum in a democracy, so need to be avoided. EddieHugh (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have not shown that the words are biased. We have articles on the aftermath or consequences of big, impactful events. The sorts of big, impactful events that generate such articles are often of negative events, but that's because of the nature of big, impactful events, not because "aftermath" or "consequences" (not that I think "consequences" works here for other reasons you've laid out) are negatively tinged word. I have, up-thread, given examples of "Aftermath..." titled articles on Wikipedia of long standing that are not about negative events. Were we to accept your argument, we'd have to move a number of different articles where there's never been any complaint. So that's why I think you should take this to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you want to change all those articles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can supply any number of definitions where "aftermath" is linked to consequences following a negative event. Can you provide a definition which does not? This thread is about the title of this article.  If other articles have used the word incorrectly, that is the concern of the editors on those pages, not ours. DrChrissy (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What evidence would suffice? You provide the Warsaw Uprising as an example of an event that was not negative. About 200,000 people were killed! Even your other example, the Bahraini protests of 2011, killed over 100. They are all about death and/or violence. That is not appropriate for this article. EddieHugh (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I try again: Here's a list of all articles beginning "aftermath of". All of them pertain to violent events, except one that is an album title and some that are redirects. And, of course, this article. EddieHugh (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently negative about the term "aftermath", nor does it imply violence. It is just that most news stories happen to be negative and often about violence. The article title is just fine as it is.Charles (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is becoming very frustrating as people are not providing evidence to the contrary when requested. For anyone who might not know how to do the search, type "define:aftermath" (note the colon) into a search engine.  Merriam Webster, Cambridge English Dictionary,, Wiktionary, Oxford dictionaries ALL link this to an unpleasant event.  Can anyone provide evidence to the contrary. DrChrissy (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Various online dicitonaries confirm that the word can have a neutral definition. There clearly ins't a consensus here currently for any change. If you are frustrated, WP:CONTENTDISPUTE makes recommendations for what to do next, one of which is to go to a relevant noticeboard, as has already been recommended to you by more than one person on more than one occasion. Bondegezou (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs supporting your contention it is a neutral word. DrChrissy (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a summary. It's irrefutable that "aftermath of" can have negative connotations. Other proposals have been made – "events following"; "events arising from" – that cannot have negative connotations. WP:NDESC policy is to avoid judgemental and non-neutral words in article titles. It follows that a title that cannot be considered non-neutral is preferred to one that can be regarded as non-neutral. That rules out "aftermath of". EddieHugh (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ... except for the fact that the word "Aftermath" is used in many, many, reliable sources on this matter, as already noted.  For avoidance of doubt, I still prefer it to "Events arising from..." (even though I proposed the latter as a compromise), and consider "Events following...." as unacceptably unexplanatory.   If there is such concern about "Aftermath....", why has no-one yet raised it at WP:NPOVN?     Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet again the lack of diffs makes it difficult to discuss specifics. However, I can well imagine tabloids using "aftermath" for the very reason there are concerns being expressed here - it engenders a negative perspective of the referendum which sells newspapers.  I can not imagine newspapers using the word "events" rather than "aftermath" - it simply does not sell newspapers. DrChrissy (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Because (following a brief look, so correct me if I'm wrong) not much gets resolved at NPOVN, and because it shouldn't be necessary. I have some conclusive evidence: an academic article on the semantic prosody of "aftermath". It was published in the journal Applied Linguistics, which is one of the top journals in its field. It's here. The authors conclude that "consequence and consequences show a strong tendency towards a negative semantic prosody" and that "In comparison with consequence(s), aftermath displays an even more pronounced tendency towards the negative pole of the semantic continuum". Can we agree to trust a professional, academic study that used well-known standard corpora and was peer-reviewed by three people? EddieHugh (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't like WP:NPOVN, then try another approach, such as one of the ones listed at WP:DR. It seems unlikely to me that discussion on this page is going to lead to a consensus that the current title be changed.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The main problem is suggesting a suitable alternative title. If we had "in the aftermath of", we could change it to "in the wake of", but we don't. We have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the potential alternatives. Anything with "events" is, in my opinion, too restricted, but perhaps someone could think of something else with "in the wake of" or a similar constriction.--Boson (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The word 'events' is pretty wide. It covers anything actually happening, anything short of changes in states of mind, but we would not to go that far! Perhaps "Events following from...". Hogweard (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Per sources, "Aftermath" is fine. I agree it hints of "not all good", but the uncertainties resulting from Brexit aren't "good" for anyone (except for news-peddlers).  Looking at this from across the Atlantic, I tend to think most of these worries are overblown (I don't expect the Republic of London to demand a place on the UN council next week).  Most sources are focusing on the uncertainties, since very few certainties are known, and fear sells.  "Aftermath" fits what the sources are covering for the moment.  To me, the more ridiculous part of the title is ", 2016".  Does anyone expect this to go on for years?  The current uncertainties will, over time, be replaced with actual events, and this article will be renamed and split up (including the History of the Republic of London).  There's no point in trying to fine-tune the name of this article; it won't last anyway.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Impact of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016? This avoids all the problems mentioned so far. It captures the surprise of the result. It is reasonabally neutral, in that it is used with either positive or negative events. "Impact" is used in lots of media coverage. Other Wikipedia articles begin "Impact of"; some are about largely bad, some about largely good, events. It entails causation. It also encompasses the need for the title to reflect "big, impactful events". If it's necessary to make clear that the article is limited to what happened after the result was announced, then "result" can be added to the end of the title. Opinions? EddieHugh (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - that is neutral and ticks all the boxes. Hogweard (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No - this article isn't about the referendum's impact. It's about the aftermath, the what-happened-next. "Aftermath" captures that all so well.
 * I don't see the general readership being confused or misled by the word "aftermath". No-one's suddenly going to have a different attitude to the referendum result because this article is called "Aftermath..." I just don't see the problem. Bondegezou (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The words "impact" and "aftermath" do not have the same meaning.  This article is substantially not about the "impact" of the referendum - which could be long-term or shorter-term, on politics, the economy, society, international affairs, etc. etc.  It is about its "aftermath" - the confused and complex set of events arising immediately from the referendum result - and should remain focused on that content.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is currently about "politics, the economy, society, international affairs, etc. etc.", meaning it fits "impact" well, based on your argument. If it's "events arising immediately from the referendum result", then when is the temporal cut off? Can (potentially) positive things be included, or must it all be turmoil and gloom? EddieHugh (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "Aftermath", in my view, reflects a state of confusion. It ceases to be appropriate when the confusion is resolved, and specific outcomes of the referendum become clear and have separate new articles written about them (for instance, about the process for triggering Article 50, the outcomes of party leadership elections, etc.)   Positive developments - specific new developments - will be recorded in separate articles.  We (that is, the country, etc., not we editors) are now in the process of resolving the confused aftermath, but it is not yet over.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Positive developments - specific new developments - will be recorded in separate articles." If positive things can't be put in this article, then it will be entirely negative. This would associate the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 with only bad things, which takes us back to the original objection raised about the title being biased. Possible solutions: create a separate article for positive things immediately arising; include positive things in this article. I don't see the first as a genuine possibility on Wikipedia. EddieHugh (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're making a personal interpretation. The article is not negative, but it reports on a period mainly characterised by unanticipated confusion and/or uncertainty.   What "positive developments" do you have in mind?  If they are specific developments - such as May's election as party leader - they will need to be mentioned here but they will have (or be more fully covered in) other, more specific, articles.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article title has negative connotations, and @Ghmyrtle you seem to wish to fill the article with only negative stuff. You are not alone in this: there seems to be a grisly determination to report on, for instance, a drop in share values or the pound and the same editors seem strangely slow in reporting the various bounce-backs that have happened.  WP is not alone in this:there are parts of the UK media that wish to continue to fight to Remain after the polls have closed, by selectively reporting negative events.  Let's not do that here: WP:NPOV, please.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with 'Consequences of....', btw
 * Gravuritas (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are imputing motivations to editors for which you have no evidence. If there had been, for instance, mass rallies of people cheering the referendum results, I've no doubt at all they would be mentioned in this article.  In fact, what the article does is report what reliable and independent sources have been writing.  No more and no less.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem with positive, negative and neutral things all being reported in this article. Indeed, most of what is reported in this article is neutral: e.g. May becoming PM is neutral or, rather, a positive thing to some people and a negative thing to others. Where markets have gone up and down, we should report that. As ever, we follow reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How about we get as neutral as possible. There appear to be 3 main articles about the referendum.  It appears (at least to me) to be logical to divide these chronologically.  Why not use "Pre-...", "Results of...." and "Post-..." for these 3 articles. DrChrissy (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Too soon. Our current view of what's happening will be quickly outdated.  Any attempt to better describe this will cross over into WP:SYNTH or WP:CRYSTAL.  Right now, the sources tend to use "Aftermath".  When definite specific consequences unfold and become realized, the sources will use different terms.  We will, of course, follow the sources then to make article names, as we must now.  Please let's leave it as "Aftermath" for a week or two at least, and spend our WP time on work that will have some useful lasting effect.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper.  Simply because newspapers use terms for effect and to sell copy, does not mean that we also have to use the same terms. DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The title you are all looking for is "Effects of the United Kingdom European Referendum...". Both of the words 'aftermath' and 'consequences' have negative connotations according to the OED. So please could someone change the title. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Thanks. -AZ English (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Effects" can be short term or, more likely, long term, and are necessarily caused by the referendum. This article deals with something different - the state of relative confusion in the short period of days and weeks immediately following the referendum results - for which "aftermath" is the appropriate, and most often used, term.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME isn't determined by our opinions, but by sources (including newspapers). Here, WP is reporting an ongoing event, mostly before anything has actually happened.  Would the World War II article be "correctly named" right from the beginning if WP had created it on 1 September 1939 (even if the talk page at the time became longer than the article itself)?  It's a waste of time to discuss this before we know the true results of Brexit.  Worries, fears, uncertainty, doubt, and speculations of what Brexit may lead to would be a "correct" title for the moment, but totally dumb, and more obviously temporary and short-sighted than "Aftermath".  Wait and see.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * AD, I think you ar underplaying the very real events we have seen already. We've seen three party leadership elections start, and one already conclude. We have a new Prime Minister. The markets have been up and down, but the pound is still close to a 31-year low. Plenty has actually happened. Bondegezou (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And plenty will continue to happen. But what has happened so far is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg.  (At least, most sources imply much more to come, and I tend to agree.  If they're all wrong, and this is just about all that's going to happen, then all we need is an article on "Brexit myths".)  As soon as these events accumulate to something more distinct and significant, they'll become separate articles (plural), with names that are obvious based on sources at that time that use hindsight.  We just have to wait for those sources.  Per policy, there's not much else to do.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Only time will tell whether the impact of Brexit will be positive or negative. I don't personally believe it'll create the Utopia imagined by some, but none of us have a crystal ball. I'd say we should leave the article at "Aftermath of..." for now, and maybe revisit this again in a year or two. This is Paul (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

One other idea: Without reading through this discussion I don't know if we've already covered this, so forgive me if we have. But what about Reaction to? We already have an International reactions to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, so in theory we could always move this to Domestic reactions to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 or Internal reactions to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. The article pretty much covers affairs within the UK anyway, so it could be a solution. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussed further up the thread, on 5 July. My thoughts are unchanged: "Some of the matters covered by this article would not be covered by the word "Reaction". For example, Farage's resignation is not a "reaction" - but it is a part of the "aftermath" - and indeed an "event arising from.."..."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Domestic.. is a bad idea. There is already a major imbalance in this article's coverage of financial affairs: the reporting of movements in UK-listed shares not being balanced by movements in shares listed elsewhere; the emphasis on dollar exchange rate as opposed to euro or trade-weighted exchange rates, etc. which I've tried to correct with a couple of small edits.  These aspects can only be viewed on a world-wide scale if the articles is to be fair.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Demographics
"Voting patterns in the referendum varied between areas: Greater London and many other cities, Scotland, Gibraltar, and Northern Ireland tended towards remaining in the EU; the remainder of England and Wales and mainly Protestant parts of Northern Ireland showed Leave majorities."

We've already discussed the voting patterns of each member state. Must we proceed down the usual boring path of referencing voting patterns by religious demographic in Northern Ireland ? We didn't discuss demographics by region in any other member state at this point. Not everyone is as interested in NI's religious divides as its own residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:100C:E300:BD51:883:A5E5:CD72 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Article of hyperbole
I mean, seriously, I had to stop reading a few lines in... "significant political and economic turmoil" - really? "Turmoil"? Really?? For contemporary British politics maybe... but relative to the country's longer history/relative to what most parts of the world would describe as that? No. And then a huge paragraph in the lede about stock market indices... come on guys, get a perspective of reality and what matters, please. Sumorsǣte (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to add, to give some perspective - I live in an ordinary Midlands town and if I didn't read/watch the news I literally wouldn't know anything is different, except that petrol is about 3p per litre more expensive, but then fuel prices have long been volatile. Away from the political circuses of Holyrood, Westminster (where the main disorder is in the Labour party and has little to do with Brexit) and Brussels, life carries on as normal. But reading some stuff on the internet you'd think there was civil war, a military coup d'etat, bread shortages, Parliament burnt to the ground, the borders closed, communist partisans occupying major cities, etc.. Sumorsǣte (talk)
 * Fair point. I looked up the 3 sources for constitutional crisis. 1 argued that there probably wouldn't be one and the others were from politicians, which can't be neutral. So I cut that and "significant". "Turmoil" is ott, too, but getting the article's title changed from "Aftermath..." is a first step. EddieHugh (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't read/watch the news then you wouldn't know anything is different as a result of numerous current events that have articles on Wikipedia. I'm not certain that's the right criterion to be applied. The Prime Minister (and leader of largest party) has resigned as a direct result. The leader of the 3rd largest party (by votes at the last election) has resigned as a direct result. The Leader of the Opposition/leader of the 2nd party is in a crisis situation (that does pre-date the referendum, but is nonetheless also connected to it). It's a bit dismissive to call that a "political circus": these are dramatic changes. That much turnover in political leadership is only usually seen after a general election, if then. The pound is at its lowest for decades: maybe that takes a while to filter through to most people's day-to-day experiences, but it is nonetheless very significant. Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Interest in New Zealand property
I wonder if this might be worth a mention somewhere. Apparently there was an increased interest in New Zealand properties from Brits just before and following the referendum. The following paragraphs may be of particular interest:


 * 1) "The week leading up to the referendum and the week following the decision that Britain would leave the European Union saw a 27 per cent jump in people from the UK browsing on New Zealand property site realestate.co.nz, compared to British visitors to the site during the two weeks before this period."
 * 2) "Immigration New Zealand (INZ) had also seen a significant spike in interest from British nationals since the recent referendum."

Not sure for which section this would be appropriate. I did think "Status of current EU immigrants and British emigrants", although that deals specifically with other EU countries. Have other countries outside the EU (e.g., Australia) experienced similar interest? Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some people doing some online searches isn't worth including. If lots of people actually move, it will be. I suggest also that it's impossible to know the nationality of people doing the searching – the idea that they were British will be an assumption made by the author of the article or the owners of the website concerned; they could have been people from mainland Europe living in the UK. EddieHugh (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Government response to petition
We now have a government response. Emails are being sent out with this information, but in terms of online sources, currently this is only available through the petitions website. Since that is blacklisted we can't use it as a source. However, I'm sure the media will pick it up. When it does we can update the sectionThis is Paul (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Debate over legitimacy of a second referendum
As this section is getting quite big (partly my responsibility, I guess) I propose maybe trimming some of it and/or splitting and rearranging the information into smaller more manageable sections, covering the views of politicians, academics, and others. At the moment there's a lot of "On such and such a date, so and so said..." where as it ought to be set out more as a debate, presenting argument both for and against the idea. Any thoughts on this would be most welcome. This is Paul (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for doing this. I kept putting it off, but it needed trimming. This is Paul (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Still needs reorganising though, so I'll have a go when I've had a think about how best to do it. This is Paul (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Short recession
I've added a paragraph to the Economy section discussing forecasts of a short recession within the next year, but would like to see a balanced argument from organisations who don't believe the vote for Brexit will lead to an economic downturn. Even though it wonders slightly into the unknown future, I would argue including this information is as important as mentioning the downgrading of the UK's economic status. Any thoughts are welcome, and of course, if anyone can add to the paragraph then please feel free to do so. This is Paul (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Irish Republic
I know the Irish Republic isn't part of the UK, but I wonder if there's a case for including some mention here of the effects of Brexit. They're going to be pretty bad according to this article from Bloomberg, which observes: "The intertwining of trade and finance means no other country is feeling the fallout from the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union more than Ireland." So concerned was the Irish government about the possibility that last year they even established an office to put together a contingency plan in case of a leave vote. This article from The Independent also discusses the topic, and there are others. Of course it's possible this may be more appropriate to the International reactions article, but any thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources, that is relevant: the two states are umbilically linked.  It is as yet to early to speculate on 'Eirexit'... Hogweard (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Irish Republic isn't part of the UK, but some part of United Ireland might currently be part of it. Anyway, both parts (EU & UK) agreed the first milestone contains one specific topic called the «NI border» that has to be negotiated to achieve a WA (withdrawal agreement) but if EU wannabe democratic EU would have to allow both member states (including but not limited to Ireland) and MEP to have their say. Once sufficient clarity and certainty will be provided that might be addressed by this WP article. But I assume such a topic can also be addressed as soon as sufficient progress has been achieved or assessed... Regards. ≈≈≈≈

IMF predictions...
...include those by their normal team in April and July, and one by Christine Lagarde in June shortly before the referendum. Please ensure that, if mentioned at all, all three are included- for balance and as evidence of their accuracy or lack of accuracy. Gravuritas (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Any evaluations of the IMF reports' accuracy or lack of accuracy should come from reliable sources: it's not our role as Wikipedians to indulge in original research. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:PUS cautions against use of the Daily Mail. WP:RSN may be the appropriate place for discussion of the use of a Daily Mail article as a citation. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are trying to include IMF predictions from April and July and ignore the IMF prediction of June. The June prediction was ref'd to the Guardian.  The comparison was backed by a cite from the Mail which"...should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims".   The cite only referred to comments from a UKIP MP, which received minor coverage elsewhere on the net, so this is hardly a sensational claim.  So the possibilities are
 * 1.(your apparent pref) Cover IMF predictions from April and July only, with a comparison between them.
 * 2. Cover 1. but also mention the June prediction with a ref to the Guardian, with no comparison. Balanced, at least, and there is a slight difficulty that you wish to report the third prediction as a reduction (which it is from April, but it's an increase from June), so that would need resolving.
 * 3.(my pref) Cover 2. but add Carswell's comparison.
 * The major problem with 1. is that there is already a major emphasis on Indy stories (&LES, their subsidiary) and the lack of balance in recent edits is apparent, with side support from the Guardian. Needs dealing with.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Gravuritas, I refer you to WP:BRD: if you add content and it is disputed, you should not WP:EDITWAR. You should establish consensus for change on the Talk page, or seek some compromise.
 * Others, Gravuritas keeps re-adding this content. I am concerned that the juxtaposition of data from different IMF reports ("however in June it had predicted...") constitutes original research and is thus inappropriate. Such a juxtaposition does not assess whether these are directly comparable reports or whether they really are inconsistent. In support of the edit, Gravuritas thus added the Daily Mail citation, but the Daily Mail is not generally considered a reliable source. Others' views on this are welcome.
 * I also note Gravuritas' odd and seemingly pointed change of "reduced" to "changed". Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the boot is on the other foot. I am disputing the edit relating the IMF prediction in July to the IMF prediction in April for lack of balance.  It excludes the IMF prediction in June, and in particular the word 'reduction' is accordingly misleading.  Feel free to delete all the sentences concerning the IMF predictions while we discuss this.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Move to Aftermath of Brexit?
Per this discussion that moved United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union to Brexit, shouldn't we move this article for the same reasons? --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Brexit as the process of quitting the EU started with the referendum result and ends when (if?) exit actually occurs.  The aftermath of Brexit starts presumably from about 2019, imho.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Agree with  - Brexit may in some ways have started, but it is a very long way from being finished.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because this article is about the aftermath of the referendum. Brexit is the process of withdrawing from the EU, and a consequence of the referendum, not the referendum itself. This is Paul (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No for reasons given above. DrChrissy (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aftermath of Brexit would actually refer to events occurring after the UK had left the EU. To be honest I don't even think United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union should have been moved to Brexit, but that's for another discussion. This is Paul (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto: agree with Gravuritas, Ghmyrtle etc. Bondegezou (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Withdrawn.  Thanks, all.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Undo move
The article has now been moved, without discussion, to "Aftermath of Brexit referendum". I propose we move it back. Moving the Referendum article itself to "Brexit referendum" was roundly rejected recently: Talk:United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016/Archive_3. And this article should be consistent with that article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please just do it. Should not have been moved.Charles (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with 'just do it'. The case for change has not been attempted.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have reverted the move.
 * Input at Talk:United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016 would also be helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Post-truth politics
We have an article on Post-truth politics:"'a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy and by the repeated assertion of talking points, to which factual rebuttals are ignored. While post-truth political techniques have long played a role in campaigns worldwide, the term itself was coined in 2010, and became widespread during campaigning for the 2016 US presidential election and the UK EU membership referendum. Political commentators have identified post-truth politics as ascendant in American, Australian, British and Indian politics, as well as in other areas of debate, driven by a combination of the 24-hour news cycle, false balance in news reporting, and the increasing ubiquity of social media.'"  I added a link to the article as a "See also" in this Aftermath article, but was reverted on the grounds of "POV". That was not in any way my intention - the fact is that reliable sources state that much of the discussion in the referendum debate exemplifies this new political approach, and I see no good reason why this article (or, if preferred, other Brexit-related articles) should not link to it. Nothing in what I'm saying can be construed in any way as reflecting my own "POV" - it is simply a question of how best to link related WP articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the reversion that this is not appropriate in "See also". Having it in "See also" without context or citations could mislead. I am entirely happy with the article being linked to in the main text with some appropriately sourced text describing how some commentators have applied the contecpt to the referendum campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with that, an explanation is needed if we include reference to this, although it's difficult to see which section it would belong in. It is currently mentioned at Causes of Brexit. This is Paul (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: not moved per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Aftermath of Brexit – Concise and common name. This is simply a mouthful. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This article refers to events following the vote to leave the EU, not Brexit itself, since Brexit is yet to occur. I suppose Aftermath of the Brexit vote is a possibility, but realistically that could be a redirect to this article. This is Paul (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per This is Paul.Charles (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've had this discussion before and decided, for the reasons given by This is Paul, to stick with the current title. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion was here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, obviously, since the 2016 referendum and Brexit are two entirely different things. MrStoofer (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Brexit asn't appened yet  Gravuritas (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per others. The "aftermath of Brexit" is a different matter entirely, a few years down the line.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs Updating to add Supreme Court Ruling
This article needs updating as it looks like it is now outdated to take into account the Supreme Court ruling and other related events since October 2016 on the new bill that will legally allow the government to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty as required by the ruling. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:5C06:F943:D21C:34DD (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC))

Influence over France
Why not to describe the influence of the Brexit over France which will launch a Frexit (the french Brexit) with the election of Asselineau, because Europse cost more to France that it bring back money?


 * Not sure how much influence brexit & Asselineau have on France, but I assume Brexit is not only a reference for Asselineau but also for Marine Le Pen, and for the consparationists beliving in a package of ideas including but not limited to criticism of banks, oligarchy, Americans, Russians, socialism, hierarchical norms, Europe, freemassonery, jews, islamisation, catholicism, immigration and so on. This might be seen as some kind of subversivity which would have had the capacity to introduce some uncertainty, unstability and subversivity in some countries if it would have been in time of cold war...
 * For Europe and referendum, France has yet had some, without need of Brexiters.
 * But for now, the ideas of the French Front national are not so powerful, they only reached top positions in presidential elections, and European elections, and some other local elections.
 * Anyway, each member state will participate to next Europarl elections in 2019 and together with the enlightenment provided by the Brexit implementation, understanding will be improved by provided additional clarity and certainty. At that time you might provided some update regarding Frexit.

Warring over UKIP manifesto detail
That there was some mention of an independence holiday in the aftermath of the referendum may be pertinent to the article. The notion's resurrection almost a year later as a detail in the manifesto of a party which had neglible parliamentary representation and now has none stretches it to count as being in the aftermath, the subject of this article, or to be of significance. Your addition has been reverted twice. How on earth is the vote they achieved in the recent general election of any pertinence to the subject of the article? Per WP:BRD, do not war by adding it back. Discuss it here if you feel you have a valid case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. A failed party without any political weight suggested... whatever, worthless to report here. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Go to talk page"!? The only participant who hasn't is the user repeatedly adding the disputed material. You have been bold, you have been reverted, now discuss. And revert your warring first. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Calm down Mutt Lunker, simply hadn't realized you'd kicked the talk page off an hour before I mentioned it in my edit summary. Looks like Govindaharihari has it all figured out anyway: it's without any political weight, so it's worthless and it's worthless because it has no political weight. Circular, empty, illogical, biased. Perhaps I'll list the dozens, maybe over 100, of mainstream articles, highlighting and reporting UKIP's Independence Day national holiday manifesto proposal, here in the coming days. So for anyone reading, this is a subheading section specifically addressing the "post-referendum campaigning" for a "Proposed Independence Day national holiday". A separate page for this topic was deleted mainly on the grounds that the topic was some kind of "flash in the pan", without longevity. Already Mutt Lunker has used the conflicting grounds within this article, that now seemingly too much time has passed (11 months or, "almost a year later" as it was put) between the referendum date and UKIP making it a national election manifesto pledge (which attracted over half a million UK votes, or 1.8% vote share) in the recent 2017 general. There are also the usual littering of strawmans and non-existent qualifying criteria like how many MPs did/do UKIP have, which have absolutely zero bearing on the notability of the mainstream, explicit reporting in national newspapers and international media of the actual issue at hand. So a) we'll need to establish an agreed cut-off point for what "Aftermath" can constitute eg. is it 4 days, 3 weeks, 5 months etc. b) we'll need to establish what "significance" is. Anyone can Google "UKIP manifesto Independence Day holiday" and see the extent and breadth to which this was reported. Mdmadden (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Details of all the party manifestos were reported in the media, with the wide array of matters covered and pledges made in all of them. This one detail in one of them doesn't appear to get any more coverage or attention than anything else in any of the manifestos; it is largely (if not entirely) noted without comment, listed in turn with the various other pledges. Why is it any more worthy of noting in this article than UKIP's pledge to employ 4000 more border force staff? Or the Lib Dems commitment to retain pet passports? All sort of connected to the aftermath of the referendum, if you stretch it, but hardly key points to note in this article. It's kind of secondary that it was in the manifesto of a party that effectively suffered a wipeout but trying to big up your case by noting they attained all of 1.8% vote share hardly boosts the case for its significance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Mdmadden. I accept your comment and repeat that I am right and that it is right that I am right and that it is good for the country that I am right even if I am wrong it is good to report I am right. Sadly, none of this changes the fact that adding detail from a failed manifesto to aricles separate from that manifesto is undue - add it to the manifesto article  - it actually belongs there - but it doesn't belong here, its undue, because simply, whatever Nutall and the ukip say will have absolute zero effect on wether there will be a public holiday, there will never be a public holiday, there is more likely to be a week of public mourning lol    Govindaharihari (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether the manifesto pledge is a good or a bad thing, it is whether it is of significance and pertinence to this article. Please don't distract this discussion from that. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

removed content
Following Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn's loss of a vote of no confidence among the Parliamentary Labour Party, he also faced a leadership challenge, which he won.

I removed this - it had nothing at all to do with the European Union membership referendum. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I put it back. Maybe read the rest of the article if you are unaware of its pertinence and that of the other parts you removed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, please dont - camaron resigned - that is the detail that requires reporting in that article - not what happened for two years after. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Camaron de la Isla? Or do you mean Cameron? The vote of no confidence in Corbyn was submitted the very day after the referendum. What event of June next year in your crystal ball are you referring to? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Numerous reliable sources have linked criticism of Corbyn through that period to his performance in the referendum. It should stay in. Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that issue in the labour party had nothing to do with this subject at all, it was an internal party dispute and had absolutaly nothing to do with any aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 Govindaharihari (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I read a lot of uk politics, If there is a conection please give me link here and I will read them. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For a start, have you actually read the subsequent section and its references in this very article, discussing this and that it was a direct consequence of Corbyn's perceived performance in the referendum? Mutt Lunker (talk)
 * It was a coup, a simple coup, blairite mps trying to get rid of a left wing leader, nothing to do with United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Coup or not, the trigger, or excuse for the triggering if you prefer, was the referendum and Corbyn's part in the campaign. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The subsection on the Labour Party is extensively sourced, showing the referendum result was one of the triggers for the no confidence vote. What's in the lede is a good summary, as far I can see. Precise wording in the Labour Party subsection could be reviewed. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

the troubles?
don't get why the troubles is connected to this page but I just saw the template - and so have reverted back to the original content and am taking this page of my watchlist. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the troubles template - The_Troubles is far away from this topic, a tangent at best. there is also no evidence at all in the edit history of this article that the troubles has ever caused any editing conflicts. template was added by this ip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.102.116.36 with the edit summary - "Any mention of the future status of Northern Ireland clearly falls under and within the sanctions" - I am in dispute of that position in regards to this article, if there are objections I suggest we raise the level of discussion and request arbitration from the commitee. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any troubles related conflicts here - If there is any editing conflict and content disputes related to the irish troubles please present details here, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say in regard to the appropriateness of the template but if you are campaigning for its removal so that 1RR no longer applies and you technically have two more edits to war to promote your views, per your first comment in this section and your views in the talk section above, please think again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Mutt Lunker - as I said, I have no intention of ever editing this article again. I was editing it and had an opinion, I never imagined it would be on a 1rr and was shocked to find it was and wouldn't want other editors coming along to fall in the same trap, I reverted back to the original position, you broke the one revert condition [one] and [two]. If you have no objection to my removal of the troubles template then great. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed second referendum article
I have set up a link under the title of Proposed second United Kingdom European Union membership referendum for a new article specifically to this issue of a second EU. referendum. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:20B4:4377:4508:F754 (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC))

Biggest ever fall in the pound
The fall in the value of the pound was widely reported as being the biggest ever. I've added a 'dubious' tag, as the overnight devaluation in 1967 from $2.80 to $2.40 was a greater percentage fall. See the BBC summary. EddieHugh (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The flagged statement currently reads
 * * "The drop from $1.50 to $1.37 was the biggest move for the currency in any two-hour period in history."
 * The cited source says
 * * "The pound’s fall, which stunned investors, was its biggest ever one-day fall, ...".
 * It only really makes sense to compare with other falls after the introduction of floating exchange rates following the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971, so that may be what was meant, but I agree that the text needs changing. We can't really say "since the collapse of Bretton Woods" without a reliable source that says that explicitly – and including exchange rate changes under Bretton Woods is inappropriate when talking about the speed of intraday falls. Also: The speed and magnitude of the fall do appear noteworthy but the choice of a two-hour period seems somewhat arbitrary (and unsourced).
 * I would suggest replacing the statement with something like ""This was the biggest one-day fall in the pound since the introduction of floating exchange rates following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971.""


 * --Boson (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points and that's the best source I've seen on it. I've changed the relevant parts to: "On the morning of 24 June, the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985. The drop over the day was 8% – the biggest one-day fall in the pound since the introduction of floating exchange rates following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971." EddieHugh (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160701173053/http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-corbyn-loses-vote-of-no-confidence/ar-AAhJ3KO?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=SL5MDHP to http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-corbyn-loses-vote-of-no-confidence/ar-AAhJ3KO?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=SL5MDHP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Brexit means Brexit listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brexit means Brexit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Mstrojny (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fucking Brexit listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fucking Brexit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 22:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fuck Brexit listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fuck Brexit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Fuck Brexit Rally listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fuck Brexit Rally. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Brexit car crash listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brexit car crash. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)