Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 7 September 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. British Overseas Territories Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, due to size or style considerations.

Why this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European identity and / or Island mentality

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

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

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

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

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

English nationalism

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

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

Credibility of the EU

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

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

Liverpool

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

Cameron and Remain's staregy

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

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

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

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

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

Eurosketpicism and the split right wing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inflexibility of the EU model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page title

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

Requested move 4 September 2016

The request to rename this article to Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

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

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

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

£4300 claim by remain was considered misleading

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

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

Lies and misleading claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class British Overseas Territories articles
• Low-importance British Overseas Territories articles
• All WikiProject British Overseas Territories pages
• Start-Class European Union articles
• Low-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• Requested moves