This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Politics of the United Kingdom This template 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 Wikipedia. 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 European Union This template is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. 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 International relations This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Elections and Referendums This template 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 Economics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Law This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw 2010s This template is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s European history This template is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. 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 historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

I'm going to change things around because in the current layout it's easy to miss "Issues" which is surely a central article. Also, articles like 1975 EEC membership referendum, 2014 UK European Parliament Election, and 2015 UK General Election seem to be important background but not "key events" in the campaign. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-05-15T10:08:00.000Z","author":"MartinPoulter","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MartinPoulter-2016-05-15T10:08:00.000Z-Needs_reorganisation","replies":[]}}-->

This edit request to Template:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I feel there should be a link to the United Ireland article under the Result sub-heading. This will undoubtedly rise up the agenda if the UK as a whole leaves the EU. This is because Northern Ireland voted 55% as a whole in favour of remaining in the EU in the referendum. Also Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border with one of the remaining 27 EU states.

62.60.23.66 (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-06-28T10:11:00.000Z","author":"62.60.23.66","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-62.60.23.66-2016-06-28T10:11:00.000Z-Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_June_2016","replies":["c-St170e-2016-06-28T15:11:00.000Z-62.60.23.66-2016-06-28T10:11:00.000Z"]}}-->

Not done for now: 62.60.23.66 Hello. I do agree with you that the unification of Ireland should be mentioned. Perhaps we should wait to see if other editors oppose this first. st170e^talk 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-06-28T15:11:00.000Z","author":"St170e","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-St170e-2016-06-28T15:11:00.000Z-62.60.23.66-2016-06-28T10:11:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Per wp:flags ('inappropriate use'), it it unnecessary to have flag cruft on this template. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-15T16:43:00.000Z","author":"John Maynard Friedman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2017-01-15T16:43:00.000Z-Flag_on_template","replies":["c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2017-01-15T19:19:00.000Z-John_Maynard_Friedman-2017-01-15T16:43:00.000Z"]}}-->

In a nutshell, show a flag OR a country-name, not both. [Flags are mainly for use in tables, such as for footballers, where space is at a premium]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-15T19:19:00.000Z","author":"John Maynard Friedman","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2017-01-15T19:19:00.000Z-John_Maynard_Friedman-2017-01-15T16:43:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

This template applies to much more than just the referendum, but the whole process of Brexit. Should we put Brexit itself as the top heading, and have the referendum as one of the first subheadings itself? -Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-12-21T13:33:00.000Z","author":"Iveagh Gardens","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Iveagh_Gardens-2018-12-21T13:33:00.000Z-Rename_as_Brexit","replies":["c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2018-12-21T19:47:00.000Z-Iveagh_Gardens-2018-12-21T13:33:00.000Z"]}}-->

Makes sense to me, it is certainly better than the current [redirected] target of template:Brexit. It might be wise to demonstrate a full mock-up first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-12-21T19:47:00.000Z","author":"John Maynard Friedman","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2018-12-21T19:47:00.000Z-Iveagh_Gardens-2018-12-21T13:33:00.000Z","replies":["c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2018-12-22T14:12:00.000Z-John_Maynard_Friedman-2018-12-21T19:47:00.000Z"]}}-->

Iveagh Gardens, you need to get the existing template:Brexit deleted first so that this can be moved to that name. I don't know how, I think it needs an administrator. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-12-22T14:12:00.000Z","author":"John Maynard Friedman","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2018-12-22T14:12:00.000Z-John_Maynard_Friedman-2018-12-21T19:47:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Does anybody disagree with splitting the "Brexit process" block into two sub-blocks. At present, the block consists of

• Miller I case
• Invocation of Article 50
• Negotiations
  • 2017
  • 2018
  • 2019
• Withdrawal agreement
  • Parliamentary votes
• No-deal Brexit
  • Operation Yellowhammer
• Prorogation of Parliament
  • Miller II / Cherry case

What I am proposing is that this be split (in the same way as "Aftermath of referendum") into

Political

• Invocation of Article 50
• Negotiations
  • 2017
  • 2018
  • 2019
• Withdrawal agreement
  • Parliamentary votes
• No-deal Brexit
  • Operation Yellowhammer
• Prorogation of Parliament

Legal

• Miller I case (Article 50 requirement)
• Miller II / Cherry case (Prorogation of Parliament)

Anyone disagree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-14T17:12:00.000Z","author":"John Maynard Friedman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2019-10-14T17:12:00.000Z-Brexit_process_-_split_legal_cases_into_a_subsection?","replies":[]}}-->

Wrong title Potential effects should be Impact of Brexit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.166 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-02-03T00:10:00.000Z","author":"81.185.254.166","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-81.185.254.166-2020-02-03T00:10:00.000Z-Wrong_title_Potential_effects_should_be_Impact_of_Brexit","replies":[]}}-->

The Trade deal negotiation between the UK and EU topic is not addressed. At least one link should be available for such a thing, eventually in the Impact of Brexit section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.235 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-03-06T20:23:00.000Z","author":"88.136.209.235","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-88.136.209.235-2020-03-06T20:23:00.000Z-Trade_deal_negotiation_between_the_UK_and_EU","replies":["c-Hebsen-2020-03-06T21:31:00.000Z-88.136.209.235-2020-03-06T20:23:00.000Z"]}}-->

Yes, and thank you for your contributions (I assume you are the IP that created it). The thing is, as long as it is draft-space, we should not link to it, per MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. I would say it is about ready to be moved to mainspace soon, but if I am to do it, I would like to give it another pass myself first. Also, please see this discusison about how we should relate this to the withdrawal negotiations. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-03-06T21:31:00.000Z","author":"Hebsen","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hebsen-2020-03-06T21:31:00.000Z-88.136.209.235-2020-03-06T20:23:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I have added 2014 Clacton by-election and 2014 Rochester and Strood by-election to the elections in the background section of the template as the UKIP wins undoubtedly showed UKIP continuing to gain strength and helped shape how Europe was discussed in the 2015 General election, including the issue of the referendum. Dunarc (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-06T18:52:00.000Z","author":"Dunarc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dunarc-2020-04-06T18:52:00.000Z-2014\/2017_by-elections","replies":["c-Dunarc-2020-04-22T20:29:00.000Z-Dunarc-2020-04-06T18:52:00.000Z"]}}-->

• I wonder if it would also be worth adding [the article on the 2014 Heywood and Middleton by-election, as the massive Labour to UKIP swing was widely commented upon and the result arguably prefigured the support for leave in then Labour-held consultancies in the North of England that was seen at the 2016 referendum? Dunarc (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-22T20:29:00.000Z","author":"Dunarc","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Dunarc-2020-04-22T20:29:00.000Z-Dunarc-2020-04-06T18:52:00.000Z","replies":["c-Dunarc-2021-03-19T21:25:00.000Z-Dunarc-2020-04-22T20:29:00.000Z"]}}-->
  • I have added it in for the reasons above. To the post 2016 by-elections I have also added in 2017 Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election as, as its article notes, Brexit was a big issue. Dunarc (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-03-19T21:25:00.000Z","author":"Dunarc","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Dunarc-2021-03-19T21:25:00.000Z-Dunarc-2020-04-22T20:29:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I have moved The European Union: In or Out from the Campaign section to the background section. this debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage took place in April 2014, more than two years before the referendum and a year before a referendum was all but guaranteed by the election of a conservative majority government with a referendum as a manifesto commitment. As such it can not be seen as part of the referendum campaign, but as an important background event (albeit one which did arguably do much to shape the campaign and the result which followed it). Dunarc (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-17T20:33:00.000Z","author":"Dunarc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dunarc-2020-05-17T20:33:00.000Z-The_European_Union:_In_or_Out","replies":[]}}-->

How is it relevant? --John Maynard Friedman (talk)`

I have added a section to Sevington (Kent, M20 J10A) about the planned CCF and created a redirect to it: Sevington customs clearance facility and lorry park. Right now it is too trivial to merit including in this template but I thought it best to leave a note here as a place-holder. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-08-08T20:55:00.000Z","author":"John Maynard Friedman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-John_Maynard_Friedman-2020-08-08T20:55:00.000Z-Sevington_customs_clearance_facility_and_lorry_park","replies":[]}}-->