Talk:United Kingdom European Constitution referendum

When should things be labeled partisan?

Calling the only Conservatives response partisan is not neutral. [When you said] 'Predictably, the Conservative Party repeated its opposition to such a constitution which they see as causing an unacceptable loss of sovereignty. As is typical in such partisan attacks, they gave no details of how at that time.' User:195.92.168.166

Do you think the reaction was not predictable? Do you think it wasn't partisan? Mr. Jones 21:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Labour's behavior was also predictable, and partisan. Analogous actions should be described in analogous ways, or the text becomes slanted. E.g saying 'Mr Howard gave many reasons for opposing the treaty. Tony replied with partisan rhetoric' would be true but not neutral because it treats the parties differently.195.92.168.165

Do you think stating that the Conservatives have acted in a partisan way precludes Labour (or anyone else) from being so? Also, I did not suggest that this it true of the Conservatives per se, just in this instance. Mr. Jones 21:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that if something is true of both parties, you should say it is true of both parties. To only mention it explicitly for one party is to treat them differently, which is not neutral. If you can write parallel sentances for the two parties, you should195.92.168.169

By explicitly calling the Conservatives partisan but not Labour you strongly imply that Labour isn't partisan, an implication no intelligent reader will miss. 195.92.168.165

I didn't call the Conservative partisan, just their reaction. I've improved my question, too. Please re-answer it. Mr. Jones 08:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The difference is minimal, and doesn't affect my point. If you want to label the Conservative's partisan actions as such, you should also explicitly label Labour's partisan actions. However, given the degree of judgement needed to objectively determine which actions are partisan, it is probably best to say silent on that point. Readers are competent to make their own judgements. 195.92.168.169

Both parties see the other as partisan, and themselves as acting in the national interest. Furthermore, the Conservatives have made their exact reservations about loss of sovereignty quite clear. Don't use phrasing that implies the contrary. User:195.92.168.166

What the parties think is irrelevant. It is generally accepted that all parties are, oddly enough, partisan at times. Making political capital out of a situation is partisan.

And both parties have sought to make political capital out of the referendum, though I wouldn't expect all their (partisan) followers to agree. 195.92.168.165

That is true. Perhaps you should discuss the partisan actions and responses of the Labour party, rather than removing all references to such behaviour. Mr. Jones 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which leads to a long list of claims and counterclaims. That is a valid approach, but neutrality is easier to maintain if we take them as read, and stick as close as feasible to purely objective facts.

How does the attack above benefit anyone but his party? How does it address the issues? Mr. Jones 21:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When the attack was made, no assertions about the nature of Conservative opposition to the constitution were made, AFAIAA. I will look for the text of the debate in Hansard, then we can discuss this more constructively. Mr. Jones 22:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've made a summary. As I thought, few assertions were made. I couldn't make sense of the ones that were. Could you shed any light? Mr. Jones 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can, though most of that would go on a different page. The conservative have stated their objections to the treaty on other occasions, as have other Eurosceptic groups. This speech was primarily about the referendum announcement, not the constitution, hence didn't go into detail on the constitution

I may explain these problems at length later, if no one else does so first, and on a more appropriate page.195.92.168.169

The UK press, and whether it is influential

'the influence of the right-wing and American-friendly press' makes it sound like all the press meet that description, but their are not many who consider the Guardian to be either. User:195.92.168.166

.

No position is assumed. One uses a qualifier when there is a distinction to make, e.g. red apples rather than just apples.

Sometimes, not always. I might well talk about orange satsumas, if I wanted to stress that they were orange, e.g "Orange satsumas on the wallpaper would be too garish."

One would not talk about orange satsumas. The press I wrote about is right-wing or America-friendly, rather than not. How would you put it whilst still highlighting the existence of such media bias? Or are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? Note that I made no assertions about the cause of the bias here, merely that it exists. Mr. Jones 21:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would, and did, rephrase using terms like 'much of the' or 'many of the', which explicitly acknowledge that not all the press is right-wing.

First, right-wing and America friendly are both irrelevant qualifies, since there are left wing Eurosceptics, and Europe isn't inherently anti-american.

Someone can be rightwing, pro-america and pro-Europe, or left wing, anti-american, and anti-Europe.

They can, but Europe is an economic threat to America. So pro-America (or American controlled) press tends to oppose Europe, IMO. These statements need to be framed, it is true, but they were. Again, I think the phraseology should be improved rather than the statement removed. Mr. Jones 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do American's think the EU is an economic threat? The impression I get is that many of them think socialist (by their standards) countries are incapable of being an economic threat. There's also the well known quote about wishing they could pick up the phone and dial Europe.

Unless you have evidence for your assertion, leave it out. 195.92.168.169

Secondly, your statement was ambiguous as to whether the qualifiers were descriptive or restrictive. If I similarly say 'The greedy politicians voted to double their salaries' I could mean either some of the politicians who so voted are greedy, or all politicians are greedy and voted that way.

Your words should be framed to minimise ambiguity, in this case by explicitly acknowledging that not all the press have the same bias. e.g 'Some greedy politicans voted to double their salaries', which implies some didn't195.92.168.165

Also, do papers dictate their readers opinions, or copy them? Since that's highly debatable, don't assume a position. User:195.92.168.166

I was writing about people's opinions. I made no such assertions.

If newspapers merely say what their readers want to hear their bias can not be responsible for public opinion. You need to be very clear that the alleged conection may be solely in certain peoples minds 195.92.168.165

I agree. I think you were over-specific, though.

Why are people worried about the constitution, and it what way?

See Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe#Controversy. Toby W 23:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the UK

I would point out that such views are held by people who are not "Europhiles". That implies uncritical love of the EU.

It doesn't, in common parlance. It's applied to everyone who, on balance, prefers the current direction of the EU. User:195.92.168.166

Common to whom? I doubt most people use the word. Mr. Jones 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Common amongst the people who use it, or at least the Eurosceptic half of them195.92.168.169 23:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not a terribly common position. Holding other views than that do not prevent one from thinking that what the constitution will achieve is good or not. That is POV that needs correcting.

Frankly, I think most people haven't a clue what it will (or won't) achieve. I don't forsee, e.g. The Sun printing a point by point explanation of the legislation in simple english with accurate explanations of the consequences. More likely, it will focus on specific points in a misleading way, supposing that it examines the constitution at all. Would people buy it or read it if they did? That's a fair point, but not one to be debated here. Mr. Jones 21:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Views on the continent

and there are polls showing 40-50% opposition in France, which is on the continent. User:195.92.168.166

Interesting. Reference, please. Certainly, significant opposition on the continent has not been apparent in the UK press reports I've seen. Mr. Jones 21:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Source-The Times: I don't have a full reference available right now, having not kept the last weeks papers, but the Times has repeatedly said opposition to the treaty is running at 40-50% in France and Germany. I can put the exact up-to-date quote in next time they do so. Which paper, or papers, do you read, and what is their bias? 195.92.168.165

A quick web search did find a Guardian story from last year that said "The political class in France is deeply and unhappily split over the European constitution", which is consistent with The Times http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1073692,00.html 195.92.168.165

Ta. Mr. Jones 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Any statement about the level of support for this constitution on the continent will need sources (whether it says there's 95% support or 45% support). In the absence of such hard evidence, no phrasing should be used that implies any particular level of support or opposition on the continent.195.92.168.165

Just a quickie... Charlemagne in The Economist this week comments on this very issue - Chirac more or less promised a referendum but may well back down, for very the reason that a "Non" vote could materialise by both the left and right voting together. The issues in France aren't the same as UK - e.g. because of France's secularism Turkey joining EU would be a big deal, not so in the UK. Survival of the French language is also a big topic, and usually tied in with EU topics. But sure, a referendum in France would be close.

Denmark as always will have a referendum and struggle getting it through.

The Netherlands will also be having this time round. Apparently it may be close because the Dutch are pissed off about the French and Germans being able to junk the the stability pact when it suited them, though the Dutch had to jump through hoops the year before to meet targets.

All in all, there *is* lots of discontent about EU on continent, though it doesn't tend to take the "loss of soverignity" form we see in UK.

Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Mr. Jones 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Changes to the referendum legislation

Is the legislation for the referendum up for debate or amendment? Mr. Jones 22:02, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not currently, but the Electoral Commission has a degree of legal obligation to recommend any needed reforms (I'm not certain how wide a scope they're allowed to consider) and Parliament always has the power to amend it at any time, in any way it chooses.

195.92.168.165

Well yes, but parliamentary time needs to be allocated to that. I'm not sure what the process by which that happens is, or how the use of time is announced. Anybody know? Mr. Jones 13:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weak sentences

Voters will apparently be encouraged by a company called Elections UK.

Could we beef up this bit please? "Apparently" sounds very weak - as if we don't know what we are talking about. Maybe "due to be" or something would be more emphatic? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've had a go. I was tired when I wrote that, and I couldn't really take in what the site was about, but it seemed relevant :-) Mr. Jones 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

'fear of "loss of sovereignty" — a fear not apparently present on the continent' Scare quotes are partisan, User:195.92.168.166

What are you talking about? What do you mean by scare quote? Who is being partisan? Mr. Jones 21:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You put 'loss of sovereignty' in quotes here, but not in a parallel sentance earlier. By doing so, you stongly imply that you disagree with the concept, which is partisan. Similarly, if Brown were quoted as saying Blair is a "honest" man, most people would assume the editor, and probably Brown, didn't believe that, even if the quote were accurate.

Also, the clause after the dash looks too much like editorial comment195.92.168.165

These seem fair criticisms. I'll review your changes. Mr. Jones 13:09, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the banana 'myth', EU regulation 2257/94 said banannas should be free from abnormal curvature Banannas. This isn't the same as saying they should be straight, but it is a regulation on the curvature of bananas, which means this story is not a complete invention. Of course, what Eurosceptics actually said about this regulation won't be quite the same as Blair's biased summary (all politicians erect strawmen this way). In the light of this, I suggest the reference to bananas in the first paragraph needs to be more objective, of the form '... eurosceptics have said X (source) The actual regulation said Y (source)...' The reader can then decide how big the gap between X and Y is. 195.92.168.169

I've not found any online quotes from Eurosceptics saying they think bananas should be straight, only that they don't think the curvature of bananas should be regulated, so I've made a minor edit to avoid attributing beliefs to people which I have seen no proof they actually hold.

Note, both sides have a lunatic fringe. We must be careful not to quote extremists from either side as though they were the mainstream. E.g, if a single local councillor says 'The UK should be abolished, and the EU becomes a unitary state,' we can't ascribe that view to Europhiles unconditionally, but must qualify Europhile with some adjective such as radical. Naturally, the same holds for the rantings of the Eurosceptic fringe, both sides being treated evenhandedly.195.92.168.167

Off at a tangent a bit, but on straight bananas. No, EU regulation 2257/94 doesn't say bananas should be free from abnormal curvature. This is a classification regulation, not a rule. That is, regulation 2257/94 says how we should classify bananas (based on factors including their straightness) for the purposes of trade and export. It doesn't make any rules about what bananas should be like. It simply says that if a banana has a particular curvature (or whatever), it is classified as X, and if it doesn't have that curvature, it's classified as Y. Toby W 23:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Announcement of date? Voting.

When's the referrendum date to be announced? Anybody know what you need to do to register to vote? Mr. Jones 13:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In haste: Treaty will be signed on 20 November in Rome, see Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. Referendum date will not be announced for a while yet, Blair won't be pushed into fixing a date because of the need for parliamentary scrutiny of indeterminate length. Registration for voting will be as for any election or referendum - sign up to the electoral roll. You can do this partly online at [1]. Toby W 23:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. The specific page is https://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/vote/register/ . Will the signing take place on 20 Nov 2004 or 2005?

Mr. Jones 09:19, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

195.92.168.xx

I noticed you have four or five different IP addresses on this page, making it hard to send a message to your user_talk page (because you have four or five of them). Have you considered getting an account? There are lots of advantages and it would make my life easier too ;-).

I've now done that. I notice that the seperate page for Howard's speech is up for deletion. It may be best to let that page be deleted, and put a one paragraph summary on this page, about the same length as for Blair's speech. J Sluys

consultative

Is this a consultative process or a legally binding one? The link from the constituation page calls it a "consultative referendum".

According to the BBC, the UK referendum will be legally binding. See e.g http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3954327.stm#unitedkingdom. Pcb21| Pete 14:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Significant objections to renaming the page?

There are now many referendum pages (one for each nation holding one), each repeating the long phrase "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe". Do we need to be so pedantic? That title is good to have for the main article dealing with the constitutional treaty, but I do think it becomes cumbersome and tiring when we repeat it on so many pages.

Anyone having significant objection to moving this page to "United Kingdom referendum on the European Constitution" and doing likewise to the other referendum pages about the other nations? Aris Katsaris 21:49, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

British overseas terroritories citizens

Will Anguillans, Bermudians, British Virgin Islanders, Caymanians, Falkland Islanders, Gibraltarians, Channel Islanders, Manxmen and Manxwomen, Montserratians, Pitcairn Islanders, Saint Helenians and Turks and Caicos Islanders be consulted during the United Kingdom referendum on the European Constitution? Thanks.

(Generally) no - only the United Kingdom and Gibraltar (and not any other of the BOTs, SBAs or Crown dependencies) will be able to vote in the referendum. This is from the European Union Bill that was introduced in the last Parliament. It's only fair as only the 4 nations of the UK (ie England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and Gibraltar are actually part of the EU - the other territories are not. David.

The official line is that anyone able to vote in a UK general election will be able to vote in the referendum. This is a slight point of contention because some UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU - who would arguably be among the groups most affected by the adoption or otherwise of the constitution - may not therefore get a vote if they're no longer registered to vote in the UK. Wombat 09:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

View from America

In response to the question above, the EU is not generally portrayed as an economic threat in the United States. (China, and India to a lesser degree, are perceived as the greater potential threats to the American economy.) The U.S. media, for the most part, has no dog in this fight. Funnyhat 07:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

UK referendum redirect to UK referendum

Why has the name of this article been changed from UK... to British... ?

Was the old name wrong/ Is there an explanation anywhere? Thincat 14:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed it back. "United Kingdom" instead of Britain/British is used in all the UK politics articles. Deus Ex 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Intro bolding

I changed the intro from

The United Kingdom referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was expected to take place in 2006 to decide whether the United Kingdom should ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union. Following the rejection of the Constitution by voters in France in May 2005 and in the Netherlands in June 2005, the referendum was postponed indefinitely.

to the following:

A referendum was expected to take place in 2006 to decide whether the United Kingdom should ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union. Following the rejection of the Constitution by voters in France in May 2005 and in the Netherlands in June 2005, the referendum was postponed indefinitely.

As WP:LEDE#Bold title says:

If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface:

A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristics can be shown as a curve, representing the …

This avoids needlessly awkward phrasing, repeated words, and allows for direct links to the general topics ("The electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker are a dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristics").

This and similar on other pages was reverted with the justification is "just a guideline, doens't mean bold can't be used". I don't think "just a guideline" equates to "feel free to ignore this and any user who advocates it". I'm prepared to listen to a reasoned argument as to why bolding is appropriate in this particular case. To me, it is inappropriate because:

• it creates the false impression that "United Kingdom European Constitution referendum" is an official name rather than a Wikipedia descriptive label of convenience
• it means the word United Kingdom, proposed Constitution and referendum are not wikilinked at first occurrence, with awkward repetition of the linked terms.

In short, this is precisely the kind of scenario the guideline applies to. jnestorius^(talk) 11:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am sure that your analysis is correct and I am happy for you to change it back to your proposed wording. The problem that you will find, however, is that bolding the lead is so engrained in the conciousness of Wikipedians that you will be regularly reverting drive-by bolding. BlueValour (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The way I bolded the intro sentence was best, e.g. 'The United Kingdom referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was expected to take place in 2006...'. The current way is alright, the way Jnestorious had it with no bolding looks pants. I note that WP:LEDE#Bold title says 'does not need to be' not 'should not be'. So ponder that if you will! Snappy56 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• I note that it says 'does not need to' appear; and that it says 'should not be' boldface. Ponder that.

• Minus the formatting, your opening sentence reads "The United Kingdom referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was expected to take place in 2006 to decide whether the United Kingdom should ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union." I'll see your pants and raise you a petticoat. jnestorius^(talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom European Constitution referendum. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20040812085344/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk:80/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/40420-04.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/40420-04.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041228005133/http://www.euobserver.com:80/?sid=9&aid=17721 to http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=17721

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot of "Citation Needed"

I've just read this page for the first time and there are 17 "Citation Needed" templates added. It would appear a lot of this text has been for many years, which is bit worrying. I'm going to try and find references, but it may be necessry to remove statements for which no source can be found. I believe in assuming good faith edits, but there must come a point where verifiability trumps that.Seaweed (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)