Brexit: Government Rejects Petition Signed By 4.1 Million Calling For Second EU Referendum (independent.co.uk) 621
An anonymous reader shares an Independent report: The Government has rejected a call for a second referendum on European Union membership in a petition that was signed by more than 4.1 million people following the Brexit vote. It was the most-signed Government petition since the process was introduced in 2011. However in an official reply, the Foreign Office said 33 million people had had their say and "the decision must be respected. [...] We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU," it said. The petition, which was set up by a Brexit supporter before the referendum was held, had called for the Government to annul the results if the Remain or Leave vote won by less than 60 per cent on a turnout of less than 75 per cent. Government petitions which reach over 100,000 signatures must be considered for debate in parliament.
My petition (Score:3, Funny)
I'm putting together a petition to put the USA up for sale to the highest bidder
Re: My petition (Score:2, Insightful)
Already sold to multiple foreign interests.
Re: My petition (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we only sold our state secrets to foreign interest. We sold the state itself to US corporations, although since technically most if them aren't based in the US then sure why not.
As it's been said... (Score:3, Insightful)
UK voters: We want to give a boat a silly name!
UK government: No.
UK voters: We want to break up the European Union and crash our economy on a single, simple-majority vote!
UK government: Okay.
Re:As it's been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to forget that the government is supposed to be serving the voters, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The referendum was supposedly advisory, not binding.
IIRC, any referendum in the UK is non-binding since Parliament is the only body that has the authority to actually decide such an issue. They could decide to ignore the referendum and the only consequence would be at the ballot box.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I take it that you like people you never voted for or have heard of in a foreign country (Belgium in this case) decide what you have to do, too?
There are the same old lies again..
The British public did elect people into the European Parliament.
They did not elect the commissioners, just as they did not elect the British foreign secretary (or whatever it's called), because you usually don't elect people in the administration.
Before the British complain about the supposedly undemocratic EU, they should clean their own house and get rid of the House of Lords, who's members are not elected but appointed.
Re:As it's been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
The commission is the only entity that can propose legislation. Usually, you do elect the people who can propose legislation.
The power of the actual elected body, the European Parliament, is still quite limited. They don't even have enough power to prevent their forced relocation from Brussles to Strassbourgh every month, rather being caught in a perpetual schoolyard bully 'stop hitting yourself' moment. They've managed to block legislation, what, once in history?
There are good and bad things about the EU, but democratic credibility isn't one of the good ones.
Re:As it's been said... (Score:4, Insightful)
The European Commission is the equivalent of a cabinet. A cabinet serves at the pleasure of the executive. The executive, in the case of the EU, is the council, aka, the heads of state of Europe (aka, the people you elected).
Yes, the EC is a strong-executive system. That's because the individual member countries wanted that way, they didn't want to give up power from their national governments to this new body (the European Parliament). The UK in particular has been holding the EU back from closer integration / greater power to the European Parliament. So it's funny to see that used as an excuse in support of Brexit.
Also, there are checks in parliament over the council. They have to approve the council president, and thus the president is proposed based on the results of the last parliamentary election. While the president doesn't have power to block new commissioners (which, as mentioned, are chosen by member states), he does control what areas they have authority over, and thus can assign then to more or less powerful positions. Also, parliament gets to then approve or reject the commission as a whole. So the council generally has to compromise with parliament in order to get an acceptable arrangement. Parliament can also cause a vote of no confidence in the council. So the council has reason to respect parliament's requests for legislation, and generally does. The president can also request the resignation of commissioners, and the ECJ can kick out commissioners for violation of their duties.
In short, there's a lot of checks and balances in the system. Probably more than in most national governments in Europe. But the strength that anti-EU states had put into the hands of their directly-appointed commission rather than the independently-elected parliament is IMHO a weakness. The goal should be to get turnout in EU parliamentary elections to increase by giving parliament more power, and timing parliamentary elections as much as possible with national elections.
Re:As it's been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
A parliament that cannot propose legislation is a parliament in name only. It's a check/balance, I'll give you that, but it's not where the power lies if it cannot propose and effect a change that it wants to.
In the UK, you elect an MP. That MP directly votes on, and can propose legislation. The "other" house, the House of Lords, can only delay any legislation that the House of Commons votes for by returning it with recommendations a maximum of 3 times. After the third time, if the House of Commons again votes it through, it becomes law (subject to Liz' royal assent, but that's not being withheld...).
This is effectively the inverse of the European "parliament". The EU commission decides what laws will be proposed, the parliament (the people who the people elected) then get to horse-trade the deal until the parliament and the commission agree, and then all countries must adopt the law. This is a significant reduction in the power of the people.
As a bonus, the commission are basically immunised against any effects of their political machinations, the only way for a member of the EU commission to be removed is if the parliament unanimously votes to remove all members of the commission at the same time. Yeah... Not gonna happen.
So to summarise: you have an un-sackable body that is the only group who can propose legislation, which gives them the ability to apply enormous pressure to the elected representatives (oh, you want X do you ? Well make sure you vote for our Y and Z and then we'll consider it). And then everyone is forced to accept the results of this as law.
Sorry. That sucks. Given the mission statement of ever closer union, the desire to raise an army etc., and the binding nature of EU law as supreme, the mismatch in democratic power within the EU *should* be concerning IMHO. Whether it's sufficiently concerning to brexit is a different argument, but I think it certainly played its part.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm more interested in how they think they will avoid the EU regulations now that they are leaving. I mean in Australia I had a product on my desk, made by an American company, designed in the USA, assembled in Malaysia from mostly Chinese parts and yet the first 4 pages of the manual are all about how they comply with the EU regulations.
Regardless of how good or bad the system is, as a trading partner it would be better to have a voice in the system than to be completely outside it while still needing to c
Re: (Score:3)
A parliament that cannot propose legislation is a parliament in name only.
In Canada, private member/opposition party bills go nowhere. In practice only the cabinet proposes laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Santer Commission was forced by EP to resign even in time when EP did not have legal power to do so. Since Lisbon Treaty, EP has explicit power to vote of no-confidence for Commission.
Re: As it's been said... (Score:3)
Re: As it's been said... (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing about the HoL is that if you were building a nation from whole cloth and someone came to you right now and proposed it, you'd tell them to sod off and they'd be carted off to the funny-farm.
But it tends to work. It's sort of like Wilson saying "Do you think that''s wise?" on Dad's Army. And unlike Mainwaring, the government tends to listen.
Re:As it's been said... (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, I think there are good grounds for the government to confirm the electorate's wishes, given the closeness of the vote and the enormity of the decision.
But if I were you, I wouldn't worry, it's not going to happen.
As to "people you never voted for or have heard of in a foreign country (Belgium in this case)", I assume among these you include our MEPs? Actually, yes, I did vote in the election for these. Or the Council of Ministers, again as these are made up of ministers from each member state, again I did vote in the UK election where the current government was elected. OK the Commission is appointed, albeit with each nation's commissioner by their (elected), government, it is, I suppose, no worse than our house of Lords. Better perhaps, as the EU Parliament can vote to dismiss the commission. And I had heard of our commissioner - Lord Hill, now to be replaced by Sir Julian King.
(And I have no problems with reforming the EU so the Commission is directly elected, but strangely this is not one reform Cameron was inclined to ask for. No matter now, as soon I will have no say in the future of the EU as my country will not be part of it).
Re:As it's been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
The petition in question was about confirming the electorate's wishes if the vote was close. Rather like one of those "are you really sure" questions you get before doing something potentially dangerous (like reformatting a hard disk).
I thought the referendum was anonymous.
How are they going to track down the people who voted in the referendum to confirm their vote?
Or do you mean like how somebody who demonstrated they didn't care being allowed to confirm reformatting my harddisk?
The petition was about a redo. Just as many redo's as it would take to get a different result.
You may not agree with the result (I certainly don't), but voting is how a democracy works. Not ignoring votes until people vote the way you like.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know whether "confirming" was the intent. But certainly a second referendum would NOT be confirmatory. The result would cause a different set of people to vote in the redo. Many likely did not vote because they thought Remain would win, and would vote in a redo now that they saw Leave win. Some didn't know how they felt but with Leave winning are now scared, and would vote in a redo. These are not confirmations. These are new and different results.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people's will is not being respected, their call to have their choice confirmed is being ignored. The people are being denied an opportunity to express their will. If it's the will of the people to leave the EU and they haven't changed their minds, they'll vote the same way again.
Here's an analogy, a group of people vote on whether the heat in their arctic shelter should be turned off. They vote to turn it off and the man in charge of the thermostat complies.
A few hours later, as it's getting incredibly
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only would the answer to that be yes, but it actually IS yes. This petition was created by someone who voted leave on the fear that the country is now destabilised as a result of the incredibly tight margin.
As for the people having voted, it's a bit scary when you realise that a lot of the people who voted leave won't live to see the consequences of their vote, the younger generation overwhelmingly voted to stay, the stay campaign had generally quite sound arguments, while the leave campaign ran on not
Re: (Score:3)
People don't vote directly for wars and Hitler wasn't exactly elected.
No people don't vote for wars. People vote for things which directly influence them personally right now and don't think ahead to wider reaching consequences. It's worth remembering when the already clearly terrible jew hating Hitler finally annexed Austria his army wasn't met with resistance but rather a cheering crowd who saw Austria joining the at the time terrible Germany as a way to battle unemployment and depression.
You want to drop a bomb on Czechoslovakia but I'll have a job and food on my table? Wh
Re: As it's been said... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Most countries that have referenda as part of their constitutions require far more than a simple majority, typically a 60% minimum. The referendum had a turnout of around 75%, so around 40% of the total eligible voters turned up to say 'yes, let's fuck up the country'. Many of these believed the lies of the Leave campaign (e.g. we'll have £350m/week more to spend on the NHS) or the self-serving propaganda of the Murdoch-owned press (Murdoch, whose brother in law made £200m in one day as a resu
Re: (Score:3)
So, you think it;s a super-great idea for voters to express their desires in the most direct way possible, and then have the government just disregard that?
Frankly yes. The referendum should never have been run. Direct democracy and especially referendums are fraught with problems. Incidentally, Germany has almost no provision for referendums at a national level. Would you like to guess why? When you work out the answer you may see what the problems are.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you comparing Germany's history with that of the United Kingdom?
The history of Germany shows the effectiveness of referendums at appealing to populist tendencies in people. In other words it shows that direct democracy can be profoundly undemocratic.
Explanation for Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
I take it that you like people you never voted for or have heard of in a foreign country (Belgium in this case) decide what you have to do, too?
Brussels is the seat of the EU government (or at least parts of it) so when we refer to rules from Brussels we do not mean "rules from Belgium" (whose national laws have no sway outside Belgium) but "rules from the EU government in Brussels". This is the same way that Americans refer to "Washington". It does not refer to the mayor of Washington DC enforcing rules on the rest of the US but you national government in Washington passing laws. So its the same with us, just a different city.
As for "foreign countries" passing rules that makes as much sense as someone in California saying that some federal law they do not like was passed by "foreigners" in other states and forced on them without their say. Since California has representatives in the US government this is clearly false and it is the same with the UK in the EU. The difference is that California has been part of the US for long enough that they are used to this give and take between the local and national governments.
In contrast the UK has only been in the EU for just over 40 years and it does not have any recent experience of give and take between regional and national governments because the Tories stripped all meaningful power from county, city and town councils to centralize it all in Westminster and the areas which DO have experience with strong regional government, Scotland and Northern Ireland, voted overwhelmingly for the EU and while Wales has a national assembly it is very limited in power.
So really "foreign" is just a matter of perspective. If you are still stuck 40 years in the past then yes the EU means that "foreign" countries have some sway over the UK. However if you regard the EU as our country and UK as a part of it then no, foreign countries do not have any sway because a foreign country is one outside the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As it's been said... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you think it;s a super-great idea for voters to express their desires in the most direct way possible, and then have the government just disregard that? I take it that you like people you never voted for or have heard of in a foreign country (Belgium in this case) decide what you have to do, too? At least you are consistent.
Yeah let's look at that for a moment. Didn't your government just push ahead with piracy laws which were overwhelmingly considered a bad idea and rejected by the vast majority of the members of your public? You're being snooped on, spied on, told you can't have consenting sex if you're slightly too wild about it, and every time this is discussed in the public it is met with almost universal hatred? How well is that democracy working for you again? If you don't know, ask your government, they are after all the ones who increased their snooping powers after incredible backlash against the powers they already had because let's face it you only have the illusion of democracy.
Incidentally by voting yourself out of the EU, how do you think you will avoid complying with the EU regulations? Are all your companies going to produce two products? The export quality one, and the local crap that doesn't need to comply with the EU? Of course not. I look at my desk here and I have products that comply with all sorts of EU directives, they have the EC symbol on them, heck one even has the ATEX symbol on it which is interesting because it's not legally recognised in Australia. Yeah that's right, the furthest place from the EU, the closest to it's main manufacturing opponent and yet EU regulations have a big effect on our lives too.
But hey soon we'll have something in common. Soon you too will be in a position where your government no longer has a say in these regulations that they will be following anyway. Way to go for sticking it to the man *pats on the back*.
Re: (Score:3)
51.9% - 48.1% is 3.8%, not 2.8%, but thanks for playing
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to forget that the government is supposed to be serving the voters, not the other way around.
No, it's more that you, along with many other people, seem to think that the democratic process aways results in optimal decisions and that democratic decisions made in a referendum are above criticism. The OP and myself on the other hand think that the democratic process sometimes results in galactically stupid decisions and we're not afraid to say so. But don't believe us, by all means do your own research. Go out on the street and have a five minute conversation with an average voter. After a few of tho
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's more that you, along with many other people, seem to think that the democratic process aways results in optimal decisions and that democratic decisions made in a referendum are above criticism.
What if things didn't always have to be optimal or catastrophic? What if we lived in a world where policies had pros and cons and we could try to improve things a little sometimes and not make things worse other times? How would these discussions go then?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you understand that, from the point of view of those who voted for britain leaving the EU, not leaving the EU would be fucking them over?
You might not think they would be fucked over, but they most surely think so, and that is why they voted.
This is a binary issue; either leave or don't leave. There is no option of "leave only a little bit",
So what exactly would the right choice be, considering the only options are "fuck over 49%" or "fuck over 51%"?
If you're going to have to fuck over some people, you m
Re:As it's been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
UK voters: We want to give a boat a silly name!
UK government: No.
UK voters: We want to break up the European Union and crash our economy on a single, simple-majority vote!
UK government: Okay.
Did you know that there is a difference between a petition and a plebiscite?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:As it's been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a pile of arse. Britain does not have the strongest of European economies. It hasn't for decades. It won't for decades in the future.
The strongest economy in Europe is Germany.
Can you cite any actual evidence that the British economy is stronger than the Germany economy?
Can you cite any actual evidence about anything at all? Other than the fact that you know fuck-all about Europe and the UK?
Re: As it's been said... (Score:5, Interesting)
First vote I've seen where the leaders of the winning side admitted their promised were all lies less than 24hrs after the vote.
That's british efficiency for ya. Here in america we have to wait months for the backpedaling to become public.
Re: As it's been said... (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that the officially-sanctioned Vote Leave campaign was a Tory spoiler campaign who didn't actually want to win, right? That's why Boris Johnson looked like he was at a funeral for his victory speech. If Farage's GO campaign had been chosen by the (corrupt) electoral commission, the official campaign would've been talking sense and not bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GO did not tell lies
Yes they did and it's a lie or wilful ignorance to claim otherwise.
For reference (Score:2, Insightful)
UK voters: We want to give a boat a silly name!
UK government: No.
UK voters: We want to break up the European Union and crash our economy on a single, simple-majority vote!
UK government: Okay.
Crash (v): /kraSH/
1) To regain control of a country's internal affairs
2) To allow ones currency to float if needed
3) To negotiate better-than-average trade deals
4) To avoid membership fees
5) To control immigration in a manner advantageous to the citizenry
Re:For reference (Score:5, Insightful)
The currency has already crashed, the stock market lost 140 billion pounds, and many major companies are now preparing for partial or complete relocations in order to stay within the EU. The main thing holding companies back is the possibility that the UK might agree to remain bound by the EU's rules and thus stay within the EU common market, thus rendering relocation unnecessary - expect a further crash if the UK doesn't remain in the common market. S&P has already slashed their growth forecast for the UK, and the UK has lost its AAA credit status.
Can you explain (Score:3, Interesting)
The currency has already crashed, the stock market lost 140 billion pounds, and many major companies are now preparing for partial or complete relocations in order to stay within the EU. The main thing holding companies back is the possibility that the UK might agree to remain bound by the EU's rules and thus stay within the EU common market, thus rendering relocation unnecessary - expect a further crash if the UK doesn't remain in the common market. S&P has already slashed their growth forecast for the UK, and the UK has lost its AAA credit status.
The pound is at a recent low [google.com], but that's not a bad thing. It means more people will purchase UK goods and services than they normally wood. The UK will have a more favorable trade deficit, possibly even a trade surplus, which means money will flow into the country from abroad.
If it *were* a bad thing, then you'd be complaining about how from 2 two years ago up to the brexit, the pound lost 20% of its value. Why is it that the pound losing it's value after the vote is catastrophic, in your view, while losing
Re:Can you explain (Score:5, Informative)
Let's start with your mention of Iceland. I live in Iceland. So let's just say that I know a little something about countries whose currencies have crashed. Yeah, it's good for the bottom lines of businesses that don't have to import anything. It's terrible for regular people and for businesses that have to buy things form overseas. Because the price of all imported goods skyrockets when your currency crashes. Which directly hits your pocketbook every time you go to the store or buy gas at the pump. It also means your savings crash. And the government funds such as retirement funds crash as well.
But hey, some fish magnate can sell their fish cheaper, so that makes everything just wonderful, right? :P
Seriously? Do you really need this explained to you? Is this how you think that investors think?
"Hey, the country is considering doing something a couple years from now that could have profoundly reduce the value of my British investments. I think I'll do absolutely nothing and just hope that it doesn't pass!"
Of course it doesn't work that way. Markets take into account the risk of adverse events happening in the future - which is why as Brexit support rose in polls, the markets fell, and as it declined the markets rose. When it passed, the sudden drop became the difference between the "possibility of brexit" and "the actuality of brexit".
This is really, really basic stuff here. People don't wait until some prospective bad event happens to price it in; they price it in relative to the risk of it actually happening.
The EU made it quite clear that Greece was more than free to leave. They chose to remain. Even their populist, anti-EU government couldn't stomach the potential aftereffects of leaving.
Furthermore, the UK always has been able to float its currency. Are you not aware that the UK is on the pound, not the euro?
By and large, no, no, and no. 1) The biggest groups looking to relocate are British banks. 2) Most companies in the UK, whether British or not, employ British workers. 3) Non-British workers living and working in the UK pay taxes to the UK, not their home countries, and local corporate offices in the UK pay taxes to the UK.
Yes, both were in the common market, so one expects their GDP growth to have historically tracked each other. However, the Euro has been going up majorly with respect to the pound [telegraph.co.uk]. Currency exchange rates react to adverse news immediately. Figures like GDP growth and unemployment lag behind.
The EU is not stagnant [weforum.org]. And most of its troubles of late that aren't part of global slowdowns has been due to stupid, completely avoidable nonsense like the Brexit and Grexit crises.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'crash' is easy to explain; markets bet against brexit, they even paid for and ran their own exit polls that showed a remain, and once the real result came in there was a crash.
It's pretty much like the housing bubble in 2007/8... Banker Wankers bet wrong, lost lots of money, who's to blame? The average Joe of course.
Re: (Score:3)
3) To negotiate better-than-average trade deals
You're lying to yourself if you think than one single country can negotiate better trade deals than a block of 28 countries. When negotiating it matters how powerful you are compared to the other party, and the EU is stronger than the UK on it's own.
And regarding your other points: We'll see about 'membership fees' and controlling immigration when you are going to ask to get access to the EU market. You can't have the benefits without the obligations. If you believe the BS that Farage and Johnson promised
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One country can represent the interests of one country better than a block of 28 countries will represent the specific interests of one of the counties in that block.
Re:For reference (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the UK can now ask for *exactly* what it wants.
But the other parties don't have to do shit about it.
The UK by itself is a weaker entity than when it was a part of the EU. To think otherwise is delusional.
Re:As it's been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the problem was that the vote was too simple - in or out...
Most people in the UK don't really want to leave the EU, but they wanted reforms on a few key points (as do people in many other european countries) and there was no way to get those reforms so the only option was to leave. If the key problems with the EU were addressed and another referendum held i'm sure the vast majority would vote to stay.
So yes the people have spoken, they don't want to remain in the EU as it currently stands, but if suitable reforms were offered then another referendum would make sense - stay in the new reformed EU, or continue leaving.
Academically interesting (Score:3)
Most people in the UK don't really want to leave the EU, but they wanted reforms on a few key points (as do people in many other european countries) and there was no way to get those reforms so the only option was to leave. If the key problems with the EU were addressed and another referendum held i'm sure the vast majority would vote to stay.
I agree with that viewpoint - I think it's likely a correct assessment of the situation.
Note that England has been grumbling about these points for awhile, and before the vote happened even went to the EU asking for reforms (and was denied, and insulted for asking).
Note also that now that the vote has happened, the rest of the EU won't let the UK back. They've been annoyed with the UK for awhile, and are glad to be rid of it.
So while I agree with your assessment of the situation, I have to file it under "ac
Re: (Score:2)
Insulted for asking? Cameron was holding the whole EU hostage, and for what? Some internal powerplay of the tories. And even then the rest of the EU agreed to give UK not the well deserved finger, but even more rebates, if, and only if, UK remains in the EU. You call that "insulted"?
If the EU had called Cameron a cunt, that would be an insult. And also the truth.
I can promise you, the UK will get much worse trade deals as a result. You are not an empire anymore. Time to wake up.
Re: (Score:3)
True. The UK cannot be forced out. But as long as they stay, they will never again get exemptions, higher rebates, or be in any position to put their mark on anything because the rest of the countries will say 'or what?'
Re: (Score:2)
So yes the people have spoken, they don't want to remain in the EU as it currently stands, but if suitable reforms were offered then another referendum would make sense - stay in the new reformed EU, or continue leaving.,
No... not "STAY" in the "Newly-reformed EU". Consider joining the newly-reformed EU later, after it can be thoroughly re-evaluated.
It's unlikely that some simple reforms would fix the EU, and what they "reformed" might be superficial, or the reforms might go away except when poli
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the UK wanting to get their way is that most of what the EU covers is multilateral issues. So they can shout "sovereignty" until they turn blue, but no party is ever sovereign in multiparty issues except at the barrel of a gun. The more the UK distances themselves from the EU, the less incentive they have to be accommodating. The concept that by leaving the EU they can suddenly get the EU to give up on its core principles for access to the common market (such as freedom of movement) is a
Re: (Score:3)
Now that is an oversimplification! "the people" may not like the EU but what they don't like varies a lot. Some want EU to be an European US with a proper federal government, common military etc. Some want EU to be a pure trade based organization between separate countries. Some want separate countries but with tight interconnections in economy and politics in order to reduce risks of war. There are other viewpoints...
Given that your second paragraph is trivially false.
Re: (Score:2)
We want to break up the European Union and crash our economy on a single, simple-majority vote!
- whose economy got crashed exactly, what is the manifestation of this crash? If you are talking about the stock market, well it is back up to the pre-voting time. If you are talking about the actual productive economy - that was crashed by the collectivist system that was implemented in the UK at least since the second world war.
UK economy will be better off with the UK negotiating their own trade deals, not being part of the Euro is going to help it, not hurt it.
Re: (Score:3)
"Crash our economy" - what total, unmitigated, bullshit. The pound has basically recovered, the FTSE 100 is up, and countries all over the world are offering us free trade deals gleefully. Many EFTA members are keen to invite us back in. The future's bright so stop being a doom-monger.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding the people's choice for their sovereignty: simple majority is all that is needed, and once you have taken the vote, the matter is concluded.
The voters have had the final say, and there is no challenging a decision made by the voters.
Just because a vocal minority of petitioners would like to challenge the voters' final say, does not mean they should be allowed to do so.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So the people's opinion is final, set in stone, cannot ever be changed?
I kinda thought that's what a second non-binding resolution vote would test. Whether the people opinion has infact changed, especially after all the lies of the leave leaders were made public so quickly.
If you're so sure the remainers are just a small minority with malicious bureaucrats pulling their strings, then why are you so afraid of a second vote?
Re:As it's been said... (Score:4, Interesting)
So the people's opinion is final, set in stone, cannot ever be changed?
People's opinion can change over time, But a vote is a commitment.
test. Whether the people opinion has infact changed,
After the people have decided; it's NOT Ok to come back less than a month later and attempt to challenge them again, just because you didn't like the outcome of the peoples' decision.
then why are you so afraid of a second vote?
Because some people want another vote since they don't like the outcome, and they want another shot at trying political games, voter fraud, or other tactics to alter the result.
Your vote is a commitment.
Suppose Obama was elected into office in 2008. Do you think it is acceptable to entertain a petition 2 months later, to have a re-vote, incase the public decided they now like McCain better?
Sure there are hundreds of millions of signatures, from the camp supporting the candidate that the majority rejected.
Having an additional referendum is first of all a Fundamental DISREPECT for the voters' democratic choice. They committed to a vote when they clicked the button in the polls..... and you now want to see if they could be persuaded to go against what they firmly affirmed just recently?
Second of all, this second guessing crap would be a waste of resources.
It's also Anti-Democratic...... What? The outcome of the vote IS final... Unless it disagrees with what I wanted? In that case, we need another vote.....?
Third of all.... there's no such thing as a "Non-binding vote of the public". That sounds like someone saying "Well, here's a referendum.... I want you to vote this way... hint... hint.... If parliament disagrees with you, we will just ignore you...."
That would also be a blow to Democracy. What Non-Binding really means, is The voters have spoken; However, the vote itself is not the act or bill, Parliament is now bound to come up with the act or bill and pass it into law to effectuate the results, And they have discretion on the manner to best do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Third of all.... there's no such thing as a "Non-binding vote of the public".
Yes there is. If Parliament passes a bill for a binding referendum then the results of the referendum are enacted directly as a result of the outcome. A non binding referendum is merely advisory. Any changes required as a result of the referendum must pass through the Commons and the Lords by the normal procedures. The referendum itself does not cause any legislation to be enacted.
Just because you don't seem to like that doesn't m
Re: (Score:2)
Probably to have a vote where the electorate wasn't lied to about the benefits of leaving. Or did you miss how the Brexit leave people basically backpedalled on their promises?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. The election where all the politicians tell the truth (according to how you see it). When can we expect that to happen?
4.1 signatures != signed by 4.1 million (Score:4, Informative)
Alot of those were bots so hardly a representative petition result
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Doubtful. Go look at the usual chans(especially 4chan) and you'll find that people have been using VPN's and simple scripts to sign this thing using random name pools, and verifying their signature in under 20 seconds per name.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.... there are more fraudulent signatures more likely than can ever be identified.
This is the problem with online surveys. Don't trust them. They cannot be relied upon.
Most of the sigs are going to be Bullshit drone signatures, not real people.
Re: (Score:3)
The number is irrelevant. The point was to get a message to the parliament that stands on its own reasonable merits. A petition is never really a representation of a popularity of an opinion but rather an example of how good the marketing efforts behind it were.
Sir Winston (Score:2)
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
I suppose it is still better that a simple majority of folks make a bad decision we all have to live with, rather than a single evil fellow.
Re: (Score:3)
There are chains of poor decision-making. Cameron was instrumental in this, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it's not a bad decision.
It's a decision to once again make the British parliament sovereign, as it has been for the vast majority of British history.
It's a decision to unshackle Britain from mountains of regulation, most of it barely scrutinized, handed down from unelected bureaucrats most of whom have contempt for the average working man.
It's a decision to allow Britain to negotiate free trade deals (many of which have been quickly forthcoming) instead of waiting forever for the EU to negotiate
you don't get do-overs until your side wins. (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I think it was a foolish decision to leave the EU. I don't believe it will be the massive disaster some predict, but I do believe it will have a negative impact on the UK into the future.
However, a vote was held. Those who voted spoke, and those who did not vote in effect voted "we do not care". The losing side does not simply get do-overs until it wins.
Amusingly, this petition was started by one of the Brexit supporter when it appeared they would lose the vote. The same would apply: they do
Re: (Score:2)
The market always reacts strongly to unpredictability. That's a short term effect and will sort itself out as it always does. What matters is the long term fundamentals.
Many countries exist without being a part of the EU and get along just fine. It would be better for the UK to be part of the EU for all the obvious reasons and things that are easier if you are, but it was once not part of it, and it managed. Other countries are not, and they manage.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK is made up of REGIONS, each REGION voted in the MAJORITY to STAY in the EU.
That's actually how important referendums in Switzerland work: they are legally binding but to be successful they require support of 50%+1 of the voters and support of at least half of the "states" forming the confederation.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK is made up of REGIONS, each REGION voted in the MAJORITY to STAY in the EU.
It is mathematically impossible for each region to vote majority REMAIN and have the total be majority LEAVE. What are the regions of the UK?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's the end of the world and the living will envy the dead. Or this is extreme hype and things will turn out fine, or a little better than fine, or a little worse than fine, after some period of adjustment.
Consider dual nationality if you want to continue your nice European life.
I'm guessing about 52% of people weren't enjoying that nice European life. Perhaps the ones who were enjoying that life should have listened to the ones who weren't and tried to come up with policies that worked out better for more people.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of those 52% voted leave based on Farage telling lies.
But now part of the historical narrative? (Score:5, Interesting)
It will also act as a signpost for any other country who holds a similar referendum in the future; really for a referendum of such a constitutional importance, a higher threshold than a simple majority should be required for any vote-to-change to be valid.
Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score:4, Informative)
What Britain really needs to do is treat this as the political issue it is. Make it part of the next election - do you vote for MPs that want to exit the EU, or ones who don't? The Tories don't want to, though, because they're afraid they'll bleed support to UKIP. That's the entire reason Cameron held this vote in the first place, because he foolishly thought he could put the issue to rest with a 'Remain' victory.
Re: (Score:3)
One of my biggest issues with referendums like this is that they are so unbalanced. If remain had won then leave supporters could, and would, push for another go at leaving if there was support for it; however leave get a slight majority and the rest of the country is forced to go along with an irreversible decision with no chance at another vote.
In most systems with binding referendums you cannot simply submit the same referendum again and again until you win: if a referendum fails there is usually a number of years of "waiting period" before you can submit a similar question.
Again, there is no such thing as an "irreversible decision" the country is "forced to go along with": the referendum is non-binding. It's entirely the government's decision to actually leave the EU and they are only forced by their own weakness and incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
really for a referendum of such a constitutional importance, a higher threshold than a simple majority should be required for any vote-to-change to be valid.
The referendum is non-binding: there is no such thing as a "threshold" required for the vote to be valid because "valid" is meaningless when the government is still the one ultimately deciding how to interpret the result and what the consequences of the result will be, if any.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh fuck off. You LOST, deal with it. If Remain had won by 50.5% and Leave had signed such a petition, you'd be calling them morons.
and I say that as someone who signed it
Why? Because you can't deal with the outcome of a democratic vote? Tell me honestly, do you actually want to replace democracy with something else? And if so, what?
Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Richard Dawkins, on this issue, is a fucking moron.
Presumably the people he would prefer to decide on our EU membership would be our MPs - a combination of backbench ignoramuses who do what their party leadership tell them, and frontbench EU fanatics who are fully signed up to the Brussels gravy train. Call me mad, but I'll take The People's vote.
And no I would hate the Norwegian model. I do not want the free movement of people. England is massively overpopulated as it is and we desperately need to control the influx with an Australian-style points system. The Norwegian people voted against EU membership, and their government signed them up to the single market anyway against their will!
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.constitution.org/fe... [constitution.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Except opinions can change. And from the news it looks like a lot of british citizens changed their minds the day after the vote when the leave leaders fessed up that all their promises were lies.
I see a lot of people claim the vote was set in stone, the pure will of the people and cannot be denied or fought against.
But it was a non-binding poll. And frankly I'm pretty sure the hardcore leave supporters are just afraid of a second vote showing public opinion swayed far away from the leave side after the lie
Re: (Score:2)
A sane way of Brexiting would have been for a party to have proposed a specific Brexit approach (e.g. Norway-style) as part of its manifesto, for it to have won an election on that basis, for it to have debated and won the arguments for an Act of Parliament setting its negotiating powers in both Houses, and then for it to negotiate on that basis. Then there would have been the opportunity for some considered scrutiny and improvement of the approach.
This isn't fucking rocket science. It's basic fucking Parli
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't fucking rocket science. It's basic fucking Parliamentary democracy of the sort that the UK is supposed to deliver.
The point of referendums is exactly to get the parliament straight when it's not doing what the people wants.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, it is routine in essentially all countries bar the UK who allow constitutional plebiscites that the bar is much higher than a simple majority.
If the results are binding, sure. In the UK referendums are non-binding, so a "higher bar" would be meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Right a 2/3 majority should have been required to stay in the EU.
See that is the problem with super majority decisions, it gives disproportionate power to whomever decides the question's wording.
Think of it this way: what would happen if a super majority was necessary to change elected officials? They would have the position for life.
That's not how super-majority usually works. Typically super-majority is required to accept a change and if the vote fails the status quo is preserved. You cannot simply re-word the question to get around this.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just don't bother with voting at all. Because really, who cares what the people want, right? You clearly know what's best for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. If you impose a very high supermajority to one side, you've effectively already chosen for everyone. The vote becomes farcical. Why should people participate in meaningless pretend elections?
How many signers were UK residents? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people who signed this petition were actually citizens of the UK?
"The peasent will be forced to keep voting..." (Score:3)
"...until they pick the alternative the ruling class prefers."
That worked before on EU votes. I don't think it will work this time [battleswarmblog.com].
Still, the Europhilic ruling class is exceptionally cross that mere citizens would dare to express opinions that differ from their elite betters [battleswarmblog.com]:
Liberal (American) Commentators (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both rising *and* falling prices are bad, einstein. Especially if its rapid and involves housing. It makes either buyers or lenders drop out and the pain deters them from getting back in. Or the lenders declare an emergency and hold an economic gun to everyone's head unless the government prints up a nice big bailout for their cozy little class, screwing everyone else and undermining everything from the work ethic to the currency.
More stability would improve things, but the political class has disappeared u
Re: (Score:3)
High house prices are a significant problem. They indicate an excess of demand over supply.
Rapidly falling house prices are a significant problem. They indicate a rapid loss of faith in the economy.
It is perfectly possible for both of these things to be true at the same time.
If I have a sore finger, taking an axe to it is not a cure.
Re: (Score:2)
THat's not true. There are a lot of EU citizens who have made their home in the UK and contributed to the society and to the country, and were excluded from voting. However, Irish, Maltese and Cypriot EU citizens resident here WERE allowed to vote on the referendum.
There is actually a case proceeding in the Scottish parliament on this very topic of disenfranchisement.
Re: (Score:2)
So in your world, minority rights have no place in democracy?