Brexit: Government Rejects Petition Signed By 4.1 Million Calling For Second EU Referendum (independent.co.uk)

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.

Comments

As it's been said...

[Rei]

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...

[Brett Buck]

You seem to forget that the government is supposed to be serving the voters, not the other way around.

Re:As it's been said...

[blind biker]

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:As it's been said...

[Bert64]

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.

Re:As it's been said...

[shilly]

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...

[jez9999]

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:As it's been said...

[mwvdlee]

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:As it's been said...

[Znork]

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...

[Rei]

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...

[Hognoxious]

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...

[Space cowboy]

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:As it's been said...

[thegarbz]

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*.

How many signers were UK residents?

[mschuyler]

How many people who signed this petition were actually citizens of the UK?

Re:For reference

[Rei]

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.

Re:For reference

[NotAPK]

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:But now part of the historical narrative?

[jez9999]

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: My petition

[WarJolt]

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.