Slashdot Mirror
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.
The petition was always going to be rejected, and I say that as someone who signed it. However, it will become part of the historical narrative for this referendum and the aftermath.
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.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
That's how a democratic election works. And, if you really think Britain's economy is going to crash, then you're not familiar with its history. Britain has, and will continue to have, the strongest of European economies. Personally, I think what Britain did took courage and reflects their desire to recapture their national persona, which was being lost as a part of a conglomerate if nations.
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.
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.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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).
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).
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
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?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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, 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 20% over 2 years isn't?
Can you explain?
One way that Greece could have eased their troubles was by floating their currency. They *asked* the EU for permission to do this, and were denied.
Are you saying that the UK should be *prevented* from floating their currency if they deem it necessary? I don't see that as a bad thing.
Can you explain?
(So long as inflation is kept under control. South American dictatorships devalue their currency by printing extra money, which makes their currency value go to shit. I don't see the UK regulators being stupid enough or corrupt enough to do that.)
Companies relocating to the EU are European companies... yes? And those European companies employ mostly non-UK workers, yes? And pay taxes to their parent country, yes?
So I don't see *that* as a problem either.
Can you explain?
And note that the EU growth rate has been going down, overall, in the last few years (and not because of the recession either).
Are you saying that remaining a part of a declining or stagnant union is a *good* thing for the UK?
Please explain.
And also note that Iceland hammered out a trade treaty with China in about a year, while the EU has been working on a similar treaty for over 20 years.
I'm really unclear why you think all this is bad. It's bad for people who do arbitrage ("the pound has dropped"), it's bad for EU companies ("they're moving away"), and it's bad for the EU economy ("UK was the 2nd largest contributor").
But I don't see it as bad for the UK people.
Care to explain?
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.
Lords isn't the problem. If anything, Britain's House of Lords is the closest thing to a legislative body with pseudorandomly chosen membership any country has. The fact is, even the wealthiest family eventually has a crazy son who squanders everything but the title itself.
Compared to the average income of US Senators & Representatives, or even Britain's House of Commons, most Lords are amazingly middle class by comparison.
They aren't perfect, of course... most Lords are white males... but then again, so are most MPs & US Senators and Representatives.
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.