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
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
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.