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.
I'm putting together a petition to put the USA up for sale to the highest bidder
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.
We also have a halon fire extinguisher. Its always nice to have a fire extinguisher that kills people around.
Alot of those were bots so hardly a representative petition result
If it's the latter, I bet you most are fake. I heard 4-Chan was trolling and setup scripts to create fake signatures.
Dunno why Slashdot couldn't at least dig a bit deeper and fake trying to make this a tech related post....
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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 not get do-overs until (from their view) the "right" answer is arrived at.
Yes, there were lies. There always are. People had every opportunity to do their homework and make up their own minds. If you do not properly avail yourself of that opportunity, that is on you.
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
It's "News for nerds" NOT "Only news about technology".
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
or "stuff that matters" ... although, that part of the tag-line may be long dead these days.
How many people who signed this petition were actually citizens of the UK?
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
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 "academically interesting".
Nerd-friendly reading: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215.json
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 up the anus of high finance and "US interests abroad". The only thing that will change is immigration. The UK will now be able to pursue further destabilization in other countries alongside the US--but with less human-fallout in the form of refugees. Whether that is "good" for the UK working class is unknown.
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.
Take off every 'sig' !!
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.
"...until they pick the alternative the ruling class prefers."
That worked before on EU votes. I don't think it will work this time.
Still, the Europhilic ruling class is exceptionally cross that mere citizens would dare to express opinions that differ from their elite betters:
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
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 in your world, minority rights have no place in democracy?
The petition was actually set up by a Brexit supporter, before the referendum was held, in anticipation that the Brexit vote would fail and out of the hope that they could use it for another chance.
link here http://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/General%20Documents/20151214_Aidan_ONeill.pdf
Fuck off or provide evidence for discussion. People who do a job are contributing.
is this so fucking difficult to understand? 66 individual cases here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote
It does appear that EU countries may act childishly and refuse good trade terms on emotional grounds. That is human, but is self contradictory to the argument that emotional people like you act like you're making, which is that the natural order of a Brexit will leave UK worse off. Making illogical trade decisions based on good-riddance spitefulness isn't the natural order of things. If you were confident in your logical argument, I would think you wouldn't need to create artificial barriers to tip the scale and make UK worse off.
Reading the news and opinion sites, it seems that liberal American columnists are, by-and-large, incensed by the result of Brexit vote. Why is that? They seem to act like it is really a threat to them.
You know, for the longest time I really believed that we had, fundamentally, an completely unbalanced and unusual abundance of morons in the USA. But after Brexit, I'm no longer ashamed. There is at least one other country with at least the same ratio (actually, a higher-ratio as there is zero chance the Trumpieceofshit will actually get elected here). So, from where I'm sitting, it looks like the per-capita moron ratio is actually higher across the pond! Oh glorious day! I'm no longer ashamed to be a United Statesian!
As much as I think the vote was a reckless fault that was mainly driven by old geezers who want their Empire back, I think that voting as many times until we have a result that we like is not the way to go. Especially the young people who are rightfully upset about having their entire lives get screwed up are the ones to blame - they were mainly absent from the referendum vote. There are also plenty who fell for the blahblah of the hopeless losers of UKIP and other ultranationalistic groups rather than spend half an hour and inform themselves properly. If you do not show up for the election or do not take it seriously to begin with, don't complain afterwards! What will eventually crash the British economy is that the young people will move away leaving the old bastards behind who wrecked their own country even worse than Thatcher did. I guess stupidity in the nth degree never dies...see the US: after presenting the worst president ever (Reagan) the Reps put a dimwitted reality show host up as candidate.
And what the fuck is the point of that response to my post? The OP asked why a simple majority was too low a bar. I explained why. I didn't propose any alternative higher bar, and if I had, I certainly wouldn't have chosen an imbecilic FPTP per constituency method. I'd have chosen a "majority of the electorate in each of the four home countries" method. Cos I'm not a fuckwit.
Funnily enough, there are options other than simple majority and pre-C19 voting rights, you muppet. How can this kind of facile response make you think you've scored a point? Where's the satisfaction in setting yourself such low standards?
Perhaps their next vote should be whether to join the US. They can still keep the Queen if they want. We wouldn't take that from them, would we? I mean, unless we have to hock the crown to pay off some debts...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
Making illogical trade decisions
It's not illogical just because you don't like it. Fucking us over would be a huge disincentive for anyone else to leave. Given that the EU collapse would be worse than the UK leaving and getting a bad deal, it would be logical to act very strongly to prevent the that happening.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The tariff without a FTA for trade is around 1% of the cost, that's insignificant compared to EU memebership fees honestly.
Great! Houses will finally be reasonably priced and people can start owning their own homes again.
My bank says that's not going to happen though?
It's okay, we can drop the EU mandated VAT which is currently around 20%.
Looks fine to me? I still get more Euros and dollars when I convert pounds to them?
Cool story, however we've seen growth with the rest of the world, not Europe. So, if we're barred from doing stuff with the EU, I guess we'll have to use the alternative... Countries that have actual growth.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Making subjects vote repeatedly until the globalist elites get their preferred outcome is one of the hallmarks of EU abuse.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Why assume illogical and artificial barriers when simple logic is enough? The UK will have a worse position for making deals with the EU and the rest of the world, towards the EU as there will be no special offers in order to keep the UK inside (which have advantages to the rest of the EU) and the rest of the world as a smaller market have less say than a larger one.
Talking about punishing the UK is foolish - there's no need. But thinking that others will offer better deals with nothing in return is foolish too.
Do you want to stay in EU?
No; we want to leave.
Are you, *SURE* you don't want to stay in EU?
No; we want to leave.
Are you, *SURE* you don't want to stay in EU?
No; we want to leave.
Remain side tries to obstruct Brexit via backdoor tactics.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
My parents taught me how to never have people tell you what you have to do. Of course that means understanding civilization and since what that comes down to is nothing like the game by the same name, I can see how it can be hard for some people. As long as you interact with the sort of people who the community respects and they can act as character witnesses, as long as you realize that it is ultimately up to you what your defense is going to be and plan accordingly, no one is able to tell you what you have to do. The prosecution gets people to agree to a plea deal by letting them know how much the prosecution is going to inconvenience them. People live free when at every step they remind everyone else, the police, the prosecution the judge how much prosecuting them is going to cost. Of course that actually means planning ahead, which isn't most people's strong suit. Always emphasize how much of an asset you can be if you get your way and how much trouble it will be, not entirely of your own making, of course, if you don't.
... and they can always renegotiate to apply to the EU as Little Britain, to rejoin with Scotland which seems to be dead set on staying in. That is, if the EU survives all the other outbreaks of xenophobia.
Fun times.
Does Australia have a "none of the above" on the ballot paper you are forced to complete? If not then you are forced to choose between options that cannot reflect your opinion. I'd rather move to a democratic country.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Seriously? Germany is the EU powerhouse, has been for decades. Not the UK. Also, Wales voted leave. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted stay. So if anything they'll be rejoining the EU. I know Europe is far away, but at least try to get relevant information before posting.
Unfortunately for some firm (financial or engineering) some institution/testing/financial processing have to be done on EU soil. So retaining some EU market access would not be enough as per law they must be in an EU country. You would have to change that law first, and you can bet that this would be vetoes by country which have to win by having those institution forced to move.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Oh Jesus wept.
When I said "Where's the satisfaction in setting yourself such low standards?" I was referring to the standard of your argument, not the simple majority bar. I was pointing out that a false dichotomy is the sort of thing that my ten year old was taught to avoid in debating club this year.
It turns out that not only are you incapable of making a coherent argument, your reading comprehension is awful too. Are you related to IDS or Leadsom? You appear to have the same intellectual capacity as those two geniuses.
The fact that you think C19 is jargon and requires a Google search is an excellent example of precisely how stupid you are.
Can you not think of any reasons yourself why a simple majority might be a too-low bar for constitutionally significant decisions? The fact that Scotland is bound by a decision its polity disagrees with, for example? Or that the decision puts a militarised border back into NI, thus imperilling the peace there? Or that more fundamentally, a constitutionally significant change ought to have the coherent support of the population to avoid long-term division, which is the reasoning behind super-majorities? Of course you can't think of reasons like this by yourself. It requires insight, empathy and intelligence, which immediately rules you out.
We gave it to them.
You didn't read very carefully. It may be logical on some political scale, like you say, to make illogical TRADE deals that make both parties worse off. But the point is that if such punishment resulted in UK GDP hit, that definitely doesn't prove the Remainers right.
Your reply doesn't make sense. I don't think you understand this thread. I'm not sure how to respond.
These minorities are asking for a second vote. So what is the majority afraid of? If there is an actual majority supporting leave, the second vote would surely turn out the same, right? It's a bit like an operating system, when you ask it to something potentially destructive, it will ask you for a confirmation "[Y/N]". If it is absolutely destructive (such as removing Perl from a Debian operation system), you will have to enter "Yes, do as I say".
It's quite clear that the 'majority' is shit-scared that the emperor doesn't have clothes, and that a confirmation referendum would see a 55% remain vote.
The petition has already been proven a joke. It was hijacked by bots all over the globe. I am surprised that the UK gov actually made a statement about this. Well, maybe not surprised at all...
"Abashed the Devil stood, and felt how awful goodness is..."
Why would you think that is an either-or question?
Welcome to non-sequitur land, where AC muppets respond to everything said to them with irrelevancies. The reason I'm angry is that people who are hard-of-thinking like you *not only* keep on making shitty decisions that affect me, but you keep on thinking you're doing things you're not. Like getting rid of me ("Good riddance"). I'm not going anywhere. I didn't imply I was. So why would you think I was? Oh, that's right, because you live in an infantile world where your wishes affect the universe. It's so depressingly stupid and facile.
Um, guys, the new unelected Prime Minister of the soon to be dissolved UK doesn't even officially take office until Wednesday GMT.
So, what government?
Meanwhile, the EU has conditionally accepted Scotland to take the UK seat after the UK turns into lesser Britain, or the Unitied Kingdom of England and Wales. Spain will force Gibraltar to remain part of Lesser Britain, out of spite, and the whole Ireland question depends on if Northern Island is permitted to exist like Scotland, as a separate nation that is also in the EU, or forced to remain with Lesser Britain.
It's a Constitutional Monarchy without a Constitution, actually. Get your facts straight. Canada and Australia are also Constitutional Monarchies, but have Constitutions, and when Scotland joins the EU it will also be a Constitutional Monarchy, but not sure about the Constitution for that one. All with the same monarch, but that's the fun part.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why would you think I don't know this, when it was axiomatic to the whole discussion, you unbelievably dim fucknugget?