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
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
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".
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.
There are chains of poor decision-making. Cameron was instrumental in this, for example.
"...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?
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 them.
It's a decision to reclaim Britain's territorial waters and rejuvenate the British fishing industry that has been decimated by the EU's common fisheries policy.
It's a decision to stop sending £350 million a week to Brussels for whatever they feel like spending it on; often involving massive corruption and "expenses" (and yes, that is an accurate figure; getting some of it back with strings attached is still not the same as not spending the money)
It's a decision to hopefully start funding universities again from the British parliament and end Monnet professorships so that young people stop getting brainwashed into thinking the EU is the best thing since sliced bread without even knowing what the fuck it is.
And it's a decision to be able to control immigration, probably with an Australian points-based system, rather than letting unlimited numbers of (mostly eastern) Europeans into the country at a ludicrously unsustainable level (over net 350,000 per year).
I'd love to know why you think that your reasons for staying in trump the aforementioned ones for getting the hell out.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
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.