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
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
How many people who signed this petition were actually citizens of the UK?
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
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.
We also have a halon fire extinguisher. Its always nice to have a fire extinguisher that kills people around.
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?
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.
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.