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.
You seem to forget that the government is supposed to be serving the voters, not the other way around.
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.
Did you know that there is a difference between a petition and a plebiscite?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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
Well the problem was that the vote was too simple - in or out...
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.
So yes the people have spoken, they don't want to remain in the EU as it currently stands, but if suitable reforms were offered then another referendum would make sense - stay in the new reformed EU, or continue leaving.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
How many people who signed this petition were actually citizens of the UK?
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
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 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 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
What a pile of arse. Britain does not have the strongest of European economies. It hasn't for decades. It won't for decades in the future.
The strongest economy in Europe is Germany.
Can you cite any actual evidence that the British economy is stronger than the Germany economy?
Can you cite any actual evidence about anything at all? Other than the fact that you know fuck-all about Europe and the UK?
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).
I thought the referendum was anonymous.
How are they going to track down the people who voted in the referendum to confirm their vote?
Or do you mean like how somebody who demonstrated they didn't care being allowed to confirm reformatting my harddisk?
The petition was about a redo. Just as many redo's as it would take to get a different result.
You may not agree with the result (I certainly don't), but voting is how a democracy works. Not ignoring votes until people vote the way you like.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
Let's start with your mention of Iceland. I live in Iceland. So let's just say that I know a little something about countries whose currencies have crashed. Yeah, it's good for the bottom lines of businesses that don't have to import anything. It's terrible for regular people and for businesses that have to buy things form overseas. Because the price of all imported goods skyrockets when your currency crashes. Which directly hits your pocketbook every time you go to the store or buy gas at the pump. It also means your savings crash. And the government funds such as retirement funds crash as well.
But hey, some fish magnate can sell their fish cheaper, so that makes everything just wonderful, right? :P
Seriously? Do you really need this explained to you? Is this how you think that investors think?
"Hey, the country is considering doing something a couple years from now that could have profoundly reduce the value of my British investments. I think I'll do absolutely nothing and just hope that it doesn't pass!"
Of course it doesn't work that way. Markets take into account the risk of adverse events happening in the future - which is why as Brexit support rose in polls, the markets fell, and as it declined the markets rose. When it passed, the sudden drop became the difference between the "possibility of brexit" and "the actuality of brexit".
This is really, really basic stuff here. People don't wait until some prospective bad event happens to price it in; they price it in relative to the risk of it actually happening.
The EU made it quite clear that Greece was more than free to leave. They chose to remain. Even their populist, anti-EU government couldn't stomach the potential aftereffects of leaving.
Furthermore, the UK always has been able to float its currency. Are you not aware that the UK is on the pound, not the euro?
By and large, no, no, and no. 1) The biggest groups looking to relocate are British banks. 2) Most companies in the UK, whether British or not, employ British workers. 3) Non-British workers living and working in the UK pay taxes to the UK, not their home countries, and local corporate offices in the UK pay taxes to the UK.
Yes, both were in the common market, so one expects their GDP growth to have historically tracked each other. However, the Euro has been going up majorly with respect to the pound. Currency exchange rates react to adverse news immediately. Figures like GDP growth and unemployment lag behind.
The EU is not stagnant. And most of its troubles of late that aren't part of global slowdowns has been due to stupid, completely avoidable nonsense like the Brexit and Grexit crises.
We also have a halon fire extinguisher. Its always nice to have a fire extinguisher that kills people around.
The commission is the only entity that can propose legislation. Usually, you do elect the people who can propose legislation.
The power of the actual elected body, the European Parliament, is still quite limited. They don't even have enough power to prevent their forced relocation from Brussles to Strassbourgh every month, rather being caught in a perpetual schoolyard bully 'stop hitting yourself' moment. They've managed to block legislation, what, once in history?
There are good and bad things about the EU, but democratic credibility isn't one of the good ones.
A parliament that cannot propose legislation is a parliament in name only. It's a check/balance, I'll give you that, but it's not where the power lies if it cannot propose and effect a change that it wants to.
In the UK, you elect an MP. That MP directly votes on, and can propose legislation. The "other" house, the House of Lords, can only delay any legislation that the House of Commons votes for by returning it with recommendations a maximum of 3 times. After the third time, if the House of Commons again votes it through, it becomes law (subject to Liz' royal assent, but that's not being withheld...).
This is effectively the inverse of the European "parliament". The EU commission decides what laws will be proposed, the parliament (the people who the people elected) then get to horse-trade the deal until the parliament and the commission agree, and then all countries must adopt the law. This is a significant reduction in the power of the people.
As a bonus, the commission are basically immunised against any effects of their political machinations, the only way for a member of the EU commission to be removed is if the parliament unanimously votes to remove all members of the commission at the same time. Yeah... Not gonna happen.
So to summarise: you have an un-sackable body that is the only group who can propose legislation, which gives them the ability to apply enormous pressure to the elected representatives (oh, you want X do you ? Well make sure you vote for our Y and Z and then we'll consider it). And then everyone is forced to accept the results of this as law.
Sorry. That sucks. Given the mission statement of ever closer union, the desire to raise an army etc., and the binding nature of EU law as supreme, the mismatch in democratic power within the EU *should* be concerning IMHO. Whether it's sufficiently concerning to brexit is a different argument, but I think it certainly played its part.
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
No, we only sold our state secrets to foreign interest. We sold the state itself to US corporations, although since technically most if them aren't based in the US then sure why not.