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.

Comments

Re:As it's been said...

[Brett Buck]

You seem to forget that the government is supposed to be serving the voters, not the other way around.

But now part of the historical narrative?

[Sesostris III]

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.

Re:Can you explain

[Rei]

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

And note that the EU growth rate [ash.tips] has been going down, overall, in the last few years (and not because of the recession either).

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.

Are you saying that remaining a part of a declining or stagnant union is a *good* thing for the UK?

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.

Re:As it's been said...

[Space cowboy]

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.