EU Referendum Rules Triggering a 2nd EU Referendum(petition.parliament.uk)
petition.parliament.uk
EU Referendum Rules Triggering a 2nd EU Referendum
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
39 comments
> Aside from the fact that it's incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to have people vote until you like the result. I suspect this line of thinking is partly why people wanted to leave.
This petition was started on May 25th, well before the referendum occurred. The original intent was that these rules would apply before voting started (the deadline is November 25th and all petitions run for 6 months, therefore the petition started on May 25th).
This petition was started on May 25th, well before the referendum occurred. The original intent was that these rules would apply before voting started (the deadline is November 25th and all petitions run for 6 months, therefore the petition started on May 25th).
I did not know that. I'm sorry. I was clearly wrong and should not have accused the petitioners before checking the facts.
Especially since the person who started this petition is firmly in the Leave camp, and wants the UK to leave.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/petition-calling-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-petitio...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/petition-calling-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-petitio...
I'm playing best of 3. </joke>
But.. 62.5% of British voters did not vote for leaving the EU.
When it is such a massive thing and the vote is 52% vs 48% with a 71% turnout.. it is too close to be definitive as it stands...
Also, this petition was created back in May.. So it isn't as if this was created as a response to the result.
But.. 62.5% of British voters did not vote for leaving the EU.
When it is such a massive thing and the vote is 52% vs 48% with a 71% turnout.. it is too close to be definitive as it stands...
Also, this petition was created back in May.. So it isn't as if this was created as a response to the result.
> But... 62.5% of British voters did not vote for leaving the EU.
Um no...48% of voters did not vote for leaving the EU. People who were eligible to vote and didn't turn out are not voters.
Um no...48% of voters did not vote for leaving the EU. People who were eligible to vote and didn't turn out are not voters.
The Scottish Independence referendum of 1979, which produced similar results with 51.6% wanting out failed because a 40% of eligible voters had to support the proposal. As the turnout was only 64%, this means that only 32.9% voted to leave - shy of the required 40% required for it to be successful.
Therefore, for that referendum - eligible voters that did not vote, still contributed to the vote by inaction, and weighted towards the remain camp.
This is a much more reasonable way to hold a referendum of this sort, as the burden of change is weighted on those trying to break status quo.
Wish we did something similar for this referendum.
Therefore, for that referendum - eligible voters that did not vote, still contributed to the vote by inaction, and weighted towards the remain camp.
This is a much more reasonable way to hold a referendum of this sort, as the burden of change is weighted on those trying to break status quo.
Wish we did something similar for this referendum.
> But.. 62.5% of British voters did not vote for leaving the EU.
And 100% of British voters did not vote for joining the EU.
Ideally the EU would require member states to hold a membership referendum every 15 or 20 years. That would be an honest and democratic way of self-checking the state of the union. As it is, many of the older former-EEC nations have never actually asked their populace whether they want to be in a political union.
And 100% of British voters did not vote for joining the EU.
Ideally the EU would require member states to hold a membership referendum every 15 or 20 years. That would be an honest and democratic way of self-checking the state of the union. As it is, many of the older former-EEC nations have never actually asked their populace whether they want to be in a political union.
And 65.3% did not vote to stay in the EU. Your statistic is intentionally misleading.
I suspect that a large number who voted to leave were doing so in protest, and did not expect to (or perhaps even want to) actually win the vote.
I can't comment on the merits of this petition, but I'd guess that another referendum held today would have a different result.
Pure conjecture, anecdotal evidence and more than a little bit of wishful thinking of course :)
I can't comment on the merits of this petition, but I'd guess that another referendum held today would have a different result.
Pure conjecture, anecdotal evidence and more than a little bit of wishful thinking of course :)
"We're going to give YOU the choice between staying and leaving, so go ahead, choose whatever you like - leave, remain. Either one is good."
"Wait, people actually voted to leave? Oh, no no no, that's not good. We need a re-vote so people can vote the right way."
So let's assume the government (still run by the Tories) allows this to happen. Why the farce of a referendum in the first place, if they're going to re-do the vote a week later because they don't like what the people chose? Why start this discussion in the first place, or why not say that "we'd never allow this referendum to happen" if Remain is what they wanted all along?
"Wait, people actually voted to leave? Oh, no no no, that's not good. We need a re-vote so people can vote the right way."
So let's assume the government (still run by the Tories) allows this to happen. Why the farce of a referendum in the first place, if they're going to re-do the vote a week later because they don't like what the people chose? Why start this discussion in the first place, or why not say that "we'd never allow this referendum to happen" if Remain is what they wanted all along?
To be blunt, this was a political miscalculation on behalf of the now-outgoing Prime Minister, David Cameron.
He's something of a moderniser of the Conservative party, but this leaves him open to attacks from the more traditional parts of the party. One of the ongoing issues across this divide is the UK's membership of the EU – the traditionalist faction arguing that the UK was better off outside, and that it's now hobbled by regulation/immigration etc.
In addition, there was a growing threat posed by UKIP – the 'UK Independence Party' — an essentially single-issue anti-EU party, who were siphoning off votes from both the anti-EU Conservative base but increasingly the anti-immigration parts of other voter groups.
With these factors in play, there was some pressure during the last UK general election to hold a referendum on EU membership. Cameron's political calculation was that holding this referendum would essentially allow the eurosceptic faction of his own party to be silenced, and for the issue to be put to bed for the next couple of decades. This was basically a short-term political play to help ensure re-election.
Unfortunately this has all gone pear-shaped, as there was a much stronger backing for the 'Leave' campaign that was perhaps expected – I imagine that Cameron assumed the argument could be obviously won on merit. The vast majority of politicians, economists, civil servants and so on – something of a metropolitan elite – are fully aware that leaving the EU will be a fucking disaster for the UK. Now many of those same people are desperately trying to figure out how we un-fuck the situation.
He's something of a moderniser of the Conservative party, but this leaves him open to attacks from the more traditional parts of the party. One of the ongoing issues across this divide is the UK's membership of the EU – the traditionalist faction arguing that the UK was better off outside, and that it's now hobbled by regulation/immigration etc.
In addition, there was a growing threat posed by UKIP – the 'UK Independence Party' — an essentially single-issue anti-EU party, who were siphoning off votes from both the anti-EU Conservative base but increasingly the anti-immigration parts of other voter groups.
With these factors in play, there was some pressure during the last UK general election to hold a referendum on EU membership. Cameron's political calculation was that holding this referendum would essentially allow the eurosceptic faction of his own party to be silenced, and for the issue to be put to bed for the next couple of decades. This was basically a short-term political play to help ensure re-election.
Unfortunately this has all gone pear-shaped, as there was a much stronger backing for the 'Leave' campaign that was perhaps expected – I imagine that Cameron assumed the argument could be obviously won on merit. The vast majority of politicians, economists, civil servants and so on – something of a metropolitan elite – are fully aware that leaving the EU will be a fucking disaster for the UK. Now many of those same people are desperately trying to figure out how we un-fuck the situation.
Apparently the Leave supporters were so distrustful of authority that they were taking pens to mark the ballot papers[0], so retrospectively changing the rules would be like trying to put out a fire by throwing on petrol.
Unfortunately the former United Kingdom has shown it is irrevocably divided, so should get on with trying to make the best of a bad situation, e.g. (in my view) by setting up an independent Scotland and independent London[1].
[0] http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-backers-urge-...
[1] https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independe...
Unfortunately the former United Kingdom has shown it is irrevocably divided, so should get on with trying to make the best of a bad situation, e.g. (in my view) by setting up an independent Scotland and independent London[1].
[0] http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-backers-urge-...
[1] https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independe...
Scotland had its chance, and decided no. London independence is just transparent elitism and will never happen.
As Sturgeon rightly pointed out, the situation has materially changed as a large part of the Scottish independence remain campaign was that the UK needed the Scottish support to stop it happening.
The UK leaving the EU would most likely make a second Scottish independence vote succeed, which would make me sad.
The UK leaving the EU would most likely make a second Scottish independence vote succeed, which would make me sad.
The demands of this petition will not be met. There will be no immediate replay of the Brexit referendum.
However, suppose the UK and the EU agree on terms for leaving – could there be another referendum to approve those specific terms? Obviously many of those who supported Remain will demand that; but, it's concievable even some Leave supporters might, if they don't like those terms. For example, what if the agreed terms include keeping freedom of movement between the EU and the UK, so the UK still has to accept unlimited immigration from the EU? In that case, it's plausible that anti-immigration Leave supporters might join the calls for a second referendum. There's no legal requirement for such a second referendum, but it might be politically appealling if the future post-Cameron UK Government starts to have doubts about the whole thing, or if public opinion on Brexit begins to sour. Now, the UK has voted "Yes" to a Brexit in principle, and obviously if such a second referendum got a "Yes" the UK would be out for sure. But what if the vote was "No" to the specific terms for leaving? If you want to leave but can't reach agreement on terms to do so, do you stay in by default?
However, suppose the UK and the EU agree on terms for leaving – could there be another referendum to approve those specific terms? Obviously many of those who supported Remain will demand that; but, it's concievable even some Leave supporters might, if they don't like those terms. For example, what if the agreed terms include keeping freedom of movement between the EU and the UK, so the UK still has to accept unlimited immigration from the EU? In that case, it's plausible that anti-immigration Leave supporters might join the calls for a second referendum. There's no legal requirement for such a second referendum, but it might be politically appealling if the future post-Cameron UK Government starts to have doubts about the whole thing, or if public opinion on Brexit begins to sour. Now, the UK has voted "Yes" to a Brexit in principle, and obviously if such a second referendum got a "Yes" the UK would be out for sure. But what if the vote was "No" to the specific terms for leaving? If you want to leave but can't reach agreement on terms to do so, do you stay in by default?
"You will have to vote until outcome will be pro-EU."
Just like the Ireland few years ago.
Just like the Ireland few years ago.
AFAIK the law shouldn't work backwards, so even if they implement it, this should not apply to the recent referendum...
Actually the uk is one of the only counties in the world that has no protection against retrospective legislation - and has implemented retrospective legislation in recent history.
Having said this ignoring this vote would be very foolish.
Having said this ignoring this vote would be very foolish.
If the economy tanks over the coming months people will be demanding another vote.
The economy is already bad enough for the people. The only ones who lost with this vote are the wealthy who rail against it on every news outlet.
I suspect the poor will loose as well, they are the ones who have been beneficiaries of the EU. Not only that but the UK effectively shifted its politics to the right on Thursday, Boris and Gove weren't fighting to leave the EU so they could shower money on the less well off.
The referendum is advisory, so they can do whatever they think they'll get away with.
You are aware that these petitions are just that - petitions. Anyone can start one about anything. They have no constitutional meaning and can be totally ignored (and usually are).
Could someone knowledgeable about British politics provide commentary about whether this might actually happen?
No the uk has no direct democracy. Parliament is sovereign not the electorate. Indeed before any referendum the uk parliament has to pass specific legislation binding itself to the result+. These petitions are a relatively new thing and have never (please someone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong) lead to anything meaningful. 100,000 signatures mean that it has to be considered for a discussion in parliament - it doesn't even mean the discussion has to go ahead and if it does a vote in parliament may not happen (filibustering happens on non-goverment initiated debates in parliament) and would not be binding anyway.
+ interestingly the EU referendum was technically only advisory - but parliament would be mad to ignore it.
+ interestingly the EU referendum was technically only advisory - but parliament would be mad to ignore it.
The apology made by Gordon Brown to Alan Turing was prompted by a petition
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-...
A complete list that were debated is at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=debated
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-...
A complete list that were debated is at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=debated
These petitions are a relatively new thing and have never (please someone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong) lead to anything meaningful.
For a very small value of "meaningful", I signed a petition when the government made suggestions they would be moving businesses to submitting tax returns four times a year. The response was not actually a change in policy but a pretty good explanation of the miscommunication over what they were actually planning to do and why it wasn't worth getting worried about. So at least as a way to get the government to explain their intentions more clearly, it worked.
For a very small value of "meaningful", I signed a petition when the government made suggestions they would be moving businesses to submitting tax returns four times a year. The response was not actually a change in policy but a pretty good explanation of the miscommunication over what they were actually planning to do and why it wasn't worth getting worried about. So at least as a way to get the government to explain their intentions more clearly, it worked.
Some people are always trying to subvert democracy. I guess it is only democracy if they win.
AFAIK people need to vote in a prime minister who would trigger Chapter 50. It's similar to the 2nd EU Referendum.
It's a parliamentary system, so the party has to vote in a new leader. We've had similar situations in Canada where the party leader has stepped down, and the party votes in a new leader, who then automatically becomes the prime minister.
I was under the impression the next prime minister would be decided by a leadership contest within the Conservative Party scheduled later this year. As in a similar situation to how Gordon Brown came to power. Although it would be nice to be wrong.
Probably you are right, I don't know too much about the situation, as lots of important facts are always missing from news reports
Everybody who is able to sign this, you NEED to sign it.
And it's exactly that sort of disregard for the democratic process that made the right to self-determination a key point in the Brexit debate.
Wah, no fair, do over. It just comes across as intensely childish.
Also kind of irks me that most of the social media whining at the moment originates from people who probably didn't even have an opinion on the EU this time last year. Others amongst us have harboured a lingering resentment towards the institution having followed its activities for years, listened to debates from the floor of the EU parliament, read books on its history and philosophy, and yet are labelled socially deprived unintelligent knee-jerk racists. Mostly labelled by the loud but ignorant people who couldn't tell you the difference between a Directive and a Regulation, or the difference between the European Council and the Council of the European Union [sigh - yes, Twitter pests, go look those up and pretend you knew all along]
Good riddance. Here's to the Netherlands or France following suit sooner rather than later. I want everyone to leave the EU. It's doomed politically and stagnant economically with far more crisis to come in the pipeline. In time, this exit will look like a much better call than many would have us believe in the current moment.
Wah, no fair, do over. It just comes across as intensely childish.
Also kind of irks me that most of the social media whining at the moment originates from people who probably didn't even have an opinion on the EU this time last year. Others amongst us have harboured a lingering resentment towards the institution having followed its activities for years, listened to debates from the floor of the EU parliament, read books on its history and philosophy, and yet are labelled socially deprived unintelligent knee-jerk racists. Mostly labelled by the loud but ignorant people who couldn't tell you the difference between a Directive and a Regulation, or the difference between the European Council and the Council of the European Union [sigh - yes, Twitter pests, go look those up and pretend you knew all along]
Good riddance. Here's to the Netherlands or France following suit sooner rather than later. I want everyone to leave the EU. It's doomed politically and stagnant economically with far more crisis to come in the pipeline. In time, this exit will look like a much better call than many would have us believe in the current moment.
This is exactly my feeling on the matter. To be fair, there are thoughtful people on both sides, but the uninformed and emotional make the most noise.
But yes, when you've studied both sides and decided that Leave is the rational choice, a lot of Remain supporters appear incredibly haughty and arrogant.
But yes, when you've studied both sides and decided that Leave is the rational choice, a lot of Remain supporters appear incredibly haughty and arrogant.
Well this petition is part of a democratic process as well.
There are a whole lot of different issues at play here, and I think it's more complex than you make out.
First, I agree that a referendum is a referendum – that's pretty much the end of it. Case closed. I suspect that current confusing and objection is rather a lot of people who hadn't previously been that invested have suddenly realised what the decision means, and are trying to figure out how to take the steps that should have been taken in the first place (e.g. a turnout threshold, a vote share threshold, a requirement for all four constitution counties to vote, that sort of thing.) It's too late for that, and it's a total fuck-up on behalf of everyone involved.
I think the complaints about 'social media whining' are a bit unfair. What you're seeing is a whole bunch of people who generally would support the EU, and whose social groups all generally feel the same. They are, understandably, quite annoyed at the outcome, even if they perhaps weren't as well-informed as they should be. I imagine that the majority of them didn't vote 'Remain' to 'prove a point' or anything like that, so much as they didn't have any particular objection to the EU.
On the flip side… I am sure that there are people like yourself who have a coherent, informed understanding of the EU and the associated institutions, and who have come to the conclusion that they don't agree the goals or methods of the project. Or maybe others who think that the economic benefits of escaping the single market are worth it. But I do not think that the majority of support for the 'Leave' campaign was aligned with this.
I would feel less annoyed about this outcome if what we had seen in the UK was a rational, informed debate about the future of the European project and if we wanted to be a member of that. I would have felt better if there had been a comprehensive blueprint for an independent UK – like the one that the Scottish government published prior to the independence referendum – that could be argued over. But we didn't have that, and instead got what I think Dimbleby described as 'post-truth politics'. We had people shouting lies at each other about economics and immigration, with research and numbers not really getting a look in. And, more than anything, the outcome seems like a protest vote caused by long-term political disengagement, rather then specifically a genuine anti-EU sentiment.
Contrasting this with the Scottish indyref – after that one, I felt much happier. I was still on the losing side of the argument, but it felt like the arguments has been made and the decision had been taken fairly; even though I didn't agree with the outcome, I didn't feel like it was unfair. I don't have that feeling today.
First, I agree that a referendum is a referendum – that's pretty much the end of it. Case closed. I suspect that current confusing and objection is rather a lot of people who hadn't previously been that invested have suddenly realised what the decision means, and are trying to figure out how to take the steps that should have been taken in the first place (e.g. a turnout threshold, a vote share threshold, a requirement for all four constitution counties to vote, that sort of thing.) It's too late for that, and it's a total fuck-up on behalf of everyone involved.
I think the complaints about 'social media whining' are a bit unfair. What you're seeing is a whole bunch of people who generally would support the EU, and whose social groups all generally feel the same. They are, understandably, quite annoyed at the outcome, even if they perhaps weren't as well-informed as they should be. I imagine that the majority of them didn't vote 'Remain' to 'prove a point' or anything like that, so much as they didn't have any particular objection to the EU.
On the flip side… I am sure that there are people like yourself who have a coherent, informed understanding of the EU and the associated institutions, and who have come to the conclusion that they don't agree the goals or methods of the project. Or maybe others who think that the economic benefits of escaping the single market are worth it. But I do not think that the majority of support for the 'Leave' campaign was aligned with this.
I would feel less annoyed about this outcome if what we had seen in the UK was a rational, informed debate about the future of the European project and if we wanted to be a member of that. I would have felt better if there had been a comprehensive blueprint for an independent UK – like the one that the Scottish government published prior to the independence referendum – that could be argued over. But we didn't have that, and instead got what I think Dimbleby described as 'post-truth politics'. We had people shouting lies at each other about economics and immigration, with research and numbers not really getting a look in. And, more than anything, the outcome seems like a protest vote caused by long-term political disengagement, rather then specifically a genuine anti-EU sentiment.
Contrasting this with the Scottish indyref – after that one, I felt much happier. I was still on the losing side of the argument, but it felt like the arguments has been made and the decision had been taken fairly; even though I didn't agree with the outcome, I didn't feel like it was unfair. I don't have that feeling today.
The Scottish government published a detailed blueprint for an independent Scotland, due to it being the SNP the ruling party in Holyrood which initiated the referendum.
There was no similar blueprint for the UK outside of the EU due to the government being essentially pro-EU, any blueprint wouldn't have been credible and easily accused of bias.
There was no similar blueprint for the UK outside of the EU due to the government being essentially pro-EU, any blueprint wouldn't have been credible and easily accused of bias.
[Update:] Aside from the fact that it's incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to have people vote until you like the result. I suspect this line of thinking is partly why people wanted to leave.