UKC

EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

If you were not happy, second chance, if you are happy, dont bother.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

wont happen.
with such a tight split how many times can we go back and forth. its like losing rock paper scissors and shouting "best out of three" on a global scale. for instance.. what would you be saying if remain had won and brexiteers were signing a similar petition? whether you're in or out, the vote has been cast. gulp.

In reply to elliott92:

Given the amount of untruths being told in the run up to the referendum you could say you were deceived and deserve a second chance?

Get over yourselves, you lost.

In reply to Toerag:
There seem to be a lot of people saying they are thick and didn't really mean it. Does that help?

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

I think the website is over worked as I have not had my email yet?

In reply to MG:


Probably not.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

You really are clutching at straws. In a democracy the result counts for the side that got most votes. You are obviously unaware of this. Can you imagine a general election where there was a stupid petition because Labour supporters didn't like the fact the Conservatives won? You probably can, but thankfully, the majority of people with a brain can't.

In reply to Removed User:

In an election there are multiple parties to vote for and so the vote is split more than 2 ways. Here the facts remain that 35% ish of the country voted out and 65% did not. Why should the 35% dictate to the 65?

In reply to LakesWinter:


It was only 25%. 16 million out of 65 million.

In reply to ablackett:

65 million is the total population, I don't think 3 year olds can vote yet.

In reply to LakesWinter:


but 100% of the population who cared enough to vote did. So the results represent 100% of the population who were interested in the result.

In reply to LakesWinter:


So about 32% voted remain? 68% did not.

In reply to Princess Bobina:


You're 22 years old and you think something good just happened? Bwaaahaaahaaa! Hook, line and sinker!

In reply to LakesWinter:

Because more people voted to leave than voted to stay. It's called a democratic vote and it's how it works in this country. In a dictatorship you don't get that, so the people who voted leave aren't dictating to the rest.

In reply to Removed User:

You might think you understand democracy but in fact it looks as if some reading on how constitutions work might be useful for you. They do not generally allow a simple tiny majority vote to undo the state!

In reply to summo:


Interesting wording but not true as a result, because considerable parts of the *population* who aren't citizens couldn't vote. In some ways that is fine because you have to set some rules on eligibility but look at some examples: my missus, who works in the public sector trying to protect the most vulnerable (British) kids, pays taxes and, besides child benefit for our kids which is universal, has never had any benefits in the UK. She didn't get a vote. My host for the weekend runs a medium sized business that employs a good number of people in an area that is relatively deprived. Her company pays taxes, she pays taxes, their employees pay taxes, but also no vote.
Unsurprisingly many EU British residents, would have been pro remain had they been allowed to vote.

In reply to Removed User:

It's an advisory referendum and so the result could be completely ignored by Parliament as it's not binding, there is a difference. Of course it would be seen as undemocratic to overrule the decision.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

BLIMEY! last night it was on the 300 thousands and now almost a million!

In reply to AndyC:


Exactly the patronising shit we've become accustomed to from the Remainers.

Seriously, get a grip and live your life, you may find in a few years you're actually better off.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Let's try to get it to 5 million.

In reply to Princess Bobina:


Troll

If not I just have one response to your comment, no insults, no hiding from the result, just a simple truth:

We all lost.

In reply to Princess Bobina:


ROFL. Seriously the funniest thing I've read on here. Hahahaha

Thanks

In reply to Princess Bobina:

We all lost, some people just can't see it yet.

In reply to Princess Bobina:



Thanks - but I'm already better off as a result of the referendum and my life is just fine. It's you that should be worried.

In reply to LakesWinter:


Because the 35% got off their backsides and made their views known. Unless people were prevented from voting, the result should stand. Also, you have no way of knowing how the non-voters would have voted. They may all have been in favour of leaving. Unlikely, but possible.

In reply to AndyC:

Why exactly should I be worried?

In reply to Removed User:

When the NHS is no longer free at point of use will probably be the realisation point

In reply to MG:


What about the thick ones who did really mean it? Plenty of them from Remain who are vociferous on social media right now.

In reply to Weekend Punter:


So a more cost efficient NHS is now a bad thing?

You'll have to do better than that.

In reply to Princess Bobina:


Seriously?

In reply to AndyC:


Yes, go on, enlighten me.

In reply to Weekend Punter:


the NHS has to change, or people pay more tax, or appointment fees. It's current funding model isn't working or sufficient. People will blame it on other things, but lack of money from the taxpayer is the problem.

In reply to Weekend Punter:

I am pretty sure I read an article about how the EU wants to start phasing out the NHS.

In reply to Princess Bobina:



Tell that the people who've already lost their jobs.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

one of the popular google searches is 'what is the EU ?'... AFTER the vote.
maybe 'what is a brain?' would be more appropiate....

In reply to Stu Tyrrell: I don't really understand this. The petition says:

"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum."

Is this a rule that in on the statues (in which case it might be more than just a rule) or is it something the bloke who created the petition has invented?

In reply to Trevers:


UK MEPs?

In reply to Stu Tyrrell: Well if it works and we stall, maybe the EU will buck up and start being logical, they may have no choice as other countries are saying they want a referendum as well.

They (out) won it on lies, lets see now how people vote if given the chance again (hope).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629324

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

It will be 1.5m soon............

In reply to Big Ger:


Are you sure? Given the result.

In reply to summo:


It's ok. Now we've left there's an extra £350m a week to spend on it. Oh, hang on. No, there isn't.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Now at 1,516,144 signatures

In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:


don't think I ever said there was? Either way, the NHS overused or underfunded, take your pick.

In reply to David Barlow:


is that the number of people who only like democracy when they get the answer they want?

Which is course the style of democracy the EU loves.

In reply to summo:


I'm not sure that makes any sense.

Is there a precedent of the EU having something passed it didn't like, starting a petition and having it changed? Or did this just sound good in your head?

In reply to FreshSlate:

elections in Ireland, it basically kept redefining the terms and telling the Irish to vote again, until it got the answer it wanted. Then ceased all elections so they can't change their mind. 2008/9 on the Lisbon treaty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7454333.stm

In reply to summo:

That's a bit rich, or stupid!

Those of us who never wanted a referendum or to leave or for the UK to break up etc etc etc were FORCED to participate in the vote or else to LOSE by default. Do you claim to be intelligent AND accuse us of not liking losing our EU citizenship and possibly the UK because of this madness? Grow up. It's not a willing game of football you know, or even electing a party for 5 years.

In reply to wercat:

The tories had it in their manifesto, so who ever voted for them, voted for a future referendum at some point.

The big negotiation was a big fail, as the EU was too arrogant to change anything meaningful, and Cameron came home with nothing to offer the UK. He followed his election pledge and offered a referendum, his call, not mine or yours.

They lost marginally because of a really dire bitter campaign(it was a lie fest on both sides) and even in the last few days of campaigning, Juncker saying there will be no more future reform etc... France threatening.... people don't usually warm to that kind of sentiment. No it's not football and the EU knew this match was coming years ago, but it did nothing to help nurture the result it wanted. It was arrogant.

Are you suggesting that after being in an organisation that started as something quite different for the UK 41 years ago, it wasn't time for the people to have a say?

In reply to summo:

Not necessarily. But the first step would be to have a referendum dispassionately to see whether enough people wanted to vote on change. For that, any campaigning should not take place as it is procedural. This referendum was forced on us

In reply to wercat:


a vote to decide if there will be an EU vote? What if 51% of the people don't want a vote, but only 49% of population turn out to vote? Should those who didn't vote, have another vote, to cancel the vote to not have a vote.

In reply to summo:

That would be for the constitutional lawyers to decide, but I'd have hoped that a procedural vote would require a lower bar than a substantive motion for major change

In reply to wercat:

There was a referendum, wanted or not, it was pretty well publicised, you'd have to be fairly off grid to have not heard about it. If so many people wanted to remain, that was there chance.

Either way, the saddest thing is that this was probably the most important vote for a generation, lifetime, whatever and 28% of the UK population didn't care enough to spare a few minutes to vote. That apathy and indifference is what will hold the UK back from doing well in the future.

EDIT; In Norway's last vote to not join the EU there was 88.6% turnout, which is more respectable.

In reply to summo:
From what I've heard from my sons there are a lot of really angry youngsters who feel their parents have let them down. One apparently is disgusted about his mother who thought she should remain but switched on the day after hearing a story about a dishonest refugee!

In reply to wercat:
I felt let down when my parents voted to join in 1975.
Still, I got the chance to put things right in 2016.
At least all those years of being forced to belong to an orginisation that I disliked didn't make me bitter and twisted!
Youngsters of today will probably get another chance to vote on this or a similar issue, they just need a little patience - like 40 odd year's worth.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

This is growing. I've signed....

In reply to baron:

It was a vote to remain, not to join.

In reply to The Connor-Crabb:

1.8m now! it will go on and on - until 17m sign......

In reply to LakesWinter:

As I have written elsewhere this could be an argument for compulsory voting, as in Australia for example. And don't forget, Australia is the country which that nice Mr Farage thinks has a very good system for something-or-other, can't quite remember what...

In reply to Weekend Punter:


Except that one side (can't remember which) in the referendum has barely stopped going on about the sovereignty of our parliament over, for example, the European Parliament.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

No interest in listening to all that tripe again. We have hit the self destruct button and that's the way it should stay.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

I've decided I won't be signing any petitions.

I desperately wish we could turn the clock back, make the positive case for the EU and convince people to vote otherwise.

However I think a second referendum could be hugely damaging. You might get the result you want, but at what cost?

There are many disaffected people, angry about how immigration has impacted their communicated, who would vote out again. If the second referendum said Remain, what message would that send to them? I think you'd risk unleashing some hugely destructive feelings.

Our image both in Europe and globally would suffer greatly. In Europe we'd be seen as a problem child, throwing the toys out but then crawling back. Globally we'd be unable to make a decision. Confidence would drop, investment would be withdrawn.

If we had a constitution that defined the conditions under which a referendum outcome was valid, there might be a good case. However for now, I think we're just going to have to work to understand what's happened, and why, and make the best of a bad situation. I think throwing a second referendum could potentially be as damaging as Brexit itself.

In reply to wercat:


that still doesn't account for the 28% who didn't bother. Of those that voted 52% wanted out, I'm afraid you'll have to accepted.

In reply to TobyA:


Yes, a Hungarian friend works for one of the Sheffield universities towards making education more open for people from ethnic minorities and working class backgrounds, despite paying taxes and being 'useful' she didn't get a vote either. She's mentioned wanting 'her' Britain back which is multicultural and welcoming to people whoever they are (not whatever they do/don't contribute though).

In reply to summo:


That was on Thursday. If polls (and petitions) now suggest the electorate have a different view, what wrong with a second poll? Even Hannan seemed a little dubious about the result on the radio this morning.

In any case, it looks like a fudge of some sort will be arranged so we end up roughly where we started

In reply to Trevers:

So would you still take that view if there was such a hit to image but the UK (which took centuries to establish) could survive as an entity?

In reply to wercat:


I might support it if there were assurances (that I could trust) that we would:

a) Take major steps to deal with internal instability and inequality. I'm talking changes as drastic as UBI or similar. Anything other than massive changes would be a massive FU to disaffected communities.

b) Take a serious look at the nature of democracy in our country. For example: ensure that leaders and people with influence are held to account based on their honesty. Reform of the Lords. A referendum (honestly conducted of course) on a PR system (along the lines of Germany). Perhaps a mandatory voting system (with options to abstain or return candidates).

When large numbers people are tactically voting or protest voting then there is a serious problem in our interpretation of democracy. This referendum was not an exercise in accountable democracy by any standards, and for what it's worth I was saying that even before Leave took a lead in the polls.

In reply to MG:


1.5m asking to vote again, isn't the same as 1.5m saying they would vote differently. Either way, they had their chance.


the 1.5m and others would do better to petition to remain in EEA etc.. something highly possible, if the UK does a deal on migration at the same time.

In reply to summo:

It's over two million now

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

I would have loved to have had a camera on the Queen when the result was confirmed. Would she have held back the tears in despair. We may never know.

youtube.com/watch?v=O4WvjfEgv54&

Or would she have reacted like she does when her favourite horse comes in as a winner?

youtube.com/watch?v=xzf94t2Nxf8&

In reply to David Barlow:

Give me a shout when it gets more than 16,141,241( of eligible voters)

In reply to summo:


You didn't address the point. What is wrong with another poll? The problem is that 50%+1 is a ludicrous criterion for something so serious (and I said this before the poll, and before the Scottish one). Major change should require a clear mandate, not a wafer thin one.


Very likely, I agree. But what an ridiculous upheaval to end up in a slightly worse situation than we are now.

In reply to MG:


I believe the polls suggested a different view last time as well. How many will we end up with?

In reply to KevinD:


Two saying the same thing would at least remove concern about a transient mood, and the apparently numerous voters who saw it as a protest possibility. As above, would have prefered one poll with sensible bar though.

In reply to MG:


If we get 52-48 the other way what is the plan though? Should we go for best out of three.


Which would then weight the argument heavily against those wanting change.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Look up 'supermajority'. Countries and other organisations like the UN require that when a vote is likely to have serious,significat, far- reaching consequences, or simply just pass a law (which could have serious...etc.)

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

'UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who has campaigned for the UK to leave the EU throughout his political career, said in May that a narrow win for Remain could cause unstoppable demand for a rerun of the referendum.

He said at the time that a result that saw Remain win by 52% to 48% would mean "unfinished business by a long way". '

So if the vote result was reversed then Farage would have been demanding another referendum.

I voted Remain and have signed the petition. I have little hope of a second referendum but I am hoping that the shear numbers involved will play heavily on the minds of the negotiators, the Conservative leadership candidates and Corbyn.

The response of communities in Wales and Cornwall is staggering where they seem to have only just realised the value of their Grant 1 economic status. Good luck getting that back from Westminster.

Any free trade agreement will involve free movement of labour. The amnesia lifted and they admitted as such on Newsnight last night to Evan Davis's astonishment.

No sour grapes here but I remain shocked and saddened by the divided nation we have become. Our leaders have a huge task to manage the exit and unify a country whilst appeasing the Scots and numerous other interests.

In reply to MG:

The win margin was rather more than +1vote

What + figure do you suggest should be the number of extra votes to meet your criterion?

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.

Nearly 2.5m now

In reply to KevinD:


Perhaps if they had said from the beginning that there would be two votes, one to stay or go and one to ratify that result, allowing those who might have in hindsight on hearing the result, may want to change their mind

In reply to TMM:
Judging by the referendum result the country has been divided for a long time and the referendum simply gave the disaffected the chance to be counted.
I agree that the leaders have a major task to unify the country and I do wonder if they are up to that task.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:


And this is to be retrospective?
Why was this petition not started whilst the rules were being agreed with the electoral commission?

Perhaps we should have a a rule that this petition must have 10% more signatories than the number of people who voted leave.
Seems fair to me.

So 17, 410, 472 +10% signatories , and then the referendum should be overturned.

In reply to Jim C:

I'd say something like 60% of votes, or 50% of the electorate. Enough to remove transient effects. The US constition is along these lines.

In reply to Jim C:

People can sign the petition more than once.

There is nothing to stop signing it on behalf of other people (without their knowledge), your children, or even made up people.

The petition can only gauge public opinion, which is obviously split anyway.

Unfortunately for Remainers, it is split in favour of Brexit, hence the sour grapes.

In reply to MG:

And you put this forward before the vote and no one listened?

Edit, and we should use this to choose our government too of course? ( which is a big decision too)

The best hope is actually that this vote is not binding .

In reply to Princess Bobina:

this isnt "sour grapes", whatever you are!

this is about my country for 60 years so don't talk shite

In reply to Princess Bobina:
this isnt "sour grapes", whatever you are!

this is about my country for 60 years so don't talk shite

to those of you who don't understand why those proposing a major and serious change to a country's laws and governance and the rights of its citizens should need to gain more than a simple majority then you should do some reading on constitutions then you wouldn't be asking such infantile questions

In reply to wercat:

I have deleted the harsh words, as I don't deal in those, they don't help.

However, I take your point on constitutions, where do we read Britain's constitution?

In reply to Jim C:


Yes


Not so momentous, and it only works for binary decisions.

In reply to MG:

They should have listened to you, maybe NEXT time they will.
( remembering up here in Scotland that we are looking like another referendum soon, so there IS still a chance for you to petition the Scottish Government to legislate for a second Scottish referendum with a 60% vote in favour, and with that it could still save a breakup of the U.K.)

Fair comment.
But I do think our current general election system is flawed.

In reply to wercat:



Bump
where do we read up on Britain's constitution?

An excerpt will do if that helps .........

In reply to Trevers:

Surely in such a circumstance then we would be able to go to Brussels and say, look this is what the population are wrestling with and it is not much different with Paris and Le Penn, and the Dutch, so how about we have a Europe wide debate to come to our senses?

In reply to TMM:





Spot on with both of these.

In reply to Jim C:

Hi Jim, you need to find a comparative text as we are new to referenda in the UK and lack the checks and balances that other states have seen to build in to theirs.

I will spend a little time looking for something later

In reply to Princess Bobina:
By the way, what have you got against under 18s signing?

Both our kids (17 and 14) and have and passed it on. Being half German and of the age don't you think it is correct for them to take part by signing?

In reply to summo:


It was started by a Brexit supporter...

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

3 million now

In reply to wercat:



Nothing.

But it wouldn't be representative of the voting population would it? As children currently don't have the right to vote.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

3 Million and climbing, never seen anything like it

In reply to wercat:

It's the first petition on .parliament to exceed 1 million. Whether not it's all that surprising as at least 17 million people are going to be unhappy with the path the uk is taking is another issue.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:


My Email went straight to my Spam folder.

In reply to summo:



Almost sounds like negotiation before entering a contract to me.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

I just noticed that EU citizens resident in the UK are entitled to sign the petition even though they were not given a vote in the referendum. Since it is the only way they have to express their views maybe the petition is not a bad thing.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

You couldn't make it up.....

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_576f8b28e4b0232d331e1b39?edition=uk

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Of course, those rules that could trigger a re-run could also have been used to invalidate every election since 1945, The 1975 EEC referendum, and the recent London mayoral election. What has just happened was actually the most democratically made choice that's ever occurred in Britain.

Academic in any case, as it was taken in by a hoax:

http://heatst.com/politics/exclusive-brexit-2nd-referendum-petition-a-4-cha...

Zing!

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

3.961m NOW and counting......

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Gosh, is that all.
I've put my name down 15 times already!
Well, not my real name, obviously ..................

In reply to baron:

if you are telling the truth you're a fraud.

if you are lying you are a fraud

In reply to wercat:
O.K. I'm lying.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

I don't like the result but I don't think for one minute we can just re-run it. That makes the whole thing ridiculous and not like the kind of democracy that I want. We should be pushing for a general election.

In reply to stubbed:
Keep their promises, don't think so, how can it be the way to win something so important, on falsehoods. If you were to do this in real life, you would be done by trading standards......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36641390


Past 4m now.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

This is sulking worse than Cristiano Ronaldo.

In reply to Princess Bobina:

you can expect it to get a great deal worse when the actual hurt begins you priceless princess

In reply to wercat:

What hurt big man?

In reply to Princess Bobina:

What are you, and what is your motivation here? An experiment?

In reply to Princess Bobina:
When we see an end to low-skilled migration and 350m for the NHS every week, we'll stop sulking. I find it bizarre that it's perfectly legal to outright lie to people to manipulate a change of this order. If this is what democracy means (it isn't, by the way, referendums are not how we run this country, we have parliamentary representative democracy and that seems to suffice the rest of the time), then it's a massive bag of shite.

As for the second vote, we don't need one. The will of the papers, sorry, the people is a shite policy that can't be implemented (like pretty much everything people would vote for if you gave them a referendum on each policy, because it's impossible to work through the implications unless you have the skills and resources to do so). It means the break-up of the UK and the car-crash of the economy, and no government will go anywhere near it. Have you seen Boris and Gove's enthusiasm for invoking Article 50? "Err, hang on, can we, you know, talk about it first? Please? Please, I'm begging you, let's talk. I was angry when I said that. We had something special, let's not throw it all away."

What you're going to get could easily be nothing, or just a slightly worse situation than now, with the UK in the common market but not the EU: no greater immigration control, and no say over the regulations of the common market, and certainly no magic 350 million.

We don't need a second vote. We just need to watch this sorry episode pan out and achieve absolutely nothing except a bit of short-term financial loss, humiliation for the UK on the global stage, deepening division in society as it's really impressed on those who right now think that they've somehow got one over "the establishment" that what they think *really* doesn't matter, a few more racist attacks...

In reply to Jon Stewart: You forgot to say Osborne will now get his new budget! its all part of the plan....

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'd still like a full technical description and analysis of the modus operandi of the entity that calls itself Princess Bobina...

In reply to wercat:

Maybe it's in the constitution you're going to tell us all about?

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Why would we want to be part of an institution that is becoming more and more imperialistic. Believe me if we stayed the pound would be gone in 3 years, there would be a treasury in Brussels, we would be paying euro tax, and let's not forget the eu army which has already been pushed in the eu parliament in the last few days. It will not end until the only identity is a eu one not a multicultural europe one I mean a flat eu forced one all wrapped up in the United States of europe. Open your eyes and ears they are saying it openly in Brussels it's no secret

In reply to Jon Stewart:

NOT invoking A50 is the main plank of our negotiation, the EU mistakingly revealed they were in a hurry for a deal and our exit, then realised that they had handed us a good card ( delay)
Merkel had tried to back pedal , and repair that one, but the genie is out the bottle.
Any quick deal now, will be a good deal for the UK.

In reply to FionaLong92:

Is this what people who voted on grounds of sovereignty believe? Just asking!