A brexit petition worth signing

[jimborae]

You couldn't have had a referendum with a lot of specifics, that would have essentially reversed the position and put the cart before the horse, that is, question one, do we want to remain in the EU, question two, if not, how do we moved forward. Requiring details in a referendum means asking and resolving the second question before the first one.

Regardless of whether any given individual or group wanted Brexit, I'm still surprised how many simply don't understand that it boils down to those two questions, one of which is resolved, the other of which will be decided now and forever on into the future.

It's basically a decision to move house. The question was, do we want to remain in the current neighbourhood? The majority of the household voted to leave the neighbourhood, so now the question is, where do we move to (and how much money etc. do we pay the neighbourhood housing community when we leave). This has to be seen as an opportunity by anyone and everyone in the household, because it's the only way to make this work. And it could work, rather well. But it stands a better chance if there's pragmatism and a positive mindset, rather than denial and stubbornness.

Your first point is not relevant to my post, I am referring to the point whether the vote counts or not and arguing from the legal perspective you can easily argue that it does not.

However of course you can have a legally binding referendum without lots of specifics. All it requires is that the act states it's legal binding .i.e."A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so." Nothing says it has to have a load of specifics. I only mentioned 2, who says you have to have resolved all the questions?

[jimborae]

Throwing out a system of government because as soon as you choose what rules you're going to follow and what rules you're not for the sake of convenience / political views (no matter how sincerely held) you're throwing out the law. We are a nation of laws. We are a nation that exists under law. There is no mechanism in place to "ask" Parliament to undo a law that has been passed. Parliament were already asked and enshrined us leaving into law. The process to repeal a law can not come from a public online petition. The Agenda is set by the government of the day. Hence why a petition like this will simply be rebuffed and ineffective. If people want to be effective in this they have to look deeper into our constitutional processes and see how they can be utilised.

This thread will hopefully be locked as you seem to suggest to prevent more emotional people getting too upset and banned.

Ultimately I believe you are correct. There are mechanisms for repealing laws though and ultimately voting in new gov. that has a large enough majority to do so. But to that that you probably need a very large number of seats winning said General Election. So that's a big ask!

I too would like to see all threads regarding Brexit removed. Emotions, including may own and even others who should know better, get too high. Personally I think Hexus should be like pub discussion rules, no religion or politics.

[Saracen]

....

Then there could be no arguments from either side .........except.........then it would have had to been declared an invalid result under election law/rules due to the illegal over spending by the leave campaign. So we would have had to have had another vote anyway ....

First, not necessarily.

Second, the government spent a small fortune sending Remain propoganda to every home in the country and threw the full force of government behind it. And lost.

And presumably that would be the same "illegal" overspending that was actually an accounting mistake in how funding was dealt with, based on advice from the electoral commission, about which the High Court said the Electoral Commission "misinterpreted the definition of 'referendum expenses'" in advice given to Vote Leave, and there was "no rational basis" for the watchdog's actions, which the High Court judge described a "recipe for abuse" of the law.

This is not just my opinion. Ardent Remain campaigner Lord Adonis said of this whole farce, "It sounds to me as if the Electoral Commission has not been doing its job properly. On the face of it, it seems to have been extremely incompetent".

So the "illegal spending" you think invaludates the vote of 30m people is because one side :-

a) sought advice from the responsible body, the Electoral Commission,
b) said commission, according to the High Court, got the law wrong,
c) Vote Leave acted as it did because of said advice,
d) Electoral Commission then changed it's mind,
e) got it's ass publucly kicked by the High Court.

And that invalidates a two-year (-ish) campaign period, and a £100m national referendum?

God, you Remainers are sore losers.

[Galant]

Your first point is not relevant to my post, I am referring to the point whether the vote counts or not and arguing from the legal perspective you can easily argue that it does not.

However of course you can have a legally binding referendum without lots of specifics. All it requires is that the act states it's legal binding .i.e."A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so." Nothing says it has to have a load of specifics. I only mentioned 2, who says you have to have resolved all the questions?

All the talk of this referendum not being legal or binding is, in my opinion, just sour grapes. Were the majority flipped I believe the majority of people peddling this idea wouldn't have cared and called for a second referendum on principle. While there is a technical argument to be made about the referendum being 'advisory' or not, the reality is that everyone knew exactly what the terms were going into it. There were a few voices, apparently, suggesting a more specific question, but they were a very small minority. Everyone else knew that a vote was going to happen the majority side would win the day - one way or another.

Would it have been wiser to add a minimum percentage? Perhaps. It's not 100% cut and dry though. If you require a certain number of the population to vote, or the majority to reach a certain number or percentage, you open up alternate tactics to "win" the vote by invalidating it. And then you have to specify what would happen afterwards. Still, it's ends up going round in circles, and water has passed under the bridge - the vote was as it was, it was straight-forward, simple, clear, and the voters who showed up were many (compared to other votes held for other things). The majority was small, but it was a winning majority.

And that brings me back to my point, the vote is done, the pragmatic thing now is to set about creating a prosperous post-Brexit Britain. Unless someone wants to live in a poverty-stricken Britain...

We have to do the best we have with what we've got.

[jimborae]

......

And that invalidates a two-year (-ish) campaign period, and a £100m national referendum?

God, you Remainers are sore losers.

1. Yes I believe it does
2. Re " your sore losers" jibe, it's unnessesary. No need to resort to name calling and try & ratchet the retoric up a notch.

[kalniel]

God, you Remainers are sore losers.

I mentioned in another thread how one of the problems on the internet is how statements that are directed at other users rather than the idea/point being made risks tribalising the debate, ultimately reducing it's value. I get it must be very frustrating to people on both sides, and this kind of statement could be a way of expressing that frustration, but I think these kind of statements (ie, not singling this out as a sole example) on Hexus could be de-personalised and de-universalised to help keep this a nice place to debate things.

[Gerrard]

I hate everything about Brexit.
I hate the constant moaning and whinging from Remainers (that's how it comes across).
I hate the cliff edge scenario that "hard" Brexiters want to persue despite the short term problems.
I hate politicians saying what they like without any accountability.
I hate the UK because despite this being a cross party issue, there is absolute no cooperation between parties, with the Tories splitting themselves apart and Labour just trying to themselves into power off the back of it, comprimising any chance of any sort of "good deal" whatsoever.
I hate the EU trying to "punish" us from leaving their club to deter others from doing the same, despite the massive warning signs of the far(ish) right parties gaining power in a lot of countries that not everyone is happy with it.

And I generally just hate the human species. We are selfish, lazy, greedy scum. The sooner we destroy ourselves like we deserve, the better...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I hate everything about Brexit.
I hate the constant moaning and whinging from Remainers (that's how it comes across).
I hate the cliff edge scenario that "hard" Brexiters want to persue despite the short term problems.
I hate politicians saying what they like without any accountability with the media helping stir up things even more.
I hate the UK because despite this being a cross party issue, there is absolute no cooperation between parties, with the Tories splitting themselves apart and Labour just trying to themselves into power off the back of it,whilst splitting themselves apart comprimising any chance of any sort of "good deal" whatsoever.
I hate the EU trying to "punish" us from leaving their club to deter others from doing the same, despite the massive warning signs of the far(ish) right parties gaining power in a lot of countries that not everyone is happy with it.

And I generally just hate the human species. We are selfish, lazy, greedy scum. The sooner we destroy ourselves like we deserve, the better...

FTFY,as Labour is imploding as much as the Tories are.

Also agree on everything apart from the last sentence - I would rather we didn't destroy ourselves and still believe if we had decent leadership and a proper vision humanity can do far better. Its just the tribalism is being exploited by those with vested interests.

[wazzickle]

A) the vote was whether to leave the EU or not - not to leave the the customs union, european court of justice, and all the other european institutions of which we're part. the referendum was vague. if it were 'leave the EU and all the associated institutions' maybe it would have had more weight.

B) as has been pointed out, it was non-binding. it could have been binding.

C) between 1) foreign & domestic interference (russian bots, cambridge analytica) 2) overspending by the leave campaign (yes yes leaflets) and 3) a significantly greater volume of outright lies on the behalf of the leave campaign, there is some doubt as to the legitimacy of the vote.

D) when a legal trial has been demonstrated to have been based on faulty evidence, there are grounds of a retrial. this is not illegal. this is the very definition of legal. a rereferendum would not be undemocatric. in this sense, given the bad wording of the original question, the consequent action taken (clearly as a result of political pandering to the new-found popularity of the right after the vote) and the evidence that there was interference in this referendum, there is enough good arguments to suggest a rereferendum should be on the cards, with multiple options: 'no deal', 'chequers', 'customs union', 'full membership / no change'. obviously, having a second referendum, having it go the way remainers would prefer, and then having the matter be closed, could indeed be seen as undemocratic and unfair, so part of the deal needs to be to revisit the issue within a specified time-frame, eg 5 years.

Clearly there should never have been a referendum in the first place. It was a result of power struggles within the conservative party; questions of this magnitude should not be left up to those who don't understand the nature of the issue and are liable to listen to dog-whistles of various kinds. However, given the legitimate argument that there was a significant majority voting, and that there was the highest turnout ever for a vote in these isles, we can't just ignore it. So we must do our best to interpret it in the best possible light (failed) as well as ask the question: 'are you sure you want to delete the entire contents of this hard drive? you can't reverse it. are you double sure? didn't you just want to delete a few folders?'

I highly doubt the above petition will amount to anything, but I signed it, because any form of Brexit seems like pure folly to me, and I don't like the idea of standing idly by while we screw up the future of this country.

[Corky34]

Last time I looked there was zero evidence that CA had had ANY effect on how people voted.

If it had no effect then why did they do it, sure it can't be quantified but to say there's no evidence that it has ANY effect seems a little disingenuous as you appear to be an intelligent guy who would know that, logically, if it had no effect then they wouldn't have done it.

Again, if we invalidate democratic decisions on the basis of such antics, no democratic decision, including general election results, will ever again be acceptable to those that lost.

And yet that's what we do every five years when we get to pass judgment on how the people we elected five years ago lived up to their promises.

But that still misses the point of THIS petition, which is that if it stood, the EU could unikaterally halt Brexit simply by refusing to offer a deal, or at a minimum, one even half-way acceptable.

That i can agree with, although a think most petitions on the government website are nothing more than exercises in futility, you could probably count the times a government petition resulted in action being taken on one hand. IMO it was setup in order to placate people, to make them feel 'something' has been done.

[peterb]

Too many points to quote individually.

Whether the results of a constituency election would be declared invalid under the same circumstances as the overspending by the leave campaign is a moot point - and I suspect the court might take a view on whether it materially affected the outcome. IIRC Peter Hain was accused of breaking electoral rules in an election, but it didn't result in a bye-election.

The referendum we should have had should have been over the Maastricht and/or Lisbon treaties. Both Blair ans Major ducked the issue, presumably because they were not confident of winning it - other EU nations voted against, but in the EU way, they were persuaded to hold another referendum to get 'the right result'.

Cameron didn't expect to lose - and I don't think the leave campaign ever expected to win so both sides were completely unprepared for the result.

But suppose the result had been the other way by the same majority? Would that have stopped the debate? Of course not, it wouldn't have put the issue to bed - it would take something like a 80% majority in either direction to get even close to that.

And if there is another referendum, it may well be that there is a stronger majority in favour of leaving, given a perception of the way the EU has treated the negotiations. And while I accept that it is us that are leaving and the EU don't have to concede a bean, that won't alter a feeling the the EU really isn't our 'friend' and that in the long term, we might be better off without having to support an expensive bureaucracy in Brussels.


Putting on my moderation hat - I won't lock this thread unless it gets out of hand. We tend not to censor discussions here unless it it is necessary (in our and/or the site owner's total discretion) for the long term good of HEXUS and/or its contributors.

If a contributor feels they can't contribute without getting hot on the collar, then take a deep breath - go for a long walk - then return either to the keyboard - or not.

[OilSheikh]

That petition site needs to be closed down. Wastes our MP's time.
And anyone who cares about millions of low-skilled European workers coming here and causing trouble for all, needs to look at the mirror.

[spacein_vader]

That petition site needs to be closed down. Wastes our MP's time.
And anyone who cares about millions of low-skilled European workers coming here and causing trouble for all, needs to look at the mirror.

The infamous Schrödingers immigrant: simultaneously claiming our benefits and stealing our jobs.

[Corky34]

Whether the results of a constituency election would be declared invalid under the same circumstances as the overspending by the leave campaign is a moot point - and I suspect the court might take a view on whether it materially affected the outcome. IIRC Peter Hain was accused of breaking electoral rules in an election, but it didn't result in a bye-election.

The referendum we should have had should have been over the Maastricht and/or Lisbon treaties. Both Blair ans Major ducked the issue, presumably because they were not confident of winning it - other EU nations voted against, but in the EU way, they were persuaded to hold another referendum to get 'the right result'.

It can't legally be consider invalid due to overspending because referendums, in the UK, are advisory. The morality of overspending is another question entirely that ultimately only our politicians can pass judgment on.

The hold another vote until you get the right answer myth comes down to a misunderstanding of how the different democratic systems work, the UK is based on a FPTP system that's designed to create a two party system where the majority can disregard/ignore what the minority want, the EU is based on a proportional representation system that's designed so the likelihood of a single party having more politicians than the other parties combined is very low, because of that if you want to pass legislation you have to convince other parties to support it, if they don't you either have to scrap or re-write it to remove or alter what the other parties object to.

That's what happened in the often cited Ireland and the Lisbon treaty votes, people voted against it, the politicians altered the legislation and/or removed the most objectionable parts, and asked the people to vote of the altered legislation...Rinse and repeat until it either passes or the politicians consider it unworkable.

[Splash]

The infamous Schrödingers immigrant: simultaneously claiming our benefits and stealing our jobs.

But only the European ones, right?

[peterb]

But only the European ones, right?

Well its only EU citizens that have free movement and therefore not subject to control.

But any EU member can grant citizenship to someone, and they then become EU citizens and have the right of free movement.

But migration would have been less of an issue had Tony Blair not waived to transition period for migration from the Eastern European countries (so - IMNSHO - he could enhance his chances of a subsequent job as a Eurocrat when he retired from British politics)