
EU Referendum Rules Triggering a 2nd EU Referendum - ptr
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
======
i_don_t_know
Sorry, but you cannot change the rules after the fact. Even if this did
succeed, it would apply _only_ to future referendums (referenda?). It won't
change what happened on Thursday.

[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.

~~~
Daviey
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.

~~~
alexbilbie
> 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.

~~~
Daviey
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.

------
mtgx
"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_?

~~~
matthewmacleod
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.

------
m-i-l
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-...](http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-backers-urge-
supporters-to-vote-in-pen-because-they-fear-someone-might-rub-out-their-
pencil-a3279386.html)

[1] [https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-
independe...](https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independent-
from-the-uk-and-apply-to-join-the-eu)

~~~
xlm1717
Scotland had its chance, and decided no. London independence is just
transparent elitism and will never happen.

~~~
Daviey
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.

------
skissane
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?

------
piotrjurkiewicz
"You will have to vote until outcome will be pro-EU."

Just like the Ireland few years ago.

------
f055
AFAIK the law shouldn't work backwards, so even if they implement it, this
should not apply to the recent referendum...

~~~
thrkw123456789
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.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
If the economy tanks over the coming months people will be demanding another
vote.

~~~
xlm1717
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.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
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.

------
personjerry
Could someone knowledgeable about British politics provide commentary about
whether this might actually happen?

~~~
thrkw123456789
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.

~~~
streety
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-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-
turing)

A complete list that were debated is at
[https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=debated](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=debated)

------
UKAnon
Some people are always trying to subvert democracy. I guess it is only
democracy if they win.

------
xiphias
AFAIK people need to vote in a prime minister who would trigger Chapter 50.
It's similar to the 2nd EU Referendum.

~~~
pmden
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.

~~~
xiphias
Probably you are right, I don't know too much about the situation, as lots of
important facts are always missing from news reports

------
_ao789
Everybody who is able to sign this, you NEED to sign it.

~~~
timrichard
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.

~~~
matthewmacleod
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.

~~~
biosonar
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.

