2.2 milion (so far) sign petition calling for 2nd EU referendum.

Maddermanblue1

Crashy_Time wrote: »

No, that is saying you are legally obliged to pay the taxes that support the infrastructure you benefit from. People don`t bother sending back census forms and registering to vote, nothing happens to them for the most part? People forced to vote would just spoil the ballot anyway.

Thats what I mean, you are legally obliged to pay taxes then you should be legally obliged to vote.
Spoiling a vote, thats their choice we would'nt be able to tell who spoiled the vote as it is anonymous anyway, but at least they voted as you are more likely to vote rather than spoil it as your there anyway.

globalds

So a referendum until you get the result you want ...haha

Why didn't you just get only one box on the last voting slip ?.. That would have got remainers the choice they wanted...

Is there an online petition for allowing the losing team in the |Euro's to replay the game if they don't lose 10 - 0

everyone knew the rules ..Winner is the side with the most votes ..It is a simple as that ..get over yourselves and move on

the_flying_pig

I don't think this is a great petition, and I say that as someone who was gutted by the result and who thinks it's an abysmal outcome for the country, a last deeply misguided 'fvck you' from the accursed baby boomers that will end up being in no one's interests, theirs included. The aspect of the vote that is being criticised is a rule that was agreed in advance, i.e. winner takes all, no matter what the majority or turnout. That was imo an abysmally bad rule to have for a decision of this magnitude, but challenging it *after* the vote seems highly problematic. I'd say similiar things about not letting 16-17 year olds to vote - absolutely crazy, but again hard to challenge after the event.

To my mind the most promising grounds for challenge would be that central planks of the exit campaign were, objectively, falsehoods, not spin but rather outright !!!!!!!!; and that the exit side weren't honest about their lack of anything resembling a plan, even very broad-brush principles of a plan. Voters needed, to know these things. But it's quite complicated since this wasn't like a general election with a written manifesto and an accountable party leader - it was rather a loose gaggle of chancers spewing out any old !!!!!!!! that they thought might win a vote here and there. And of course the vote itself doesn't legally bind anyone.

I still can't get over what hannan was saying on newsnight last night, to be so candid so soon after the vote was astonishing. I thought they might at least go through the motions of promising the world initially and then blaming someone else (someone foreign, obviously) when it turned out not to be possible.

I really, really don't know what'll happen. I'm very moderately hopeful that we'll be able to retain some of the benefits of membership, by whatever means. Overall we're sure to end up, at best, a little worse off, the remaining members simply have to make sure this happens otherwise other countries will follow suit, it'd be suicide to give us anything other than a raw deal, even to the point of (in a static sense, i.e. ignoring the deterrent effect on other would-be exiteers) cutting off noses to spite faces.

Interesting times, as they say. I can't begin to imagine where we'll come out.

Thrugelmir

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What rules? Link please

There isn't.

That's the petition. :eek:

You couldn't make it up. :snow_laug

Crashy_Time

Maddermanblue1 wrote: »

Thats what I mean, you are legally obliged to pay taxes then you should be legally obliged to vote.
Spoiling a vote, thats their choice we would'nt be able to tell who spoiled the vote as it is anonymous anyway, but at least they voted as you are more likely to vote rather than spoil it as your there anyway.

Yes, but the spoiled vote doesn`t count, so they may as well have just abstained as they planned to do anyway?

kinger101

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What rules? Link please

He won't find it coz it don't exist. The rules of Clause 50 state it's a constitutional matter for the individual nations to decide the criteria for exit. In this case, it was the EU Referendum Act 2015.

Maddermanblue1

patman99 wrote: »

According to the rules, if less than 75% of the eligable population voted, then the minimum result for a win should be 60%.

So there is a set of rules in place that in effect, makes the result of the EU referendum non-effective.

How would that work? 60% win for what? remain or leave? How would we decide which vote should get a stronger vote? Can of worms spings to mind.

chewmylegoff

patman99 wrote: »

According to the rules, if less than 75% of the eligable population voted, then the minimum result for a win should be 60%.

So there is a set of rules in place that in effect, makes the result of the EU referendum non-effective.

No, according to the petition you have referenced above, the government should retrospectively change the rules of the referendum to reflect what you say in the quoted post.

The actual 'rules' of the referendum which derive from the act of parliament and underpinning secondary legislation which facilitated it are that it was to be decided by a simple majority and there was no turnout threshold.

Maddermanblue1

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Yes, but the spoiled vote doesn`t count, so they may as well have just abstained as they planned to do anyway?

I didn't say a spoiled vote would count as a vote, I'm saying if your at the voting booth you are more likely to vote properly rather than spoil it as you are there anyway, either way its their choice to spoil it or not - its their right.

ruggedtoast

Good god that petition is going up by 2000 signatures A MINUTE.