Essar wrote:For all of you living in Europe who want a second referendum should consider that in England the result was 54% leave and 46% stay a far wider margin than the UK average.
It was 52% leave and 48% stay over all, and that is the important ratio.
A difference of over 1 million votes in favour of leave seems substantial to me and sufficient enough not to require a second referendum.
kevsboredagain wrote:
However, the majority you talk about is also composed of those you voted out of revenge, out of envy of those they consider better off, out of false promises, out of dislike for the current government and in some cases out of racism because they thought it meant we'd no longer have any immigration. Yes you are in the majority that voted Leave but in a fairly small subset than genuine thought the EU is not good for the country based on understanding of the world and economics.
This whole thing was a farce but we all have to live with it now.
+1
+2
Bassman wrote:
An elderly lady i know thought her leave vote would be towards Farrage becoming Prime-minster.
I don't understand why everyone, including media outlets, thinks this petition is for a second referendum. It clearly isn't. It asks for a new rule, not a retroactive one.
paolo wrote:I don't understand why everyone, including media outlets, thinks this petition is for a second referendum. It clearly isn't. It asks for a new rule, not a retroactive one.
It's a bit ambiguous, actually. It asks for the Govt to "implement a rule" which might mean set up a new rule or it might mean enforce an existing rule. However, the Petitions Committee have posted this: The Committee has decided to defer its decision on this petition until the Government Digital Service has done all it can to verify the signatures on the petition. We have already had to remove 77,000 fraudulent signatures. The Committee wishes to make clear that, although it may choose to schedule a debate on this petition in due course, it only has the power to schedule debates in Westminster Hall – the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. Debates in Westminster Hall do not have the power to change the law, and could not trigger a second referendum.
so it looks as though there is currently no such legislation and the petition of some 4 million signatures (minus those that are obviously fraudulent) is indeed for new legislation.
PW in Polemi wrote:It's a bit ambiguous, actually. It asks for the Govt to "implement a rule" which might mean set up a new rule or it might mean enforce an existing rule.
There is no existing rule, so it means a new rule. Which isn't going to happen because in any case the numbers proposed are ridiculous.
I think some of these petitions are a bit silly. All they can do is prompt a debate. I think the subject is going to be debated A LOT whether you make a petition or not and they don't need a petition to inform them that the referendum was advisory.
