EU Petition

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

No Foxy, this is the way the Brexiteers suggested running the referendum if they didn't like the result, and it is the means by which the Remainers and those Brexiteers that realised they were duped are expressing their dissatisfaction with the result.

If the first referendum was an robust statement about the position of the majority of the country, you shouldn't be remotely concerned about a second referendum anyway as surely it would produce the same result. Or are you concerned that if with the benefit of hindsight the country voted again they might reconsider their position?

[????]

Don't bother with Fox - he's our Forum Village Idiot, with none of the charm.

[jaywalker]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From Twitter

>

> Petitions Committee @HoCpetitions

> We have removed about 77,000 signatures which were

> added fraudulently. We will continue to monitor

> for suspicious activity.

> 2:46 PM - 26 Jun 2016

>

> In isolationist North Korea, one of the least

> internet-connected countries in the world, 23,778

> people had apparently gone online to express their

> frustration at the UK?s decision to quit the EU.

>

> This Petetion really is meaningless. Anyone can

> sign it..

>

> Is this the way people want elections to run if

> they do not get the right result. ?

>

> Foxy

that is pretty IT unsavy Foxy. The BBC last night showed an IP-address heat-map of those subscribing to the petition to undo the undemocratic referendum (see my other posts for why it was undemocratic). These mapped the new city-states exactly.

now Foxy you have two choices it seems to me. you can either agree that 95% of these preferences are legitimate (those with suspect IP addresses having been removed) or you must subscribe to the idea that some state-sponsored apparatus (to have the necessary resources) has engineered a false vote through virtual private networks (so disguising the true IP addresses) that precisely matches the distribution of remain votes in the referendum itself (I guess you could also claim that THAT was fraudulent too :-) ). I'm afraid you are being a little ill-informed here.

[WorkingMummy]

No way can this chaos be fixed by further referenda.

Obviously Brexit is a disaster. Article 50 tears up the infrastructure of the largest single market on the planet.

No more simple majority popular votes about such things. Please.

The Swiss had a referendum in 2014 (triggered constitutionally by popular demand, not top down legislation) mandating their government to impose immigration quotas. Has the government of the highly rational, super-stable and most highly devolved political system in the world, owning the worlds top safe-haven currency, followed that mandate from its pissed off populace? No. And that would be because.....it would dismantle Switzerland's treaties with all EU nations.

And this referendum was not even a binding mandate. It was "advisory"!! Joke! Ask advice on a question as huge to the world and as complicated in detail from an electorate who largely (and no doubt on both sides, but, nyahhhh, I'm guessing more on one than the other) has never informed itself upon basic questions such as:

How free trade works.

What the PM does.

What the EU does.

What the Queen does.

Cameron can't bring about the parliamentary rejection of our advice, because he personally called for our advice. Sturgeon can't (although she says she wants to/wishes she could veto it) because she's not PM.

But a new PM and Sturgeon-backed alliance could.

The Queen needs to help DC out and appoint a new PM quick.

A little like she nudged Gordon Brown along his way during (now oh so tiny) crisis of the hung parliament of 2010.

[Blah Blah]

This is why I think the right PM would be the one with the balls to treat it as advisory and go their own way. Kind of sacrificing their own career for the greater good. Has just been reported that Teresa May is gearing up to go for the leadership. I'm not a Tory, but I think we need a sensible voice right now, and suspect she might just be that.

[citylover]

This petition is about as relevant as Charlotte Church stomping down the street with a placard proclaiming 'I'm mad and I'm not going to take it' because the general public didn't vote the way she wanted in the general election. Democracy often means compromise because you can't rely on it to always go your way, a concept difficult for some people to accept apparently.

[DulwichFox]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't bother with Fox - he's our Forum Village

> Idiot, with none of the charm.

yep. True... I used to live at the very top of Dunstans Rd. Op. Dawson Heights.

The Fool on The Hill .. Thats me.

Fox

[jaywalker]

WorkingMummy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No way can this chaos be fixed by further

> referenda.

>

> Obviously Brexit is a disaster. Article 50 tears

> up the infrastructure of the largest single market

> on the planet.

>

> No more simple majority popular votes about such

> things. Please.

>

WorkingMummy we agree about the disaster. But you are wrong about how to resolve the problem. The trouble is that the referendum is perceived by people as being 'democratic'. That is meaningless (see John Dunn 'On Democracy') but it is self-evident to BOTH exit and remain supporters. The only way to undo that self-evidence is another referendum: this time with reality biting. THEN people will realise 1. in their interests to remain 2. not to have undemocratic referendums ever again.

(the reason it is self-evident is that it was 'the vote of the people'. so the premise is that the people were a. well informed, 2. of sufficient unanimity to form a stable will that would persist until implementation of the new policy. The reason it is undemocratic is that 1. the people were not well informed 2. are already changing their minds 3. are not allowed to express whatever their will might be as new information unfolds).

[shaunag]

I wonder if anything can be done regarding the Referendum in the context that the outcome is in Breach of Art.8 of the ECHR (right to a private family life), given the effect it has on EU nationals living in the UK which remains part of the EU.

[WorkingMummy]

Blah blah I was too busy editing my own post to see your far briefer and better round up.

I wonder if it needs to be someone above Westminster politics. The person needs to unite a complete mess. Sturgeon will obviously become hugely influential (as might Khan).

Anyway this cannot be left to be sorted out by a Tory ballot. This is far above party politics.

The Queen can in theory look to House of Lords.

No clue who though.

But it's that or GE (which probably makes national polarisation worse).

[Blah Blah]

You don't honestly think that a 3.8% margin on such a big issue as this was ever going to be the end of the matter do you citylover? The same would be true if the result went the other way. Get real. This country is split down the middle.

[WorkingMummy]

No, shaunag. Way to think outside the box though.

But the referendum is not legally binding. Only advisory.

And article 8 can't be invoked re something which has not yet happened and is not even proposed yet. (EU citizens right to remain would be decided during article 50 exit negotiations.)

And you can't outright strike down direct legislation (such as the Act which enabled the vote) by anything other than a new Act of UK parliament. Neither the domestic Human Rights Act nor the ECHR gives anyone any strike down power over UK legislation.

shaunag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wonder if anything can be done regarding the

> Referendum in the context that the outcome is in

> Breach of Art.8 of the ECHR (right to a private

> family life), given the effect it has on EU

> nationals living in the UK which remains part of

> the EU.

[Blah Blah]

I don't know WMummy. Techncially the Tories are still the government, and the only way to change that is by GE. Only 150,000 party members will decide the new leader, and that I think would be seen as the issue for a lot of people, even though most people aren't Tory voters (back to bending arguments to suit of course).

Personally as a Labour party member, I just want to see a sensible Tory leader right now. I think a snap GE would be a mistake. So for me the question is who would be able to put enacting article 50 on hold, who would bring parliament back to day to day business, and who would stabilise the markets. I think Teresa May would do that, if only as a caretaker PM.

If some of the public are upset by that, then tough. The referendum never gave legal power of the people over government anyway.

[Loz]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only way to undo that self-evidence is another referendum: this time with reality biting. THEN

> people will realise 1. in their interests to remain 2. not to have undemocratic referendums

> ever again.

I kind of agree with this. We need to wait until it is shown what has been negotiated, then put that to the people. In/Out doesn't really cover what could happen. In does, but out could mean out out, or a Norwegian-style deal, or something in between. If freedom of movement is part of the deal (which is more than possible), it could be interesting.

But it would be good if they would announce that was part of the plan. At least, once they have some clue of what the plan is.

[Blah Blah]

I think a lot hinges on who wins the Tory leadership Loz. The government has four or so years left before any GE needs to be called.

[WorkingMummy]

Think we agree on a hell of a lot.

But plebiscites have been exposed for what they are. They produce stable and manageable results in a democracy like Switzerland, which was founded on federalism and a commitment to stay neutral in all European based matters of interest about 300 years. But that is not who we are in these islands.

Call for a referndum next week on capital punishment, corporal punishment, any other firebrand topic if you don't agree.

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> WorkingMummy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > No way can this chaos be fixed by further

> > referenda.

> >

> > Obviously Brexit is a disaster. Article 50

> tears

> > up the infrastructure of the largest single

> market

> > on the planet.

> >

> > No more simple majority popular votes about

> such

> > things. Please.

> >

>

> WorkingMummy we agree about the disaster. But you

> are wrong about how to resolve the problem. The

> trouble is that the referendum is perceived by

> people as being 'democratic'. That is meaningless

> (see John Dunn 'On Democracy') but it is

> self-evident to BOTH exit and remain supporters.

> The only way to undo that self-evidence is another

> referendum: this time with reality biting. THEN

> people will realise 1. in their interests to

> remain 2. not to have undemocratic referendums

> ever again.

>

> (the reason it is self-evident is that it was 'the

> vote of the people'. so the premise is that the

> people were a. well informed, 2. of sufficient

> unanimity to form a stable will that would persist

> until implementation of the new policy. The reason

> it is undemocratic is that 1. the people were not

> well informed 2. are already changing their minds

> 3. are not allowed to express whatever their will

> might be as new information unfolds).

[jaywalker]

WorkingMummy, that is an anti-dialectic fantasy. The only way to confront the stupidity of the self-evidence is to go with it twain (as the prophet had it).

[shaunag]

Well what about a new act of Parliament then? Why not? And make it so that such a globally devastating referendum can never happen again. And failure to educate the public truthfully in any referendum should amount to treason. In fact what has happened surely does amount to treason. What has happened is beyond being irresponsible. However sorry I feel for Cameron, and however brilliant he has otherwise been as a prime minister the pain this has already and will cause to the country and the world is unforgivable. I know I'm possibly being over the top but art 50 cannot be invoked. However much (52% of) the public might not like it, they will like the next 30 years a whole lot less if the trigger is pulled.

[Blah Blah]

Any MP can raise a Members Bill (so worth putting the idea to your MP).

[Jules-and-Boo]

????? - that is just completely out of order.

[WorkingMummy]

Also v happy to confess to the ignorance, of not knowing what the hell that means.

The answer to one game of Russian roulette, during which you drew back your hand as you pulled the trigger, thereby grazing your scalp but saving your life, is not to go in for another bloody round of the same game.

I also think that in this very articulate, open minded, outward facing, broadly very prepared to listen and even alter our positions in response to one another community, there is a grave danger of overestimating the shape, size, and motive of "Regrex". Some people are realising that they were fed a load of oversimplified nonsense as slogans. That does not mean they are ready to vote for everything they just rejected outright.

Anyhow to go back to the same single word I was using when debating Brexiteers one week ago, HOW? Another referendum HOW? For that you would need new legislation. And for that you need a government, and for that you need a Prime Minister. And for that you need HM the Queen to appoint a PM. And for that you (normally) need a general election - (so that the Monarch can follow the constitutional convention of appointing the leader of the party which won the most seats to be "her" PM to form "her government"). But this, this ain't normal

You see, referenda just are not built into the DNA of our constitution. Thank god.

So, as I say, however you cut it, whatever your "answer" is, first thing first, Queenie has to step in. She either appoints a member of parliament of her choice from those currently serving. Or she dissolves Parliament. Those are HER powers.

Or she just lets it drag on to October while the Tory party (with a slender bloody mandate even in 2015 and no bloody mandate now) have an internal election. Like this is party politics as usual.

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> WorkingMummy, that is an anti-dialectic fantasy.

> The only way to confront the stupidity of the

> self-evidence is to go with it twain (as the

> prophet had it).

[WorkingMummy]

Nicely played, Foxy.

Thereby proving ???? wrong - AT THE VERY LEAST - about the lack of charm.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Don't bother with Fox - he's our Forum Village

> > Idiot, with none of the charm.

>

> yep. True... I used to live at the very top of

> Dunstans Rd. Op. Dawson Heights.

>

> The Fool on The Hill .. Thats me.

>

> Fox

[jaywalker]

OK, with the reports I'm hearing about racist attacks, I think we should stand together.

I can elaborate what I said, but perhaps cultivating dissensus (generally a virtue) is not what we should be doing now.

I agree it would be good if HM took action, but I think that very unlikely, and probably in itself something that would provoke a constitutional crisis. HM appoints PMs who then get supply from parliament. If they cannot get supply HM replaces them. But she cannot replace them otherwise under current conventions (where she is only a formal indicator of the likelihood of supply). I think the convention is right - can you imagine HRH Charles with power to take other action here?

The idea of the referendum was a disaster (on this we are both agreed). My reason for this is philosophical: that the idea wrapped up in the referendum was in-itself inconsistent. What the referendum was supposed to show was the will of the people; but this undoes itself just by taking place - as we can now see very clearly. Rightly you want parliamentary representative government rather than perpetual plebiscites. But this is currently supervened by the 'democratic choice' of the referendum. The only way to deal with this is to follow the fundamental message of the sermon on the mount: if they would go with you a mile, go with them twain. If instead you say the referendum was 'democratic' (however misguided) you will have no traction against it. Thus Hegel after Kant: the positing of an antithesis (a counter-referendum) might (well who knows) undo the self-evidence of the first EVEN THOUGH it is itself wrong. We can then move back (the only possibility, however remote) to a more sensible representative government.

[Louisa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36637037

More breaking news. Boris confirms EU co operation will begin immediately.

Louisa.

[WorkingMummy]

JW i agree with your philosophy as you set it out there, 100% thank you for explaining it to me.

It would not be a constitutional crisis for the Queen to step in to perform the function that as head of state is hers to perform.

There is precedent for this kind of thing. It is not a million miles away from telling Brown that he could not continue to serve on after the GE of 2010 threw up a hung parliament and the libs did not at first agree to form a coalition with anyone (as he said he was going to in the first few days).

The power to appoint a PM is hers. The power to dissolve parliament and call a GE is hers. She would normally take that step "on the advice of her ministers". But when there are no ministers, or they are all acting like tools, or where the mandate of a government is dissolving or being misused in some fundamentally unconstitutional way, there is precedent for very carefully managed intervention. (See the 1950 intervention of George VI when the PM of a newly elected hung parliament that wasn't functioning said that he (the PM) would keep calling general elections until people returned an outright majority that someone could actually work with. Private Secretary to George VI wrote to the Times under an obvious pseudonym to remind the PM that he served at the leisure of His Majesty and that Parliament was not his to dissolve, but the King's. This is a rare example of the head of states assertion of prerogative, taught to first year law undergrads up and down the country.)

This is actually her moment to remind people what a constitutional monarchy is for.

Exceptionally difficult though. Way bigger than the crisis of 1950.