Not happy with the decision?

[SydneyRover]

Petition 1,190,000 +

[glosterred]

Over the last couple of days people have been blaming a certain portion of the country for voting out. Why not blame the 13 million or so eligible voters who could not be arse to get off their fat arses and vote. Those are the ones we should really be having a go at for not being arsed enough to vote in what will probably the most important political decision in their/our life time

[idler]

I wonder how many of these are actually people that voted to leave though?
If a good proportion that voted out felt misrepresented that is different to somebody voting to remain wanting another chance.
To be fair we are lied to by all parties at elections.
750,000 that actually voted out changing their mind three days ago and we would be having the same arguement from the other side.
I think the big loser here after the UK is Merkel's Germany, she has lost her staunchest and most powerful ally.

[Copps is Magic]

If a good proportion that voted out felt misrepresented that is different to somebody voting to remain wanting another chance.

I wanted out in many respects but felt criminally misrepresented by the out-campaign to the point I protested by voting to remain.

[SydneyRover]

Over the last couple of days people have been blaming a certain portion of the country for voting out. Why not blame the 13 million or so eligible voters who could not be arse to get off their fat arses and vote. Those are the ones we should really be having a go at for not being arsed enough to vote in what will probably the most important political decision in their/our life time

That's the same with any vote, if all the people that worked for wages voted for the political parties that should serve them then the conservatives would never get in in the first place. Alf Garnet rings a bell. But what is wrong with this vote is that Britain has let it's young people down by looking inward instead of outwards.

[Filo]

A democratic decision has been made, if you can't accept the result because you lost then maybe North Korea is the place for you

A repost from earlier, there would be hell on if the vote went the other way and petitions were started, we are where we are through the democratic process, good or bad we need to get on with it now and stop crying like babies because yoou haven't got your own way

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo

At midnight in Thursday, Farage was already laying the ground for precisely that. He was ranting about the delay to the voter registration deadline and how it had been undemocratic.

Strange how that argument suddenly vanished overnight.

I'm not in favour of any move to overturn this vote, but spare us the injured sanctimony, eh?

[Filo]

If England lose to Iceland and we don't like the result maybe we could sign a petition to play the game again until the result favours us? #Brexit

Stolen from facebook, but sums thigs up perfectly

[LongbridgeMGRover]

Don't fancy North Korea thanks.
France beckons..........

[Copps is Magic]

The problem with an online petition is that it's a load of crap.

- You can be 16 and sign it, but you're not legally entitled to vote.
- You can be a foreigner in the UK and sign it, but you're not legally entitled to vote.
- You can be outside of the UK and sign it, but you may not be legally entitled to vote.

erm ... 'Foreigners' in the UK were allowed to vote if they were a national of a commonwealth country, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.

Likewise UK nationals living abroad for less than 15 years were entitled to vote.

Rather than 'a load of crap' I think it points to some of the idiosyncrasies of our so called democracy. 16/17 year olds and EU national living in Britain were wrongly disenfranchised in the referendum vote. That they may chose to exercise other democratic rights (such as sign an online petition) is completely their right and part of democracy.

See.. that's the problem with democracy. You give people a say and a vote and they go on expecting a say and vote. Quite opposite to the 'you've had your say now take your medicine' of those who actually think democracy has somehow won.

[Colemans Left Hook]

in this political correct world perhaps if they had announced the result as :- 
the winner as the "leave" party
and the runner up as the "remains"

 then the fact that a democratic vote had taken place might have been easier to swallow for the losers (sorry runners up)

maybe the wrong type of pencil was to blame

best of 3 anyone

[IDM]

The problem with an online petition is that it's a load of crap.

- You can be 16 and sign it, but you're not legally entitled to vote.
- You can be a foreigner in the UK and sign it, but you're not legally entitled to vote.
- You can be outside of the UK and sign it, but you may not be legally entitled to vote.
- You can also sign it twice (under different names/aliases) - completely against the rules of a referendum.

It's all well and good that 'Numpty in the North' voted leave and now wishes she hadn't, but equally 'Softy in the South' might have voted remain and changed her mind since then.

It's swings and roundabouts.

If the remain voters don't like it, it's too late - they knew Thursday was their chance to go out and vote and evidently they're either in the minority or enough of them didn't get off their backsides and vote.

Gathering together on the social taliban to create an 'outraged of UK' petition will have zero effect - regardless of the amount of signatures it receives.

A petition is just a petition, doesn't count as a vote. 

Whether it gets acted on or ignored is another matter - how people voted originally doesn't matter, this is just a petition to reconsider the referendum.

So its not a load of crap, it just is what it is...

As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.

Of course, if that was to have happened it should have been said before.  That or make voting compulsory but offer a "neither/don't care" option to tick.

[del boy]

As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.

Is that a joke, you can't just presume they didn't want to leave because they haven't voted because if they wanted to remain they could have voted that way. They had there chance to vote its their fault if they didn't take the opportunity.
 There are a lot of bad losers in this debate.

[IDM]

As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.

Is that a joke, you can't just presume they didn't want to leave because they haven't voted because if they wanted to remain they could have voted that way. They had there chance to vote its their fault if they didn't take the opportunity.
 There are a lot of bad losers in this debate.

No it is not a joke, and it is not about being a bad loser either.

The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..

But, if you want to stay in the EU that means keeping things as they are, therefore the only people wanting to change are those who voted out.  Therefore if you don't vote, or don't care, the argument is that you don't feel strong enough to want a change...

Maybe it would be fairer of me to suggest that the winning post - for either in or out - should have been set at 50% plus one vote of the whole quantity of entitled voters?

For example if there were 40 million eligible voters, the winning target is 20,000,001 - regardless of whether only 70% ish voted?

What that means is that the winner would have had a clear and definite majority, regardless of any assumptions as to the preferences of the non-voters?

[del boy]

As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.

Is that a joke, you can't just presume they didn't want to leave because they haven't voted because if they wanted to remain they could have voted that way. They had there chance to vote its their fault if they didn't take the opportunity.
 There are a lot of bad losers in this debate.

No it is not a joke, and it is not about being a bad loser either.

The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..

But, if you want to stay in the EU that means keeping things as they are, therefore the only people wanting to change are those who voted out.  Therefore if you don't vote, or don't care, the argument is that you don't feel strong enough to want a change...

Maybe it would be fairer of me to suggest that the winning post - for either in or out - should have been set at 50% plus one vote of the whole quantity of entitled voters?

For example if there were 40 million eligible voters, the winning target is 20,000,001 - regardless of whether only 70% ish voted?

What that means is that the winner would have had a clear and definite majority, regardless of any assumptions as to the preferences of the non-voters?

But there not the rules so accept the result

[IDM]

Where does it say I have not accepted the result?  Show me?

I just had an opinion on how the voting could have been organised, but even if it had then more people may have been compelled to vote to leave, to ensure they won - and may have still done so.

I may well be disappointed with the result, the process and the spin and lies, but there is no choice but to accept the result is there?

[Not Now Kato]

The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..

That's quite correct.  Those that voted Remain count on the Remain side, those who voted Leave count on the Leave side.  Those who chose not to vote clearly don't care whether we're in or we're out and are happy whichever way the result went so in effect they 'count' with the side that won. Though not shown in the official figures the effect is the same.
 
Whilst I'm not happy with the result I have to accept it, that's our current democratic process.
 
A better process would be to operate voting in a similar way Australia does - it's compulsory to vote, (though there arguments which can be put forward that this in itself is undemocratic).  Failure to vote attracts a fine, and while this is an almost negligible amount it does lead to a significantly higher turnout than almost anywhere in the world.  Even then, they don't get a 100% turnout.  Not perfect, but much better than our current system.
 

[IDM]

The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..

That's quite correct.  Those that voted Remain count on the Remain side, those who voted Leave count on the Leave side.  Those who chose not to vote clearly don't care whether we're in or we're out and are happy whichever way the result went so in effect they 'count' with the side that won. Though not shown in the official figures the effect is the same.
 
Whilst I'm not happy with the result I have to accept it, that's our current democratic process.
 
A better process would be to operate voting in a similar way Australia does - it's compulsory to vote, (though there arguments which can be put forward that this in itself is undemocratic).  Failure to vote attracts a fine, and while this is an almost negligible amount it does lead to a significantly higher turnout than almost anywhere in the world.  Even then, they don't get a 100% turnout.  Not perfect, but much better than our current system.
 

I agree.  Make voting compulsory and there is no argument.  But you need to have the "neither/none of the above" option (IMHO)..

My first scenario would only work for a 2-option vote if it was made abundantly clear well in advance that a no-show  meant a default vote for one of the options.  That would force more to vote therefore you get a gruer reflection.

I don't like the result, but I accept it.  What rankles more is the spin and lies, which is why I would argue for the "neither" option for a compulsory vote.

[coventryrover]

I am worried about the influx of immigrants from Costa del.....  They are beyond working age so will have to be supported by the younger generations..  How will our NHS cope??  Very worried.

[IDM]

As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.

Are you on drugs?

who the f**k are you?  On drugs my arse??

It was just a thought, that this vote was so important that EVERYONE's vote had to happen.  I said earlier in this thread (if you read on), on reflection, that maybe the winning post vote count should be half the total number of ELIGIBLE voters plus one.  Therefore to win with 40,000,000 eligible voters you need to get 20,000,001 votes, regardless of the actual voting turnout.  In this case, neither option got 50% (plus 1 vote) of the total electorate.

If you look at it that way, does that not make more sense?  So that an absolute majority of the electorate has to favour in or out, therefore including the non-voters but not assuming what their non-vote means?

[IDM]

You obviously believe in democracy - until the result goes against you, then you want a referendum to protest against the result of a referendum.

Stop telling folks what you THINK they believe, when you have no idea.

Read my post again - I have admitted on reflection that my thought on non-voters being counted as remain was wrong, then I offered an alternative that does take into account all the electorate but which doesn't make any assumption as to their preferences, yet you choose to ignore that in your post, but continued to argue against an opinion that I had already corrected - TWICE!

If you are going to respond, at least respond to what I have said last, not something else.

Are you a politician?

[IDM]

You obviously believe in democracy - until the result goes against you, then you want a referendum to protest against the result of a referendum.

Stop telling folks what you THINK they believe, when you have no idea.

You don't believe in democracy?

Yes I do, but I have the right (as does anyone else) to question processes etc.

Do you think it would be better to have the winning post set at half the total electorate plus one, thereby guaranteeing an absolute majority - especially in such an important one-off vote???

[IDM]

But surely a first past the post system that doesn't achieve a result is fairer - idealistic maybe, but fairer?

In this scenario it doesn't need a 100% turnout - If you get a 75% turnout and 2/3rds of them vote one way, that's 50% of the total.  So as I said, it doesn't matter what the turnout actually is, as long as the winning target is hit.

It is not that unusual to set an absolute majority - how many scenarios require 2/3rds or 3/4s of votes to go one way - in boardrooms and organisations, to "win"?

I am not saying I cannot accept the referendum result, just that the voting system could be better, as it most certainly could be for the general elections too.

[Padge_DRFC]

Can we replay the Crewe game until we get a result that suits us but not others?

[redwine]

As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.

Are you on drugs?

Why? Do you want to buy some ?

 

[wing commander]

Words fail me with some people...Shall we have a best out of 3? Or if you don't win that,maybe you want to change the rules again...The countrys spoken,its time to get on with it and make it work...Everybody had there chance...

[IDM]

Can we replay the Crewe game until we get a result that suits us but not others?

Er, I was debating a more equitable voting system, in the off-topic section.  Nowt to do with football.

And whilst I think the voting system isn't perfect, I wasn't questioning the result - under the system we used in thursday the leave vote won, simples.

[Glyn_Wigley]

You obviously believe in democracy - until the result goes against you, then you want a referendum to protest against the result of a referendum.

Stop telling folks what you THINK they believe, when you have no idea.

You don't believe in democracy?

Don't you just love the way Rigo only quotes the first half of the line he wrote?

[Colemans Left Hook]

Not happy with the decision, sign the petition to have it debated in parliament

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

has anyone realised yet that this is an own goal petition ?

the actual words are "We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum"

if the above was enacted in law  then accordingly in order to rejoin the vote to rejoin must be more than 60%

very few laws are retrospective

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06454/SN06454.pdf


the pleader of the petition must feel just like the Northern Ireland center half when he also scored an own goal

quote from the link


1 What is retrospective legislation?

Retrospective legislation is generally defined as legislation which ‘takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past’.

1 According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, retrospective (or retroactive) legislation is:

 Legislation that operates on matters taking place before its enactment, e.g. by penalizing conduct that was lawful when it occurred.  There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.

2 Under its entry for ‘retrospective’ Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases outlines the principle:  … ‘nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non prœteritis’, that is unless there be clear words to the contrary statutes ‘do not apply to a past, but to a future, state or circumstance’.

3 The previous Government’s position on introducing retrospective legislation was set out by Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, in answer to a question from Jonathan Sayeed:   

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the introduction of retrospective legislation.

  The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply. The Government's policy before introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998.4



this petition  would make it harder to come back in 60% vote needed !!! so effectively it's a STAY OUT PETITION

[Glyn_Wigley]

Not happy with the decision, sign the petition to have it debated in parliament

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

has anyone realised yet that this is an own goal petition ?

the actual words are "We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum"

if the above was enacted in law  then accordingly in order to rejoin the vote to rejoin must be more than 60%

very few laws are retrospective

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06454/SN06454.pdf


the pleader of the petition must feel just like the Northern Ireland center half when he also scored an own goal

quote from the link


1 What is retrospective legislation?

Retrospective legislation is generally defined as legislation which ‘takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past’.

1 According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, retrospective (or retroactive) legislation is:

 Legislation that operates on matters taking place before its enactment, e.g. by penalizing conduct that was lawful when it occurred.  There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.

2 Under its entry for ‘retrospective’ Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases outlines the principle:  … ‘nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non prœteritis’, that is unless there be clear words to the contrary statutes ‘do not apply to a past, but to a future, state or circumstance’.

3 The previous Government’s position on introducing retrospective legislation was set out by Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, in answer to a question from Jonathan Sayeed:   

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the introduction of retrospective legislation.

  The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply. The Government's policy before introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998.4



this petition  would make it harder to come back in 60% vote needed !!! so effectively it's a STAY OUT PETITION

You're making the massive, massive assumption we'd need to hold another referendum to go into Europe again. We didn't in 1973 and we still don't need to have one...