Given that the recent referendum was non-binding (parliament doesn't have to go through with it), had a very close 52-48 result, only a 72% voter turnout (meaning that 37% of the electorate wants to leave, 34 to remain, and 28 who didn't vote), parliament's opposition to leaving, and a new petition to redo the referendum/stay in the EU, it seems as though things might not be as they appeared since the referendum occurred. Many UK voters have changed their minds since seeing the GBP plummet. Perhaps it's just grasping at the last remnants of hope, but to me it seems reasonably likely that the UK might still hold out and remain in the end. What do you think of this? Will they remain? Has anyone changed their mind since seeing the immediate results?
Highly unlikely with the current stance of the EU commission. Had they offered concessions a new referendum would have been viable. And sensible. Junckers dictatorship is unwilling to negotiate as such I see little chance. However the ultimate choice is that of the House of Lords. They can reject the referendum results and overall it. Judging it to be in the nations best interest. However that is considered highly unlikely as it would currently be seen as opposing the will of the people. The policy is usually reserved as a brake where the government acts against the interest of the people.
They will do what the people want, if they don't it is highly likely that there will be riots on the streets.
But in a close 52-48 vote with 72% turnout where it appears that many people have changed their mind, wouldn't you say that the people are undecided?
Actually turns out in May farage actually stated in a 52-48% vote he would fully expect a second referendum and consider it unfinished business. I honesty feel that without the EU offering some concession it's unlikely. And I can't see that as they want what the UK has. The banks and motor industry jobs. Cameron has ruled out a second referendum. But again another option would be to negotiate deals and then hold one with the deal firmly on the table for the public to understand. Which is what should have been done this time. Though with the main objection being the un-democratic nature of the EU causing the majority of resentment and their current threats and attitude. It is unlikely that a significant shift will occur. Better or worse the damage appears to be done.
I was thinking along similar lines after reading about the 1975 referendum. They're non-binding because of the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. Given that the results were so divided by region and by demographic(!) there might be scope for a legal challenge before Chapter 50 is invoked. If Scotland can make a case that it is democratically unacceptable to be dragged out of the EU against their wishes, then what about everybody in the nation aged under 60? Look back to 1997 and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, most continental states held a plebiscite vote to endorse the treaty. The French voted against the treaty, and so were asked the same question again in a second plebiscite until they got the correct answer...
The problem is that many "leave" voters are like "wtf i just did?" They can see the turmoil on markets, they can see the pound going downhill. And most important, now they can see that their vote was based on couple of major lies: those £350mil/week are not actually 350mil and won't go to NHS, now they are told that the immigration won't be cutt. And now about the "Leave" campaign... They woke up like "****! We actually won! Now wtf do we have to do?". Some nostalgic loonies do think that eh...we can wait because we have all the cards. Nah...they don't call for art. 50 because they have absolutely no cards on their hands and most important, they don't have the people with expertise to do such negotiations. Who can do it? Bojo? To quote John Oliver, that man have the look and the economic insight of BamBam from Flinstones.
It was clear there was no plan by the leave campaign, just false figures. There is no plan for leaving the eu, all there is, is "hope everything turns out ok". Frankly, I don't want my future based on "hoping things turn out ok". I want a secure, planned government.
Like the ones who fiddle figures to suit their needs? http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5 ... e+Treasury’s+Brexit+Reports.pdf
It turns out that there is in fact a petition to hold a second referendum that has over 2m signatures, meaning that Parliament will consider it for debate. It's not over until it's over.
It would need a change in legislation to hold a second referendum, why would any government do that? The petition was started before the vote. Maybe if 17.5million signed the petition they would have a chance.
The petition has no merit legally. It is based on factors that demand certain % vote and in which amounts. No criteria were set for this referendum on the winning % not the turn out. As such the petition calls for articles to be adhered to after the fact. As such it holds no legal value. If you wish to start a valid petition. Do so. But the current one cannot be enforced in English law. That has already been stated. Signing it is a total waste of time.