Revoke Article 50 petition 2

[MrPan]

Finished the last thread, here's a replacement...

4,848,197
The average number of those signing is 468 per minute.

2019? The decider?

And what would you do with any of these scenarios?

Leave win again, but with a much smaller majority than last time?

Remain wins, but with a smaller majority than the Leave win in 2016?

Leave win again, but Scotland, Ireland and Wales all vote Remain?

Leave win again, but Northern Ireland are 80% Remain?

Corbyn's not so wise visit to Morecambe makes sense now, if you look at the bottom of the table of constituencies.

Brexit is a Labour issue. Most of the constituencies with under 3% of the electorate signing are Labour.

A referendum can be set up to be legally binding (the Indyref was).

The. EU. Referendum. Was. Not.

Unfortunately, that is why the illegal activity in it, which, it had been a legally binding referendum, would have made it null and void , worked is "OK"

I know most people on this thread understand that, but there appear to be a few people for whom this needs to be spelt out not that they'll listen

Ireland Northern Ireland

prettybird
You live in a city where almost half of the voters couldn't even be bothered to vote in the EU referendum - probably the worst turn-out anywhere in the UK.

Just emailed Teresa. Kept it light and breezy but told her that's enough now and won't someone think of the children.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there clavinova How people voted, or if they voted at all, isn't anything to do with Prettybird Unless you think prettybird paid them to stay in bed that day.

It is also the city which voted Yes to leaving the UK

There were (and are) some who thought that a Leave vote would help the Indy campaign, although they wouldn't actively vote Leave. They also assumed (rightly ) that it didn't matter what Scotland voted as England would decide whether we stayed in or out of the UK.

I know personally voters who won't sign the petition because they see it as the best chance to get independence more quickly. I respect that, even though I personally am not prepared to achieve our independence more quickly on the back of major economic damage which will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable more quickly.

We need to revoke and then review.

We need a public inquiry into this whole mess.
We need to look at why people voted to leave - many leaver voters make it clear this was due to a sense of abandonment.
We need to review the electoral system that disenfranchises people.
We need to look at our constitution and make serious changes.

And then we need to take a serious look at our relationship with the EU. Not in a shouty jingoistic way but in a serious People's Parliament, long term injury way.

Unfortunately, a lot of this is boring and technical and people won't see or understand the need for it. It will be dismissed as irrelevant.

Inquiry not injury

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there

prettybird is always saying how proud she is of the outcome in her city - turns out half of them stayed away.

I am still proud of the outcome in my city which voted even more strongly Remain than it voted Yes.

Clavinova's sly digs are not going to change that

But as I've explained: I can understand why some people chose not to vote. They (rightly, as it turned out ) thought either or both that it didn't matter what they voted as England would decide the result and that that would help the cause of Scottish Independence.

Yeah that's a bit rich tbh prettybird

The signing rate is going up again.

Need to get to 5 million!

But he or she has done me (and Independence ) a favour because he or she gave me the opportunity to point out why some Scots were disengaged

I've always thought that in major independence type votes a simple majority is not enough. Hopefully any future votes in Scotland (Catalonia etc) will learn from Brexit. A 55% 0r 60% out vote needed with a second referendum at the point of no return once the details have been negotiated seems sensible. That sort of thing should have been agreed before anything happened.

Mysterian most countries with written constitutions do require a vote in excess of a simple majority for major changes.

It is ludicrous that this was not in the referendum legislation.

But he or she
She.

The 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum was 'won' with 52%, but failed to secure the necessary 40% of the electorate.

I would have no issue with a threshold for a future Scottish Independence Referendum of, say, 60%, precisely because of the division such referendums cause.

Most countries which are used to having referendums have thresholds for constitutional change.

But it must not be a percentage of those on the electorate as that can then be gamed to reduce the legitimacy of the vote (as it was in 1979 ) by those that say, "Not voting = a No Vote/a vote against"

Ironically , in 1979 I was happy that my own vote "counted" as a No vote - as I couldn't vote because it was a few weeks before my birthday but I was already on the electoral register (so was able to vote in the GE that followed shortly afterwards ). Supposedly, the powers-that-be took into account those that weren't actually active on the register on the day (ie too young like me or had died) - but that had to be taken on trust .

Just goes to goes to show that people can change their mind!

When NI held the GFA referendum there had to be a %majority. I think the reason that one was not stipulated in this one is because the EU referendum is not legally binding. It was a tool to help the Conservatives win power in the GE.

It's so ludicrous.

Gonna hit 5m very soon!