We want the government to explain why there was no threshold in the Referendum
TU strike ballots and countries voting on constitutional matters set a 2/3 majority for change. It’s inconceivable this didn’t have one. Was it because it was advisory, a purely consultative exercise not binding on this or any other government or was it just a careless,omission?
***THIS PETITION HAS NOW CLOSED***
To see the government’s full response, please follow the link below:
“It was agreed that the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union would not have a threshold, but would be a simple majority vote. Both Houses of Parliament passed the EU Referendum Act, which approved this decision, with large majorities and cross-party support.” >>> More Details
There is one simple difference between the referendum to leave the EU in 2016 and the vote to join in 1975 that is often overlooked, but is perhaps the most important moral issue of all.
41 years ago there were no tangible losses for the losing side in the sense that there are for millions of people right now.
41 years is a long time during which millions of people used the increasing freedom that EU membership gave them to establish new lives and businesses on either side of the Channel, as well as the North Sea and Irish Sea. They formed new partnerships, started families, found new customers and friendships.
The losers include over 5 million people who have led their lives on the basis of being European, and now face the prospect of losing the right to live in their homes, to keep their jobs and to keep their children in schools, and to stay among friends they have known all their lives.
The losers aren’t just London’s bankers and lawyers, but countless small companies and self-employed people in small towns and villages throughout Kent and all over the UK, who provide a wide range of services to clients on the continent. Without the right to work freely in other EU countries, they are now threatened with anything from a 10-25% loss in turnover for some, to a total collapse of their business model for others, as their home market shrinks from half a billion to 65 million.
The losers also includes millions of Brits who never left the UK, but have benefited from a great variety of rights and standards that the political establishment in the UK was often unwilling to grant- especially in matters of environmental health, such as legislation that prohibits the use of potentially harmful additives in food.
Having so many losers puts the lawfulness of the entire referendum into question. Is it ever really democratic to have a vote about destroying people’s rights and lives?
► Stop the growing disparity between private pensioners (getting richer) and state pensioners (getting poorer).
► Stop the growing disparity between state pensioners (who are seeing their income fall in real terms) and those in work (who could potentially find new ways to compete).
► Don’t use powerless pensioners as an economic buffer to Brexit turmoil.
► As we cut loose from the EU and head back towards a boom-and-bust economy, please consider the true cost of Brexit and introduce this one little stabilizing mechanism.
Please click this link to see the petition and sign it: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/176886
What are the implications of “trade under WTO rules” if the UK leaves the single market?
The parliamentary International Trade Committee has been interviewing subject specialists to provide insights into the legal and political dimensions of trading under WTO rules only.
This session on Parliament TV has particular emphasis on technical issues such as non-tariff barriers to trade agricultural trade, the legality of establishing a new farm subsidy system outside the CAP, and the practical difficulties of extracting the UK share from the EU in the WTO quota system.
PARLIAMENT TV: International Trade Committee – WTO Rules and UK Agriculture (excerpt)