Growing momentum for a People’s Vote in Sevenoaks

On Saturday 8th September 2018 SSTIE joined forces with the local Liberal
Democrats group with a focus on collecting signatures for a People’s Vote.
Well over a 100 signatures were obtained in 2 hours and a ballot box on the Final Say gave the following result :

  • 11 people favoured “Hard Brexit / No Deal”
  • 1 person favoured the “Chequers Plan”
  • 82 people favoured “Stay and reform Europe”
  • 2 people opted for “Don’t know / No vote”

Continue reading “Growing momentum for a People’s Vote in Sevenoaks”

Tonbridge wants MPs to have the final say

SSTIE were campaigning on the streets of Tonbridge for the first time on Saturday 9th December. We had 21 volunteers over 4 hours from 10 am to 2 pm, during which time we spoke to hundreds of people and we were pleasantly surprised by how positive the overall response was.

The majority of the people we spoke to think that Brexit is a mess and that it is not what people voted for – no matter how they voted in the referendum.

Continue reading “Tonbridge wants MPs to have the final say”

We are not only the 48%

Many a turning point in history has been decided by a margin smaller than 48%. For instance, the American referendum to use German as their official language (instead of English) was defeated by a narrower margin; and the French referendum to keep the Franc (instead of adopt the Euro) was defeated by a narrower margin. But:- Continue reading “We are not only the 48%”

Undue Influence Legal Challenge (update)

UPDATE 22.6.2017

The Restoring Integrity to Democracy initiative has decided to discontinue this case on financial grounds. For more info please see the statement on the Restoring Integrity facebook page.


Restoring Integrity is a citizens initiative that seeks to ensure that the UK’s Election Laws are upheld – and that any attempt to undermine the democratic process by breaking these election laws is prosecuted to the fullest extent under the law.

They are currently raising funds for their new legal challenge – a private prosecution to investigate “undue influence” in the 2016 EU referendum and to criminally prosecute the individuals responsible of any corrupt campaign practices.

More details on the case are available on the Restoring Integrity website, and you can also follow them on facebook or twitter.

However, to make this case happen, it still requires a lot more funds than the £15,000 raised so far. So please give what you can to the crowd-justice fundraiser and encourage others to do likewise!

Beware of Mandate Creep

Mandate creep is not a word that is used often. Like it’s sibling, Mission Creep,  it means moving the goals of an endeavour beyond its original purpose, or “mission” in military terminology – and “mandate” in politics.

In politics, mandate creep happens when people in positions claim that they have the authority to do things they really don’t, and the behaviour of the May administration since the referendum on Exiting the European Union regrettably is perfect example of this. The reasons for this are as follows:

    1. There is absolutely no consensus as to what “Brexit” really means to the people – and politicians are now using this fact to pursue their own agendas.

      Referendum results with estimates of type of Brexit wanted. “Hard Brexit” refers to option 4 (No Deal), offered prior to the vote. “Soft Brexit” refers to the Norway, Switzerland and Canada options (models 1-3), showing that the majority of voters clearly prefers some kind of a deal. If you dispute the data, please comment below, stating reasons and/or sources to support your comment.
    2. The notion that the majority of voters support a Hard Brexit as is currently being advocated by the May administration has no basis in terms of a mandate derived from the Referendum. The campaign for “LEAVE” had 4 options on the UK’s future relationship with the EU, of which only one involved leaving the EU and single market without any new deal at all – an option which was notably derided as insane by most leading LEAVE campaigners. This means that even by the most optimistic estimates, not even half of the LEAVE voters supported the idea of a Hard Brexit. Given that less than 38% of the electorate supported the LEAVE vote overall, this places support for a Hard Brexit at barely 15%.
    3. For some LEAVE voters, the referendum was clearly little more than a protest vote against the Conservative government, and Camerons’s resignation was met by almost unanimous cheer among leave voters. Yet the conservative party itself has clung on to power, and now claims to have a mandate of speaking for the majority, and a minority within the Conservative Party is now defining Brexit on its own terms that often go against the expressed wishes of many leavers. For example, not all leave voters agree with the notion that ties to Europe should be replaced by closer ties to the USA, let alone authoritarian regimes in the Middle East – or anywhere else. Moreover, millions of health-conscious Brexiteers would object to a trade deal with the USA that requires a lowering of environmental and food safety standards to allow GMO, hormone- and chemically-treated foods onto the UK market, and even the staunchest anti-EU voices among British farmers, would have to conc that the contamination of our domestic food chain would result in an instant block of exports to the EU.
    4. Referendum results with leave vote segregated by political ideology. “Other” primarily refers to protest vote. These are estimates based on anecdotal data prior and since the referendum. If you dispute the data, please comment below, stating reasons and/or sources to support your comment.

      The lack of consensus over what Brexit really means is actually greatest among LEAVE voters. This is expressed in very different visions of Brexit that are totally incompatible with one another. They range from Anarcho-capitalist radicals to Far Right Nationalist and Far Left Utopianist, all of whom are now making competing claims for the mandate to define Brexit according to their extreme positions. The notion that Brexit should mean a choice between such extreme views has no mandate at all, since the silent majority of leave voters clearly a more moderate approach, and while the overall majority of voters prefer the status quo.

 

To sum up, any attempt to define a mandate for “Brexit” by the incumbent conservative government can only represent one vision of Brexit, and thus never have the full backing – and mandate from ALL leave voters.

In fact, there can be no consensus – and thus no true mandate – until the people are given a  vote on the type of Brexit they want – either directly via a new referendum – or indirectly via new elections.

 

For more info or to show your support for this, please see this petition.

NHS Funding Pledge Petition

Pay £350m per week to NHS or re-run EU Referendum

The only slogan on the side of the Leave EU campaign bus stated in large letters that if we left the EU, £350m per week could go to the NHS. The government has now stated that this will not happen so the reason thousands voted for Brexit and the democratic will of the people has been ignored.

Read More at: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171869

Challenging the Referendum Threshold

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

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/164999