Why did the UK say no to Brexit redo?

The British government has issued a formal 'Nay' to 4 million petitioners hoping for a Brexit referendum redo.

Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA via AP
'Remain' supporters demonstrate in Parliament Square, London, to show their support for the European Union in the wake of the referendum decision for Britain to leave the EU, known as 'Brexit,' last Saturday. Demonstrators wearing EU flags as capes and with homemade banners saying 'Bremain' and 'We Love EU' gathered on the streets for the March for Europe rally. At rear right is the Elizabeth Tower containing Big Ben.

The British government has formally rejected a petition, signed by more than four million Britons, requesting a redo vote on the referendum that resulted in Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.

Approximately 33.5 million people voted in the referendum, with “leave” winning the day with 52 percent of the vote, just weeks ago. At least 1.2 million of those who voted leave, however, regret their vote according to research by Opinum.

“I wish we had the opportunity to vote again,” Mandy Suthi, a Leave voter, told the Independent.

By denying this petition, is the British government denying its people their democratic right to be heard?

Not by a long shot, says the government, which noted in its official response that the referendum vote was an unprecedented opportunity for the British people to let their voices be heard, and that the government intends to respect it.

Any petition that is signed by at least 100,000 people will be considered by Parliament, meaning that those who wanted a revote did indeed have their say.

Yet “one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history” is not so easily forgotten, said the government in response.

“The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected,” wrote the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in response to the petition. “We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.”

So what to do with the many Leave voters who now regret their decision? Some say they simply wanted to make a point and never expected Britain to actually leave the EU. Others say that they were misled by promises made by Leave leaders like Nigel Farage. One claim in particular, that Britain would be able to devote more funds to the National Health Service if the country left the EU, has been debunked since the referendum vote.

Ironically, the petition to revote on the referendum was started even before the initial votes were tallied, by a Leave supporter who was concerned that Remain voters would prevail.

The petition stated that there should be another vote if the winning side won by less than 60 percent (Leave won by 52) and turnout was less than 75 percent of the voting populace.

“Bregretters” have been discussing a revote since shortly after the referendum votes were tallied, though there is some controversy over how many of the petition’s signatures are genuine.

Just days after the referendum vote, the House of Commons petition committee had already determined that at least 77,000 of the petition’s signatures were fake. And despite the fact that only British citizens should have had the ability to sign the petition, officials noted that signatures came from around the world, leaving the petition’s integrity in question.

39,000 Vatican City citizens appeared to have signed the petition at one point, for example, according to the Guardian. The population of the Vatican is about 800.

And so, despite protests in London last Saturday, and strong support for the “Remain” camp among young people, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, it appears that the British government will respect the democratic exercise that was the referendum, however long it may take to implement.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.