For a petition to the UK Government to be looked at before it gets activated, it needs 5 sponsors to sign it.
Although told to forward the e-mail to potential sponsors, I have quoted it here:
I’ve made a petition – will you sign it?
Click this link to sign the petition:https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/154435/sponsors/RvVFWeie2ocwtTzRbZ
Stop the government and opposition infighting and do the logical thing
The one thing the referendum has shown is how split UK citizens are on the subject of the EU. The vast majority of the UK are not racist or xenophobic. We have not voted on a UKIP manifesto nor a Leave or Remain manifesto. The UK is committed to being in the single market.
The text in bold from HM Government on "What happens if we leave?" is the Government's position. Your mandate, as the UK is committed to the single market, should be to seek to join the EFTA and remain in the EEA. No referendum on leaving the EEA, you keep us in it. --- No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to: * follow EU rules over which they have no real say * pay into the EU * accept EU citizens living and working in their country
If the petition gets activated, it will be available at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/154435/—at the time of writing this link said it already had 5 sponsors even though I am the only one with a link to it, therefore do not trust what it reports.
What I Couldn't Fit In The Text Boxes
The one thing the referendum has shown is how split UK citizens are on the subject of the EU.
The vast majority of the UK are not racist or xenophobic. We have not voted on a UKIP manifesto nor a Leave or Remain manifesto.
We are divided on the EU, and you need to start listening to what makes us so divided. It is not immigration, and it is not the EU budget. It might be, but we did not have a referendum on leaving the EEA.
We were told that if we voted to leave the EU we would not be able to stay in the single market without accepting freedom of movement and paying in to the EU budget.
You do not have a mandate to take us out of the single market, to stop paying into the EU budget, nor make any changes to freedom of movement.
You have failed the world from the same arrogance you show the world. The uncertainty you are now causing is because you didn't do your job.
Remain asked Leave what the plan was if we left the EU. It was not Leave that should have told us the plan, it was the Government that should have. And you did, barely.
No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:
- follow EU rules over which they have no real say
- pay into the EU
- accept EU citizens living and working in their country
You should be holding up the only official position to come from HM Government to the electorate, and state categorically that as the UK is committed to the single market you have a mandate to accept the bolded part on leaving the EU in the leaflet during negotiations of leaving.
We have not voted to leave the single market, we have voted to leave the EU.
During your negotiations you should ask if it is possible for you to transpose new EU legislation (and existing EU legislation) so that companies comply with EU law when trading with the EU, and comply with UK law when trading within the UK and other countries. This should not be a sticking point as you told us we would have no real say over the rules, but it would seem half of the electorate do have a problem with the rules coming from the EU so you should at least put that position across.
Some laws will need to apply to the entire UK anyway, such as residents rights and workers rights, because we accept freedom of movement. Switzerland have had a referendum on freedom of movement, we have not. Until we do there should be absolutely no change to freedom of movement rules.
You have told us we will have to follow EU rules without having any real say in them. You should now be coming together in Parliament and debating all the areas of EU rules to form some kind of consensus on each area. If there are some areas where you agree we would like some more control, that can be taken to the negotiations. If the EU says no, however, we have to follow the rules as you said.
We will have to pay into the EU budget. How much we pay is now up for discussion. Whether it is possible to reduce "the amount sent to the EU" and "the rebate" by the same amount, by devolving some areas of funding back to the UK is what should be negotiated. If the EU says no, however, we will still have to pay into the EU, whatever that turns out to be.
VAT and customs duty (tariffs) is obviously going to be where the negotiations are going to be closely watched. You should work on the assumption that remaining a member of the EEA is what you have a mandate for during negotiations. Until you ask the UK how we should move forward, your aim should be to both join the EFTA and the EEA.
You should make it clear to the world that until the UK electorate are asked if we want to remain in the EEA, your working assumption is that a vote to leave the EU is not a vote to leave the EEA. At a later date, after we have left the EU, you can ask the electorate what we actually want instead of "a simple in/out referendum".
If you really wanted a clear mandate, the referendum question should have been "Which of the following organisations do you think the UK should be part of?" A multiple choice question, including the EU, the EEA, the EFTA, and none of the above. You could also have thrown in TTIP.
Such a referendum question will obviously need clear guidance issued well in advance by the government explaining what each organisation does, because even you don't even seem to be able to tell the difference between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. You have no mandate for the UK to unsign the European Convention of Human Rights, just as you have no mandate to unsign the Berne Convention or the Outer Space Treaty.
As has been evidenced, polls get things wrong and petition sites can be subject to abuse. A new way needs to be found to engage with the electorate. Until we reach that point, you have a mandate. Half of the UK did not accept a freeze in becoming more integrated with the EU, and half of the UK did.
By taking us back a bit from the EU by being an EEA member instead, you can apologise to the electorate for the assumptions you have been making about those that voted remain and those that voted leave, and you can also apologise to the world for Westminster Politics causing so much uncertainty.
You have the results of a referendum asking the public a question and you have no idea what the results say. The prudent thing to do is to push for retaining EEA membership. By "being on the outside looking in" you can stop pushing things on other EU countries without knowing what the UK wants. Maybe the public won't like EU regulations where we have little input, maybe we will. This "leap into the dark" could instead just be a tiny step back while everyone works out why the country is so divided.