Petition calling for 2nd Referendum - and write to your MP

Hold on - Ive just rechecked it and it's now updated. Give me a sec and I'll do an analysis.

In the meantime: 2.4 million for UK out of 2,492,756
{"name":"United Kingdom","code":"GB","signature_count":2401768}

Happy...?

Edit to update using latest JSON.

You don't need a second referendum........because the current government will never enact article 50.

This is just a threat to the EU

Edit to update using latest JSON.

This is very interesting :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660128/Tories-battle-stop-Boris-Five-Tories-fight-Johnson-race-succeed-Cameron-Number-10.html

Ill quote from the Dailymail : 'A Mail on Sunday poll showed seven per cent of those who voted Leave, equal to more than one million people, now regret having done so. Four per cent of Remain voters also regretted their decision'

Which implies that the result if those who regretted their vote switch sides would be 51-49 for remain, which could easily be in the margin of error for leave and also doesn't even consider post referendum doubts of remaining, that usually occur more pervasively when the status-quo wins.

Number of voters from Vatican City - 4541
Population of Vatican City - ~451

Um?

Is there any check on the petition (e.g. entering passport no.), or is it something anyone with an email can sign?

Anyone, that's why it's meaningless lol

So anyone (not just a British person) who disagrees with the result can potentially make multiple email accounts and "sign" it.. lmao

So anyone (not just a British person) who disagrees with the result can potentially make multiple email accounts and "sign" it.. lmao

Yep, and lots of kids too. You just put a valid postcode in. There's probably around 600,000 genuine signatures.

More interviews on news sites in from around the country on why people voted Leave.

In Sheffield, the BBC interviewed numerous working class people, for example, market traders. The consensus was that they hadn't expected a Leave vote to actually mean leave would happen.

Ebbw Vale voted Leave (despite having the biggest EU regional aid in the country) mainly (according to the Guardian this morning) because "we don't like the government". As in many other working class areas, the vote was wrongly seen as a referendum on Cameron and Osborne. The people in these areas who voted Leave are going to find out soon that the alternatives are much, much worse.

In parts of the Home Counties, according to reports on Radio 4 yesterday, voters thought we were under direct rule from Brussels. "We got rid of the Germans controlling our taxes", was one comment. Voters in many areas with no immigrant presence said that immigration was their chief concern. UKIP has clearly officialised racism and made it broadly acceptable, especially in traditional Tory and rural areas.

Some Leave voters in Manchester, according to the Manchester Evening News, did not in some cases realise we were voting to leave Europe, they thought the vote was something to do with the football according to one report.

Democracy is not a mouldable lump of clay that suits individual preferences; one cannot refute a democratic mandate, just as one cannot refute a test confirming HIV. Democratic mandates should be as immovable as mountains, else people’s cries become the sways of grass in a gale.

Do not hate me, but I really question whether for this referendum our current method of "democracy" was effective, or in fact appropriate. I have a few issues with it:

1) For such a long term decision, that will affect future generations and lives, not just a 4/5 yr period. How fair is it that a 92 yr old vote has the same weight as a 21 yr olds vote? The 21 yr old will live longer with the decision, it was significantly affect their prospects, their opportunities etc. Whilst, lets be honest, the 92yr old very likely doesn't have that long to live, and the vote will have little impact on their lives.
I am not saying they shouldn't vote, but how can theirs possibly be equal to a 21 yr olds?

2) Informed decision. As a medical student we are always learning about the importance of an "informed decision". A patient cannot consent to surgery for example, if they are not fully aware of the facts, the pro, the cons and the risk with opting in or opting out. You have to check do they understand, can they say it back to you?
And yet with this referendum, was the electorate properly educated? Did they truly know the weight of their decision? How is it such a decision can be given to people without ensuring they know everything?
Reading Daily Mail for a bit, does not equal informed.
Whilst i can understand the notion power to the people, should such a decision really be given to so many ignorant (in terms of the facts)?

3) Capacity. "the ability to use and understand info to make a decision, and communicate any decision made". Whilst on work experience there was an 87yr old with reduced capacity, he could speak etc, but never the less his capacity was reduced. He wasn't trusted to make the decision to consent to surgery, someone else had to make that decision for him. That wasn't done to spite him, that was done for his best interests, to safeguard him.
And yet that 87yr old was eligible to vote?

How is it he cant be trusted with making a decision on his own health? But he trusted to vote on the future of this country?