Online Petition Site Crashed By Millions of 'Cancel Brexit' Signers (time.com) 478
"More than 3 million people have signed a petition to cancel Brexit on the U.K. government's official petitions website -- so many that the website crashed multiple times," reports Time:
The petition had received some 600,000 signatures at a rate of 1,500 every 60 seconds before the site crashed at about 9 a.m. U.K. time on Thursday, the Guardian reported. By mid afternoon, the site was back online but suffering intermittent outages. There were 2 million signatures by Thursday evening and 3 million by midday Friday...
The U.K. government must now allow a debate on the petition's contents in parliament.
The Guardian notes that the CTO of company that built the petition site had bragged in a tweet Wednesday that the 1,000 signatures per minute was "Not too bad, but nowhere near crashing the site --you all need to try harder tomorrow."
By the next morning he had tweeted âoeWell done everyone -- the site crashed because calculating the trending count became too much of a load on the database."
The U.K. government must now allow a debate on the petition's contents in parliament.
The Guardian notes that the CTO of company that built the petition site had bragged in a tweet Wednesday that the 1,000 signatures per minute was "Not too bad, but nowhere near crashing the site --you all need to try harder tomorrow."
By the next morning he had tweeted âoeWell done everyone -- the site crashed because calculating the trending count became too much of a load on the database."
Open to abuse (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know that UK citizens can live abroad, right? And somebody taught you to write deceptively ambiguous phrases.
Re: (Score:2)
And the million marching in London, are they bots too?
The petition site uses email verification, so it not trivial to create a large number of fake signatures. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47668946
Re: (Score:2)
Not too hard?
nobrexit+1@gmail.com
...
nobrexit+2@gmail.com
nobrexit+1000000@gmail.com
Not too hard. Only need one valid email address.
Re: (Score:2)
As one of the marchers, I can say with complete confidence, "Yes, I am a bot!"
At least it is more believable than anything the ERG have ever said (apart from Boris's "we are going to make a Titanic success of this!" - that was definitely true).
Re: (Score:2)
And the opposing march nearly managed to fill a pub in Nottinghamshire.
Define "large" (Score:2)
...Analysis has already shown a large number of signatures from outside the UK, including North Korea and Russia.
Last time I checked there were shown to be 25 from Russia... The petition site is far from infallible but this is one of the most signed petitions since the sites inception, and clearly the one with the highest signing rate - Aren't you missing the point.
Re: (Score:2)
There are way more than 25 Brits living in Russia or being there for work related reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but I would hope MI6 agents are too busy to mess around with internet polls.
Re:Open to abuse (Score:5, Interesting)
The petition can be signed by UK passport holders - anywhere in the world.
I've a British passport, live in Canada, and have signed it.
Re: Open to abuse (Score:2)
My daughter signed it from Herzegovina and I signed it from Iceland. We are both English, just out of the country at the moment.
Re: Open to abuse (Score:4, Informative)
British citizens outside the UK are entitled to sign. And that "large number" was about 3%, last I heard. Which is well in proportion to the number of expat Brits.
Re:Open to abuse (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that but the concentration of votes very closely matches the high concentrations of remain voters in the original referendum.
Re: (Score:3)
Also note that the claims that votes came from North Korea are dubious as they are based on geo-location of an IP address. IP addresses change hands from time to time and such databases are known to be unreliable, especially in places like North Korea where their internet peering is via China.
Re: Open to abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Thatâ(TM)s not what happens today. FUD is doing a good job of helping those destructive to society get in power and stay in power. In the meantime a well researched stance is screamed at for being elitist, left wing, supporting already defeated candidates and non-patriotic
Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote. It has hurt the US, the UK and other countries.
Your opinion and votes matter more than ever. We should not need to resort to demeaning opponents (dead or alive) to try to make our arguments. Taking time to understand what scares a person will likely help make a better argument for trying to win them over.
Re: Open to abuse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too little credit (Score:3, Insightful)
Thatâ(TM)s not what happens today. FUD is doing a good job of helping those destructive to society get in power and stay in power. In the meantime a well researched stance is screamed at for being elitist, left wing, supporting already defeated candidates and non-patriotic
Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote. It has hurt the US, the UK and other countries.
"Oh, if only our citizens had been correctly informed, they would never have voted for Brexit!"
That seems to be the defining rationale for all the dissent in the UK today, and it's complete and total bullocks. It's used as justification by people who didn't get their way to make the transition as painful as possible with the faint hope of reversing the decision.
Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying, from an economic, cultural, and game-theory point of view. The economic argum
Re:Too little credit (Score:5, Insightful)
Thatâ(TM)s not what happens today. FUD is doing a good job of helping those destructive to society get in power and stay in power. In the meantime a well researched stance is screamed at for being elitist, left wing, supporting already defeated candidates and non-patriotic
Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote. It has hurt the US, the UK and other countries.
"Oh, if only our citizens had been correctly informed, they would never have voted for Brexit!"
That seems to be the defining rationale for all the dissent in the UK today, and it's complete and total bullocks. It's used as justification by people who didn't get their way to make the transition as painful as possible with the faint hope of reversing the decision.
Except it's a good point.
There were two big problems with the pro-Brexit campaign:
1) There were a lot of flat out lies or distortions.
2) The Brexit that was promised isn't actually possible. England simply can't have the kind of relationship with the EU that the Brexit side wanted. Of the different possible relationships to Europe the one most acceptable to voters is likely remain.
Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying, from an economic, cultural, and game-theory point of view.
You're objectively using the word "objectively" incorrectly.
The arguments against leaving center mostly on the transition, and not the end result. It's always what will happen "in the next 6 months" or "in the following year" and whatnot.
I've seen lots of long term predictions of bad things happening. It's just that the short term ones are a more immediate concern to most people.
No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations - and there would be little hardship.
Except a bunch of bi-lateral agreements are hard to negotiate and way harder to administer. That was a big reason for the EU in the first place, to simply things by getting rid of all the N to N agreements.
And if you implemented all of the agreements then what was the purpose of Brexit in the first place? You're basically pulling the same stunt as the leave side, pushing for hard-Brexit while selling a soft-Brexit.
But mostly, the argument that "not enough correct information got out" and "people would have chosen differently with better information" is completely false.
... followed by a bunch of complaints about immigration.
The complaints about misinformation were largely about economic misinformation, and the hard/soft trickery. If people were really freaking out about immigration maybe leave will win again, but then at least you'll also have a clear answer about a hard vs soft exit. And about whether to bring back an "unrestricted travel" agreement that you were happy to bring back a few paragraphs ago.
For example, the assumption that a bigger pool of workers and jobs makes for a better economy. When the countries are economically equal it works out - a dental hygenist in the UK can get a good job in Germany, and vice versa. When this assumption doesn't holds true the better country gets pulled down - a dental hygienist in Greece can get a good job in the UK, but the reverse isn't true. The result is massive unemployment in the UK while high-paying jobs are filled with non-UK citizens. A large number of assumptions - which turn out to be false - underlie the economic arguments for being in the EU.
Though you forget that raising a dental hygienist to adult hood and then putting them through additional training is really expensive. Getting that hygienist as a productive adult is a pretty good deal, though one that will eventually have to be paid for in retirement (though you likely still win)
Re: (Score:3)
Though you forget that raising a dental hygienist to adult hood and then putting them through additional training is really expensive. Getting that hygienist as a productive adult is a pretty good deal, though one that will eventually have to be paid for in retirement (though you likely still win).
The results of immigration depends a lot on the ratio of skilled to unskilled immigrants. If the normal ratio of dentists to the general populace is 1:500, and the immigration policy let in 1 dentist per 1000 other immigrants, then the end result is the opposite of what you're suggesting. Dentist visits will get more expensive rather than cheaper. The only way to maintain the initial price is to somehow prevent at least half of those 1000 other immigrants from getting dental access, which is neither happeni
Re:Too little credit (Score:4, Insightful)
The Brexit that was promised isn't actually possible.
Indeed, the official Leave campaign's leaflet and web site said that the UK would negotiate a deal before triggering Article 50, which is impossible and had already been ruled out by the EU when they said it.
Having said that, at least deciding what deal they were going to try to negotiate and getting Parliament to approve it before triggering Article 50 would have been a very good idea, and avoided this crisis. Assuming they had proposed something vaguely realistic of course, which given May's red lines was unlikely.
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's typical of the EU!
That David Davis says he could do one in a morning.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Oh, if only our citizens had been correctly informed, they would never have voted for Brexit!"
That seems to be the defining rationale for all the dissent in the UK today, and it's complete and total bullocks.
1) That's "ballocks". Bullocks are very different, even though they have massive ballocks.
2) We know beyond any doubt that citizens were not correctly informed, because they have told us so. Lots of people who voted for brexit absolutely did not understand what they were voting for [ipsos.com].
No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations - and there would be little hardship.
That's because it would be a lie. Speaking directly to your example, the EU cannot unilaterally implement unrestricted travel, because the right of UK citizens to do that is part of the UK's membership in the EU. They would have
Re: (Score:2)
2) We know beyond any doubt that citizens were not correctly informed, because they have told us so. Lots of people who voted for brexit absolutely did not understand what they were voting for [ipsos.com].
And what about the people who voted against Brexit? How do you know they're better informed? Anyone can cherrypick a few questions and make the other side look dumb.
Oh and your source is a biased piece of crap:
EU immigrants: we massively overestimate how many EU-born people now live in the UK. On average we think EU citizens make up 15% of the total UK population (which would be around 10.5m people), when in reality it’s 5%1 (around 3.5m people).
Sounds convincing, until you realize it completely it completely ignored immigrants who are not born in the EU. All those "Syrian" refugees that people keep complaining about? Not counted. The article is deliberately mixing up EU-born immigrants and those who passed through the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds convincing, until you realize it completely it completely ignored immigrants who are not born in the EU. All those "Syrian" refugees that people keep complaining about? Not counted.
They weren't counted in the referendum, either.
Re: (Score:2)
You break it, you keep it.
Being the US lapdog during the Iraq war has consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
OK so stabbings in London, being arrested for online criticism, jobs hard to come by and "different culture" people everywhere is the fault of the EU? I guess you could argue that freedom of movement contributes to "different culture" people being everywhere but given the majority of immigrants in the UK come from outside the EU, it isn't a particularly strong argument.
I get that people are unhappy with the state of the country in many ways but the EU doesn't control police on the streets, ethical priori
Re: (Score:2)
I expect your post will not surprise me. I've yet to speak to a Brexiter who isn't wildly misinformed.
Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying,
I love that you state something which is clearly false as a fact.
The arguments against leaving center mostly on the transition, and not the end result.
Also false, as in you've been ignoring the arguments.
It's always what will happen "in the next 6 months" or "in the following year" and whatnot.
Well, gee I wonder what's going to come firs
Re: (Score:3)
Economically? So why the are the overwhelming majority of businesses and unions remainers?
Game theory? That was an attempt to look smart, was it? It failed.
How do you know? Plenty were swayed by the money for the NHS slogan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Open to abuse (Score:4, Funny)
FUD indeed. I don't understand why Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson still haven't been taken into a dark passage to get beaten the hell out of them.
I can't speak to Farage, but Boris Johnson is clearly being protected by the same kind of alien symbiote that's watching out for Donald Trump. It lives on the tops of their heads, and it feeds on their brainwaves — specifically those associated with narcissism.
Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information.
Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Would a new vote not be tainted by false information? Last I heard, the remainers were saying there would be empty shelves at the grocery stores, with the implication that there would be food shortages and mass starvation. But anyone with any business sense knows to stock up before a hard exit, so in reality there would be no disruption at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information. Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
I'm from Norway, we've rejected the EU twice (1972 and 1994) and I can assure you that if we had said yes once we'd never get a second vote a few years later to reconsider no matter how many was starting to think it was a bad idea. Britain voted to leave and it's the government's job to get it done, not flunk the negotiations and ask for a do-over. If that's the best they'll get either take the deal or not but get out already.
And no, what you have now is not solid facts it's a scary bluff pretending like th
Re: (Score:2)
We are a very densely populated country which is dependent on imports for 75% of its food (mostly from the EU). Even when it is grown here, it is harvested by transient workers from poorer EU countries who fail to understand how expensive it is to live in the UK, and do not realize you cannot live outside the monetary economy in the UK (all land is owned by someone, there is not much edible wildlife, and without electricity, you life expectancy is months.
We have spent most of the l
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be retarded.
He supports Brexit so you're probably asking to much of him.
Shouldn't traitors be the ones selling out Britain (Score:2)
> The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information. ... which you seem to be keeping in a locked file cabinet in a disused lavatory in a basement where both the lights and stairs are out. I love the excuse though. "People stupidly voted against me, so we need to vote again!"
> Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had
Re: Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do find it interesting how twisted truth becomes reality so easily. No liberal or indeed, any other faction had anything to do with stopping a second vote on the same motion.
There is a long standing tradition in the UK parliament that members of parliament can not vote on the same motion twice in the same sitting of parliament. This is to stop a government crippling parliament by re-submitting the same issue over an dover again. This tradition is applied nregularly in the house of commons but nobody ever hears about it because few people actually pay attention to what is going on in parliament.
All that happened in this case is that the government were reminded that parliament will not vote on the same bill twice in one parliament.
Re: (Score:2)
In many cases its over 25%. If over 25% have signed (even if it was really only 18.5%), then there is a good chance 60% are against it - a lot of people probably don't even know about the petition .
As an MP you might just want to think carefully before voting for any kind of Brexit, because when the Brexit hits the fan (no food and no jobs) they will know that the vast majority of the electorate thinks you
So Slashdotted (Score:2, Funny)
like its 2001....
Guardian is the best news source about "Brexit". (Score:4, Informative)
See the Petition [parliament.uk]. 4,392,160 signatures at Saturday, March 23, 2019, 09:11 am Pacific Time.
The British government is VERY poorly managed. (Score:5, Interesting)
One example: The EU leave campaign has dishonesty at its core-- and it hasn't convinced us. [theguardian.com] (Mar. 11, 2016, not 2019)
Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU [bbc.com] (Jan. 31, 2019)
In general, the British government has presented low-level details, and not generally helped citizens have a serious, in-depth understanding.
What is the EU and how does it work? (Score:3)
Brexiteers are hilarious (Score:2, Insightful)
Fucking idiots and grifters all of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In two years they went from "easiest trade deal, we hold all the cards, germany has to sell us cars, have our cake and eat it" to "we always knew our economy would crash and we would lose jobs, we never promised a deal, we will survive just like the blitz". Fucking idiots and grifters all of them.
It could easily have been easiest trade deal in history, since the deal we wanted was on offer. EU Council President Donald Tusk made clear in a Tweet that a Canada style deal had been on offer from the start, which is exactly what we voted for:
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1047825916905357312 [twitter.com]
So, the deal we wanted was on offe, and we were already in regulatory alignment with the EU, so this should have been a simple proccess. The problem isn't the Brexiteers, but the bitter remainers, who
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So who's the problem here, the Brexiteers, who simply expect the result of the referendum to be implemented, or the remainers who are attempting to subvert democracy simply because they didn't like the result?
The Brexiters.
Because they have the same delusion that you hare that a completely undefined result is "simple" to implement.
Notably, there's Speaker of the House John Bercow, who has a "Bollocks to Brexit" sticker on his car.
So you do then believe that wives are chattels of their husbands.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad... (Score:3)
...most of those fervent "down-voters" couldn't be arsed to get out of their chairs and actually vote back when IT COUNTED.
Sadly, in real life you don't get a "do over" just because you weren't paying attention the first time, or because you're on the (to you and ALL YOUR FRIENDS) "right" side.
I'm guessing, of course, but if the groundswell so "universally" portrayed today had actually voted, Brexit would have gone down without question.
Brexiters only have themselves to blame (Score:2)
for this mess.
Seriously, they thought they could leave the EU, keep the current state (no border) between the republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and remain out of the EU customs union and single market. I am quite surprised 52% of the voters bought that BS.
Re:Crap software (Score:5, Insightful)
1500 divided by 60 equals an average of 25 hits per second.
Shouldn't even a low-end Raspberry Pi Zero be able to handle that?
Let me guess: the fucking page was trying to push 1MB of HTML, 2MB of CSS, 5MB of javascript and 10MB of images for each page hit?
Re: (Score:2)
If there was ever a case where eventually-consistent databases instead of straight SQL would be better, this is it. This had nothing to do with images and stylesheets, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the inserts. It's probably the aggregate functions to display "trends" that was mentioned. Probably recounted on every page load with no indexes.
Re: Crap software (Score:5, Interesting)
If you RTFS, you would know it was the ever changing trend analysis that brought them down.
They most certainly could have done better, but there's no indication it had anything to do with pushing static assets.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a simple fix is to just cache the results for a minute? Nobody needs that level of freshness on a trend line.
67 KiB says you are wrong (Score:2)
Let me guess: the fucking page was trying to push 1MB of HTML, 2MB of CSS, 5MB of javascript and 10MB of images for each page hit?
That's a pretty fucking terrible guess... anyone who bothered to follow the link would see one of the most spartan sites on the web - then it's just a button (12) and a mouse click (network tab) away to find out that it's a whopping 67 KiB... so no, your completely and utterly wrong. Also serving static content is almost never the bottleneck in any website, pipes are enormous these days and static content is the easiest think in the world to distribute among a cluster.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I didn't even bother to read the summary.
THIS. IS. SLASHDOT! /SpartanVoice
Re: (Score:2)
No I did not visit the great link because I'm afraid of changelings.
Re: (Score:2)
well designed
I needed a good laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you live in a sovereign state in the US? Does it have open borders with neighbor member-states? You seem to hate it without remembering where they got the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Or wait, you must be from Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
UK politicians chose to not enforce their borders and deport EU citizens mooching off welfare.
They blamed the EU, even though other EU countries deport people just fine.
They are just blaming the EU for their own incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
So forgive me if I ignore the constant stream of selfish stupid people demanding that we ignore the democratic wishes of the UK population.
You mean the stupid selfish wishes of the UK population? Pretty sure it's selfishness and stupidity across the board.
Re:3 million is nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, looking out for your own interests is selfish. It's something all humans do, called self-preservation. Why you try to say that's a bad thing just proves that you are being disingenuous.
Selfishness is a bad thing when it's taken to an illogical extreme. Suggesting otherwise is socially retarded.
I assume you're from a country that would BENEFIT from the UK staying in the EU, so you're doing the same thing.
Everyone but perhaps Russia and China will benefit if the UK stays in the EU, including the UK.
The free ride is over, the EU is dead, and the world government they want is going down the toilet.
The UK is not providing a free ride to the EU. They are getting quite a bit.
Fuck off, scum.
Run along, kid.
Re:3 million is nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
a bit more liberty-impinging bureaucracy every year, all for a taste of that radiant socialist future that's always just around the corner!
The UK is one of the most government camera-dense locations on the planet, and a member of five eyes. The UK is that thing you described with or without the EU.
Re:3 million is nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
17 million voted to the EU and in the second vote (which we've already had, something the petitioners dishonestly ignore) 25 million voted for political parties that had 'leave the EU' in their party manifesto.
So forgive me if I ignore the constant stream of selfish stupid people demanding that we ignore the democratic wishes of the UK population. Perhaps instead they should focus on removing the hundreds of MPs doing their best to overturn that democracy.
Quite. Let Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK and remain in the EU as their population wants and let the UK become the United Kingdom of England and Wales. Put the hard Border at UK Scotland and France. Solves the NI backstop issue as NI would now be an independent country in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Representative democracy is not that every representative works for the idea the majority voted for, it's that representatives work for the things _they_ were voted in for. It's an inefficient and fuzzy system. You are wishing for tyranny of the majority and not a functional democracy.
Re:3 million is nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Typically, online petitions and opinion polls only have a tiny participation rate. Not everybody has readily available internet access, not everybody follow the media, and most importantly, not everybody bothers to get involved, even if it is in their own interest. This means, seeing 4+M signatures equals a much much bigger actual number of voters. And as is, the petition already represents about a quarter of the people who voted to "remain" in the referendum. That's significant. It suggests that there is a groundswell of support for remaining in the EU.
The petition site isn't run by some shady online opinion poll. It's run by the UK parliament. According to a spokeperson, it actively filters submissions to detect bot activity. At the very least, it requires a unique name, verified (!) e-mail address and UK postal address. Some unconfirmed reports also state that it requires a UK passport number (maybe, that only happens for suspect submissions?). The UK parliament trusts that these numbers are substantially accurate.
That's huge. It means anybody saying "the will of the people" is to continue with Brexit is blatantly lying to themselves and to the rest of the world.
Re:3 million is nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Typically, online petitions and opinion polls only have a tiny participation rate.
So do referendums, but the one to leave the EU was the largest vote in favour of any issue in the history of the country.
Re: (Score:3)
So do referendums, but the one to leave the EU was the largest vote in favour of any issue in the history of the country.
The UK has had a total of 3 country wide referendums. The largest turnout was for the the leave referendum. The second largest was for the stay referendum in 1975. Incidentally the number of people who voted to remain in the EU in 1975 differs by less than 20000 from those who voted to leave in 2016, which actually reminds me: Why did the leave campaigners re-vote on the issue multiple times until they got the answer they wanted, and why are they so afraid of another vote now?
Re: (Score:3)
In 1975 the UK did not vote to remain in the EU. They voted to stay in the EEC, a common trading block.
Don't be obtuse. The EC was effectively the EU in everything but name. Just because the Maastricht Treaty wasn't signed until 1992 and the name EU wasn't formally adopted by then doesn't mean that the EEC wasn't in nearly every way what the EU is now, quite specifically ...
I think there would be strong support now to stay in a strong trading group with other European nations.
Don't be silly. The EEC wasn't just a trading group. It was a trading group with strict rules, higher courts, laws that govern trading members, membership fees, and (although in the 70s labour wasn't part of it) they comply with the 4 ins
Re: (Score:2)
The UK passport requirement must be for people out of the country as I'd guess a sizeable chunk of the population in the UK don't have a passport.
Even passport isn't that good as a person can have a UK passport without the right of abode in the UK.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My point is that we had a vote, then had a second vote.
Parliament sabotaging the entire fucking process of leaving the EU combined with a Government incapable of negotiating affection in a brothel means that many people now think leaving wont work and want a third fucking vote.
How about instead of wasting time and resources on that we get the fuck on with leaving the EU.
Re: Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting deposing the Queen?
Re: Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mistress to her son?
Re: Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors? (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly Parliament should declare Lord Buckethead Lord Protector and the problems will be resolved.
No need to dissolve parliament. Simply undo the Restoration.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Parliament can't be said to have "Sabotaged" a process flawed by false information from the start... they said millions of dollars was going to be saved on healthcare alone, to make no mention of the trade/border issues. It's a clusterfuck.
Parliament rightfully dragged their feet in coming to impossible(!) realizations that there IS NO GOOD SOLUTION to do it like this. May tried, you can't say she didn't try. In the end the EU said "no, go fuck yourselves, no free lunch."
And that's where it stands now, y
Re: (Score:2)
Parliament can't be said to have "Sabotaged" a process flawed by false information from the start
What, like economic collapse, housing market collapse, mass unemployment and the risk of global conflict? None of which have happened, despite promises from the remain camp.
they said millions of dollars was going to be saved on healthcare alone
Who said that?
Oh, nobody. Well, nobody representing the 'leave' campaigns anyway. People wanting to stay in the EU constantly lie about the leave arguments, so thanks for confirming you want the UK to remain.
Parliament rightfully dragged their feet in coming to impossible(!) realizations that there IS NO GOOD SOLUTION to do it like this.
What makes you think I give a shit about a good solution. I'll settle for a shit solution, because it's still better than being in
Re: (Score:2)
So arrange protests, demand to make a hard exit.
Re:Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors? (Score:5, Insightful)
By this logic you already had a vote in 1972. But yes, get the fuck out already.
Re: (Score:2)
Parliament sabotaging the entire fucking process of leaving the EU combined with a Government incapable of negotiating affection in a brothel means that many people now think leaving wont work and want a third fucking vote
Ah yes, tyical Brexiter, everything is everyone else's fault.
YOU voted to have an incompetent government take us out of the EU, now own your fucking decision like a man.
My point is that we had a vote, then had a second vote.
We had a bote on leaving which leave won. We then had a general el
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us are working hard to make sure all 17.4 mil of you leave.
We aren't coming with you. Enjoy the UK while it still exists.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not Parliament's fault, it's May's fault. She didn't have a realistic plan, just some intractable red lines that completely fucked up the negotiations and ensured she would get a deal that everyone hated. Her priority has always been her legacy, and by extension keeping her party together, not getting a good outcome for the UK.
Parliament hasn't exactly covered itself in glory either, but May could easily have avoided all this be agreeing a realistic proposal for leaving with Parliament before triggerin
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently democracy is asking the people once for their uninformed consent and then have them live with that forever.
Not at all, it took maybe too long but after the 1975 vote for the EEC the UK was indeed given a chance to vote on the EU.
Admittedly long after we'd been promised a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, but when it comes to the future of nations a little patience is justified.
So sure, lets have another EU referendum. Since 41 years seems to be the traditional period between votes I suggest you start your 2057 campaigning now.
Or you could listen to the voice of the British people in the 2017 parliamentary elections, in
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could listen to the voice of the British people in the 2017 parliamentary elections, in which 80% of the votes went to parties promising to take the UK out of the EU.
Well arent you a dishonest little one!
You very well know the first past the post system pretty much ensures that those two parties command by far the majority of the votes almost no matter what.
Now what you failed to mention is that in a very unusual move, neither managed to command a majority.
Re: (Score:2)
Well look, if you really want to vote on May's deal or No Deal then I'll actually support that.
See, no objection at all.
Re: (Score:2)
National support for 'no deal' is now 46%. People would rather suffer economically than continue being fucked over by the combination of parliament and the EU.
Pretty damning of both, but there you go.
Re: (Score:3)
You are seriously misrepresenting the facts. First of all, it is highly unlikely that all the people who voted in the referendum would also sign the petition. In fact, it is amazing that so many people did sign. That's pretty much unprecedented. Participation rates in online petitions are traditionally tiny compared to actual referenda and elections. And the UK parliament assures everybody that the petition actively filters out bot activity. So, we have to assume that the numbers are close to accurate.
Secon
Re: (Score:2)
For a major constitution level change, that is not a very clear majority. Most countries (well western ones) need more then that to change their constitutions or multiple votes.
Re: (Score:2)
If all it takes to invalidate a national referendum is that 20% of the Nay voters sign an online petition, then who controls the society?
All it should take to invalidate a referendum is a ruling that it was fraudlent.
Oh wait that did happen!
So tell me who does control society if we let it be ruled by fraud?
Re: (Score:3)
It's been all over the news n and off and you act like it never happened. No wonder you support Brexit: reality just doesn't fit your worldview.
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-... [bbc.co.uk]
https://www.theguardian.com/po... [theguardian.com]
https://www.electoralcommissio... [electoralc...ion.org.uk]
Now I'm sure you'll either uiently slink away and pretend you never commented ot tell me why electon fraud is jsut fine really and we should honour the results of a tainted election.
Re: (Score:3)
Breaking election finance rules is not fraud. Stop talking shit.
Yes it is. If the election was a binding referendum then by the UK rules it would have ot be rerun.
Now I'd like you to:
1. stop talking shit
2. Stop undermining democracy by following results of tainted elections.
Re: (Score:2)
"people want their vote to matter, not be ruled by unelected bureaucrats"
Brexit does absolutely nothing about that, in fact it just leaves our own unelected bureaucrats (did anyone vote for Theresa May? No, they voted for David Cameron / the party as a whole) unchecked and able to implement laws that the person on the street will never know about.
The reasons for not leaving are many, the reasons for leaving are many. It's not that clear-cut that most people can even understand them.
There's a reason that w