For those of us who value our European Friends and feel entirely fed up with this whole Brexit shambles that is damaging the country we love, please consider signing the petition below to show your support for revoking Article 50.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
The chances of another referendum seem very slim right now, but this petition appears to be gaining some strong momentum. In the absence of a Peoples Vote hopefully it will provide a way to let the government know that they can't just continue ignoring the 48%.
Please feel free to share the petition with as many people as you can. Lets do this!
> In the absence of a Peoples Vote hopefully it will provide a way to let the government know that they can't just continue ignoring the 48%.
According to a YouGov survey last week it's more like 60%.
About 150,000 people have signed this since I did an hour ago. This momentum and a good turn out on Saturday might make the difference.
Worth a punt
I got a letter from HMRC detailing my taxbreak down. Out of 3ish grand tax paid, about £25 was for eu membership. Not a bad deal really!
And this one...
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-give-people-a-final-say-on-brexit-d...
And you can email your MP in just a few clicks here:
Thanks John. The thread petition is currently being signed by 1,500 people a minute! Should be half a million people by 8am easy. Lets try and get over a million
> Worth a punt
> I got a letter from HMRC detailing my taxbreak down. Out of 3ish grand tax paid, about £25 was for eu membership. Not a bad deal really!
Imagine a scheme where you pay £25 each year and it gives you the ability to travel, study, live work and eventually retire in a chice of 27 other countries. We'll also throw in free mobile phone roaming charges on top of that which, normally, for two weeks in Benidorm would be considerably more than 25 quid.
Imagine........
E
Yes our UK net contribution to the EU is a mere 1% of the total UK Government spending. In 2018 our net EU contribution (after rebate) was £8.9 billion. Total Government spending was £817.5 billion.
Signed, and it's just flown past 500,000 signatures!
> Imagine a scheme where you pay £25 each year and it gives you the ability to travel, study, live work and eventually retire in a chice of 27 other countries. We'll also throw in free mobile phone roaming charges on top of that which, normally, for two weeks in Benidorm would be considerably more than 25 quid.
> Imagine........
> E
Plus if an airline leaves you stranded it has to pay you compensation. That alone has covered my £25 for decades.
Signed - 582,000!
612250
Signed. 617850
Website down?
Now 617,000 and moving strongly upwards.
It would be great if this number was matched on Saturday's March. That would be somewhat more visible.
For the record Mrs May does not speak for me. Whilst I am fed up with Brexit I remain convinced that the only good deal for the country was the one we had. For starters, it's cheap, we have a say (collective sovereignty) and immigration is not bad for the country (and historically at least half of it can be "controlled" because it is not from the EU.
Website crashed!!!
502 bad gateway.
Firewall probably thought it was under a denial of service attack
I think the link is broken. Can't get in to check the latest scores!
Yes the website seems to have just gone down - sheer weight of traffic or something more sinister to take the wind out of the sails?
I've tried to get to the petition link, Google Chrome is my default, but just get message: 502 Bad Gateway
Any suggestions, please?
Website has gone down, be patient and try again, hopefully back on line soon.
> I think the link is broken. Can't get in to check the latest scores!
I think there's a glitch in the matrix
I signed the petition, and I have just written to my MP also. I have little faith that it will do any good, but surely we have to try everything. He is a conservative MP in Scotland. Our constituency voted 67% to remain, so he has no remit what so ever to drag us out by voting according to the party line. I have told him so. No doubt he will ignore it, but I would encourage everyone to badger MPs too, there's a chance it might make a difference.
619233
Seems to be working again . . . . oh wait, down again!
Don't worry - you can email TM with your thoughts here:
Working again, 628,001!
It's back up and cruising at an altitude of 640,000 and rapidly rising. Please let it be 1 million today.
'Petitions is down for maintenance
We know about it and we're working on it.
Please try again later.'
It's down again now.
If you've not had an email acknowledgement be sure to check back later when they've fixed things to check you were actually counted...
Before I do it, as a foreigner residing in UK, will my signature count?
The site appears to be back up now. Currently at 653,212 signatures.
> Before I do it, as a foreigner residing in UK, will my signature count?
At https://petition.parliament.uk/help it says "Only British citizens and UK residents can create or sign a petition."
It's getting at least 100 signatures a second ...
Revoking A50 is a deeply damaging nuclear option that won't end this crisis but as a fallback position it is the lesser evil. Signed with misgivings.
Write to your MPs, these petitions are easily ignored as the People's Vote march will be however big.
jk
But that's a waste of time if your MP is a member of the ERG and a close friend of Rees Mogg, as mine is.
It's never a waste of time - it may not change their mind but its never a waste of time...
696,198
To really impress we need to get it over 17,410,742 (the number who voted to leave)
Well, if it gets to a million in two days we're not going to have to wait very long
Down again.
i reckon it would have got to a million already if the servers had the capacity to deal with the traffic.
Working again! https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
Over 700,000 signatures
> But that's a waste of time if your MP is a member of the ERG and a close friend of Rees Mogg, as mine is.
Perhaps. If nothing else you eat his time up replying to you and you add to the drip drip erosion of the perception any seat is safe now the axis in parliament has tilted.
jk
Plus you should never let them have the satisfaction of your inaction or lethargy (sad to say principled inaction will always be taken as lethargy). Shit you don't have to be that old to know that a lack of engagement and lethargy brings bad results...
Plus in this case writing to your MP or the PM is going to be especially effective.
TM's "speech" to the nation blamed everyone but herself and was, essentially, her begging you (the public) to write to your MP so say, "enough is enough, stop pratting around and do what the fantastic TM says".
It has clearly backfired spectacularly and a bag full of letters say, "TM must go", will be a clear signal to the MPs and PM that we (the public) disagree with TM's analysis and do actually hold her responsible for a substantial part of this mess.
If ever there was a time to write to your MP about this subject it is now.
Just tried - said it was going to send me an email to confirm, but nothing yet. Will wait a bit longer then try on the site again.
It was a smidge over 747,000 when I checked, so looks like it could reach 1 million by lunchtime if the technology can take it.
Mine went to the spam folder...
The petition site is down again. Apparently part of the problem is rubberneckers like me counterproductively refreshing the page to see the numbers go up
To shed some light on the intermittent usability of the site https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47652071
Got the mail through at last, and after a few attempts the link worked so I've signed. If you're trying and failing please be patient and keep retrying from time-to-time.
755,879
The petition.parliament.uk domain they're using points into the Amazon AWS cloud. Its should be easy for them to add more resources to cope with the extra load - scaling up and down across different loads is what AWS is for.
I suspect that part of the problem was that the page was automatically updating the vote count every few seconds, which would involve going back to the web servers to get the new total. The more people were viewing it the more traffic this would generate, even if they weren't voting. They seem to have turned this off now and you have to click refresh to see the updated total. So in a sense they crashed (ddos'd) themselves.
Up to 779,718 now. Took a while to receive and then validate my email though.
Back up and seems to be gaining 100 - 400 signatures every time I refresh!
I didn't share this on FB - sometimes people resent having politics scorched into their retinas when they're trying to unwind but I did email it to a select group of (4) family and friends who I know are already sympathetic to this kind of viewpoint.
829,242 now
Down again. You'd almost think it wasn't an accident...
There's a lovely comparison site where you can compare side by side the number and rate of signatures for Revoke A50 and for No-deal defaulting on obligations.
https://brexit-petitions-count.now.sh/
Edit: The instant dislike tells me that someone doesn't like being reminded that leaving without a deal means the UK defaults on its EU obligations and its credit standing would go through the floor unless it came up with a 'deal' to settle its debts in very short order after leaving.
Higher load than they anticipated when they performance tested it, probably.
I’ve been doing a little research on the .gov E-petitions website (looked at the wikipedia page), since it was launched in 2006, the most successful petition (numerically) was one that was started in May 2016, it was a request that if the result of the EU referendum was “less than 60% based on a turnout less than 75%” (neither threshold was met) Parliament should hold another referendum.
The petition was started by someone who was openly supporting Brexit and it received over 4 million signatures. One must conclude that the vast majority of those signatures where from people who would go on to vote to leave the EU in the June 2016 referendum.
Seems strange that suggesting a second referendum is considered by some to be betraying those 17.4m Brexit voters, when at least 4m of were in favour of a second referendum before the outcome of the vote.
I think we might just be having our second referendum after all!
My spirits are rising with the count.
Not so sure of your analysis.
I think the petition only really took off after the referendum and hence was mostly remain voting people.
From what I've read that petition was started by a Brexit supporter before the referendum because he thought they were going to lose and hence he wanted another referendum but once Leave won the referendum lots of Remain supporters signed it because they then wanted another referendum.
The position is that if you win a referendum you consider it final but if you lose you consider it only an aberration and that there should be another one. It's thinly veiled self interest either way.
(My own self interest is that I'd like another referendum because I think Remain would win this time).
922,023 - wow
You are almost certainly right, but it does demonstrate the idiocy of it all.
As its now nearing 1 million, it could be interesting to see the comparisons between the voting density maps from the original referendum and the signatories of this petition.
Petition: https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=241584
Referendum results: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028
Yep.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/pet...
It’ll be interesting to see if this reaches those numbers - which wasn’t close to those who voted leave but gives a good number on how many just can’t take losing.
That is very interesting, but I suppose logical. Also interesting to see which constituencies have the highest numbers of signatories: Bristol, Hornsey, Brighton and Cambridge, in that order.
941868
> It’ll be interesting to see if this reaches those numbers - which wasn’t close to those who voted leave but gives a good number on how many just can’t take losing.
'just can’t take losing'. That really is awful wording, and awfully revealing. The game metaphor again, with the implication that this is a kind of personal contest between individuals when, surely for most intelligent people, it's about what they think is best for the country as a whole.
> Yep.
> It’ll be interesting to see if this reaches those numbers - which wasn’t close to those who voted leave but gives a good number on how many just can’t take losing.
I think the time for that kind of jibe is long gone. We're all losers.
It's now going at about 1,000 a minute, so it could be at a million by about 3 o'clock.
Anyone who the day after the vote is signing a petition to rerun it clearly can’t accept the loss. It’s accurate.
Not one of the arguments used on here to have a new vote can support their position. Nothing had changed, nothing had come out about campaign irregularities, they just didn’t get their way.
It’s really not a jibe. What words should I be using? “Those who voted for the lowest polling option”? Seems a bit long winded.
> Not one of the arguments used on here to have a new vote can support their position. Nothing had changed
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nhs-doctor-brexit-vote-leave-final-dea...
> nothing had come out about campaign irregularities, they just didn’t get their way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992
If you're going to make brash statements about what has happened, try at least to ground them in some kind of reality.
Edited for spelling.
I’m talking about people who signed a petition in 2016!
Maybe it wasn't being 'bad losers', just widespread disgust at the conduct of the campaign.
> I’m talking about people who signed a petition in 2016!
Ever considered that many/most of them may have been people who didn't vote due to complacency as the result was widely forecast as a narrow Remain decision? That would suggest quite a lot more support for Remain at the time than the referendum showed. And yes, of course you can't count votes that weren't cast, but you could nevertheless consider keeping an open mind as to the true 'will of the people', particularly three years down the line as shown in the many and ever more clear-cut opinion polls. There's simply no current mandate for any of the Leave options available.
And that's not even mentioning the proven electoral irregularities!
Lovely viewing this https://brexit-petitions-count.now.sh/?fbclid=IwAR049bzpIrkuq3486ad14q_H16U...
Someone should show TM what the "will of the people" actually is right now
Anyone else watching closely as the million approaches
... like it's New Year's Eve!
> Anyone else watching closely as the million approaches
> ... like it's New Year's Eve!
999,428 ...
999,861
1,000,163!
I've just signed but still waiting for the confirmation e-mail.
Loved the little burst of confetti on there as it clicked over a million.
> I've just signed but still waiting for the confirmation e-mail.
Aye, me too. No sign of it in me spam, either...
Looks like a lot of people were - it's just gone down again at 999,800!!!
WTF
Lots of people wanted to claim they the millionth petitioner maybe?
edit; looking at the other posts it was probably my attempt to refresh!
We know you think the opinion of remainers counts for nothing. We know you hate democracy, you don’t have to keep telling us!
As if signing an online partition is going to achieve anything other than give people a warm glow satisfaction. Diddling on a computer isn't campaigning.
Me too.
People who signed the petition to revoke article 50 = 1,088,822
People who signed the petition to leave the EU without a deal = 373,738
I guess the people have spoken
> As if signing an online partition is going to achieve anything other than give people a warm glow satisfaction. Diddling on a computer isn't campaigning.
I wouldn't say that. On a cost/benefit basis it costs nothing, 30 seconds. As for benefit today it's been picked up by the national press and reported as the biggest .gov petition ever, meaning the Government was contacted for comment so they know about it, and people are going to be discussing it like we are now. That's decent considering it cost £0.
Conveniently this is now off-line to prevent more people signing it...
Call me a cynic, but that sounds a bit suspicious, both my husband and myself have signed, but can't get the link to confirm it in email.
> I wouldn't say that. On a cost/benefit basis it costs nothing, 30 seconds. As for benefit today it's been picked up by the national press and reported as the biggest .gov petition ever, meaning the Government was contacted for comment so they know about it, and people are going to be discussing it like we are now. That's decent considering it cost £0.
Doesn't sound like you're prepared to put your back into then.
Could it be that the CyberWar arm of Brexit, the one that fed us all the crap in the run up to the EU is now doing a denial of service attack on the site?
Or the PutinBots?
Anything is possible..! Probably Russian bots or Maybots
If they’re Russian bots, they’re VPN’d into the UK...
https://datastudio.google.com/reporting/15yZRGS3lAHpf-wmyDtsWo63yz4qPPIBz/p...
> As if signing an online partition is going to achieve anything other than give people a warm glow satisfaction. Diddling on a computer isn't campaigning.
If you've been listening to the various debates in parliament (rather than just reading the headline conclusions) it's fairly apparent that there are a pile of MPs who need an excuse to change their position because they're spineless cowards who can't admit that the position they've been supporting is a mistake.
They're easy to spot because they're the ones arguing for the current deal (and they normally have 'conservative' underneath them on TV) despite the fact that nobody from any side of the debate wants that outcome. They know that outcome has zero propspect of happening, and they also know that no deal can't be allowed to happen - they're just waiting for some external factor to 'force' them to change stance to a realistic delay or revocation of Article 50 so that they can save face.
This petition could be the excuse that the MPs need to start discussing (and 'begrudgingly' agreeing) the option that lots of them want but only if someone else proposes it.
> Anything is possible..! Probably Russian bots or Maybots
Just got my email link accepted and registered after a couple of bad gateways.
1.3 million...
4 hours for my confirmation mail from this morning
All that does is to get your name on a government little black book of undesirable citizens.
> All that does is to get your name on a government little black book of undesirable citizens.
Don’t worry, if the petitions website is anything to go by the government isn’t capable of building a system to record that many names.
> All that does is to get your name on a government little black book of undesirable citizens.
The way things are right now, that's a desirable place to be namechecked in. If nothing else, you'll be in great company and you'll be very very very far from alone.
> All that does is to get your name on a government little black book of undesirable citizens.
Remember, one day the boot will be on the other foot. That is the way history works, even if it's a rather slow process. Grim subject, but I think it's quite likely that one day, far in the future, there'll be an equivalent of Nuremberg for this Brexit-fuelled evil, for 'peace crimes' rather than 'war crimes'. Please don't think I like the idea; it's about the last thing I could ever have wanted to happen, but justice will have to be done or it really will be the end of civilisation. I've got this horrible feeling that this isn't just an opinion of mine, but a scary fact.
Now over 1.5 million
> I guess the people have spoken
When asked what she thought of the 1 million + signatures, Andrea Leadsom's response was 'When it gets to 17.5 million I suppose we might need to pay attention to it'.
Now there's a challenge!
It does seem to be speeding up, 250,000 signatures in the last 40 minutes.
Not only that, it can show the lie that she is always quoting, the "Will of the People"
I wonder whether that's the effect of a backlog of delayed confirmation emails finally going out and getting clicked on. Or maybe just all the press attention it's been getting today.
Either way, it's closing in rapidly on 2 million. Just over 1.9 at the moment.
Edit: Only twenty minutes later it's exceeded 2 million. And I'm still awaiting my confirmation email.
We can all travel to London on Saturday too, as well as signing the petition that no one will take any notice of, not that it's stopped me before, or is likely to in the future.
Good luck everyone.
> Remember, one day the boot will be on the other foot. That is the way history works, even if it's a rather slow process. Grim subject, but I think it's quite likely that one day, far in the future, there'll be an equivalent of Nuremberg for this Brexit-fuelled evil, for 'peace crimes' rather than 'war crimes'. Please don't think I like the idea; it's about the last thing I could ever have wanted to happen, but justice will have to be done or it really will be the end of civilisation. I've got this horrible feeling that this isn't just an opinion of mine, but a scary fact.
Although I'm certain it will be a disaster for the UK, I think you're being a tad pessismistic here.
I think he is being optimistic actually, the guilty parties will almost certainly get away with it!
News this morning suggests that the grown ups in Brussels are taking charge, maybe the brexiters were right when they claimed we were run by Brussels ?
Although I'm still far from convinced we won't end up with a no-deal brexit more by incompetence & May's stubbornness than by choice
I'm, probably for no good reason, more hopeful than I've been in a while. Next week, May's 3rd Pointless, sorry "Meaningful", Vote will be lost again. We then have two weeks to propose a way forward, which, according to the numbers from recent votes, can't be to walk away with no deal. I expect the proposal to be a long extension to agree some form of Brexit softer than May's, with a ratifying referendum with Remain as an option.
The birds in the spring morning have really cheered me up to the point of delusion, it would appear.
I hope you are right!
Yeah, I've f*cked it, haven't I? Sorry everyone.
I agree. I think that, in the next few weeks we might see ourselves set on course for a soft or even no Brexit, the end of May as Prime Minister, the well deserved disintegration of the tory party and the show being run by serious people such as Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn and Oliver Letwin. Things are looking up.
Good morning comrades!
According to Farage the 2.5 million+ signatures are down to the Russians!
I'd have thought the last thing Putin wants is for us to stay in, but then he's a clever bastard and there must be a bigger plan.
> Next week, May's 3rd Pointless, sorry "Meaningful", Vote will be lost again.
Theresa does seem to have trouble with locating her arse, the number of times people have to hand it to her on a plate.
Does anyone know if they are recording unconfirmed signatures in the total?
I signed yesterday when it was at just over a million. It's now at 2.75M but I still haven't received my email.
> But that's a waste of time if your MP is a member of the ERG and a close friend of Rees Mogg, as mine is.
What about John Mann or Dennis Skinner? Or conversely any SNP MP, as obviously no no one in Scotland voted leave.
Any idea how May is going to get round Bercow's ruling about a third MV? How she can offer anything that will be 'substantially different'?
> I agree. I think that, in the next few weeks we might see ourselves set on course for a soft or even no Brexit, the end of May as Prime Minister, the well deserved disintegration of the tory party and the show being run by serious people such as Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn and Oliver Letwin. Things are looking up.
Gosh, you're being optimistic. I really hope you're right.
No idea, but the extension agreement and general change in circumstances may be enough of an excuse.
Since there are no strings attached to the April 12 extension and no changes to the meaningless political declaration currently being mentioned it is exactly the same agreement. I expect MP's will have to demand the right to vote on it or a new session will be needed. There is now time to do that, it's ugly but what about brexit isn't.
jk
> Gosh, you're being optimistic. I really hope you're right.
> Any idea how May is going to get round Bercow's ruling about a third MV? How she can offer anything that will be 'substantially different'.
> News this morning suggests that the grown ups in Brussels are taking charge, maybe the brexiters were right when they claimed we were run by Brussels ?
The news from Brussels is good. The pressure has been ratcheted up with some genuinely immovable deadlines now picked, nobody painted into a corner and nothing concrete 'imposed by foreigners'. Couldn't have hoped for better really.
jk
> Does anyone know if they are recording unconfirmed signatures in the total?
> I signed yesterday when it was at just over a million. It's now at 2.75M but I still haven't received my email.
Do it again. When it has worked you get an email with a link to authenticate your vote, and then you get confirmation on the website saying your vote has been added. Same thing happened to me. If you aren't clear whether your vote has been counted, it probably hasn't.
tIn reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
> I'm, probably for no good reason, more hopeful than I've been in a while. Next week, May's 3rd Pointless, sorry "Meaningful", Vote will be lost again. We then have two weeks to propose a way forward, which, according to the numbers from recent votes, can't be to walk away with no deal. I expect the proposal to be a long extension to agree some form of Brexit softer than May's, with a ratifying referendum with Remain as an option.
When the vote comes up again the second referendum amendment will be tabled i.e. May's deal is subject to a ratification referendum If the amendment is passed then Labour will abstain from the substantive vote allowing the tories to vote for a second referendum on May's deal or Remain.
There will be other amendments as well so next week's vote could be decisive.
... and if it has been counted already, you'll get an email saying you've already voted.
3 million by 1 o'clock?
> ... and if it has been counted already, you'll get an email saying you've already voted.
How did you discover that, Gordon?!
On some previous petition, when I wasn't sure if I'd voted on it or not. I was fairly sure I had, but tried it just to see (I was really hoping they have a way of ensuring you can't vote twice, and they do.)
> ... and if it has been counted already, you'll get an email saying you've already voted.
I've tried twice and haven't had either!
The system is overloaded just wait and you will get an email.
Passed that just now.....
Yes, I've just seen: 3,008,594.
Interesting, I could sign the petition but couldn't vote in the referendum. A curious world!
Other way round for me. I can vote and pay I taxes in the UK, but as I'm not a resident I can't sign the petition.
Have you checked your junk email?
> Other way round for me. I can vote and pay I taxes in the UK, but as I'm not a resident I can't sign the petition.
Why not ? I thought it was open to any British citizen ? I said I lived in France but was able to sign
Are you a british citizen? If so you can vote.
Still at that now, looks like they've given up on updating it regularly (or it's being cached).
edit 3,100,779 now (13:01)
No. 3,100,000 now.
> I agree. I think that, in the next few weeks we might see ourselves set on course for a soft or even no Brexit, the end of May as Prime Minister, the well deserved disintegration of the tory party and the show being run by serious people such as Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn and Oliver Letwin. Things are looking up.
I didn't know you were such an optimist!! Let's hope you are right!!!
Someone higher up said only British Citizens AND residents can sign petitions. It took that to mean that you had to be a resident Citizen. I signed it anyway.
Tick box says: "I am a British citizen or UK resident"
The UK map showing the distribution of signatories of the petition, not suprisingly is virtually the same as the distribution of remain voters in the 2016 referendum with the exception of Northern Ireland
OR - ignore disinformation
I've signed it too, but I fully expect it to be used as a kill list by the post-Brexit government.
That's a helluva big kill list - currently almost 3.35 million
slight aside, are you able to stay in Brussels ? or have you become Belgian?
I'm in the process of getting French nationality by marriage though not for an,other 8 months - the consulate guy said the small team in Nantes that deals with this are a bit more overrun than usual
I should have no problems staying in Brussels even with hard Brexit. Sorry to hear your situation is more precarious
In the Journal Official that announces naturalisations you can see just how many they deal with. In the one that came out 22 Feb there were some 2200 of which only 27 were Brits.
It's just passed the 3.5M point.
The people's vote people are emailing the link too. Young people might be helping turning the tide as some University cities appear to be hotter spots
I hope that Remainers who stood back last time from voting at least register their heads
Yes, just about all the hottest spots are either places of learning, or places of non-menial business work. The whole thing is just so deeply embarrassing and shocking, and a terrible comment on our divided society and its very divided education system. Just awful.
I mean, for example, if you live in the Fens, have had a lousy education, and are out of work, just what do you do? Then some apparent saviours come along (extreme right wing in disguise of do-gooders) and tell you it's all Europe's* fault.
(*Using the term Europe in common inaccurate parlance, because of course we are part of it and still will be even if we leave the EU.)
Given that you only need an email address to sign a gov. petition and most people have at least 2 the actual numbers on any given topic are very likely to be grossly over counted. I don’t expect any of us here on ukc would stoop so low as to sign more than once but not so sure about the rest of the population, opinions are running very high atm and any chance to swing it is being grabbed by both sides.
just saying..
Clearly the ones o the other side of the debate haven't grasped this important point...
https://brexit-petitions-count.now.sh/?fbclid=IwAR049bzpIrkuq3486ad14q_H16U...
3.6M by Friday evening.
200k signed this evening while I was having a pint.
Yup interesting
it probably just shows that these petitions don’t accurately reflect public opinion and a second vote would be an awful lot closer than these figures are suggesting. Those that are likely to sign this gov petition are probably more engaged in the current political debate and more smart device savvy than those that that may sign a petition to the opposite.
I have friends that are passionate on both sides of the argument and haven’t come across any of them that have changed sides yet.. interesting times...
This a terrible weakness, it is true. But then, this flawed apparatus is exactly the same for all referendums, on both sides. Also: how many people have more than one email account? It always sounds like a good idea until you have to live with it (it doesn't work well in practice for multiple reasons). My second email is a backup for the rare occasions when my main email goes down,
> it probably just shows that these petitions don’t accurately reflect public opinion and a second vote would be an awful lot closer than these figures are suggesting. Those that are likely to sign this gov petition are probably more engaged in the current political debate and more smart device savvy than those that that may sign a petition to the opposite.
That is why a second referendum will be essential (but only once we know exactly what the substance of the question is). You've also put your finger on the biggest problem - far bigger than some people having two email accounts - that many people who would vote in a referendum are not, as you say, 'engaged in the current political debate' ... many of them being completely detached from it in any detailed way, because they don't read the broadsheets, for example, and their only exposure to it is a wall of propaganda from the gutter press and media, and emotive nonsense spouted at them by their peers. Hope that doesn't sound too harsh.
The weird phantom disliker strikes again. He/she presumably dislikes me for being a Remainer (unless it's just a psychiatric thing of disliking me per se). Yet I agree with someone that the anti-Brexit petition could be flawed, and I get a dislike. All I can do is laugh, actually.
> ... Also: how many people have more than one email account?
For the purpose of subverting the petitions 'authentication' (ha!) system, anybody - or any bot - in charge of a mail domain could have as many as he/she liked.
There are checking mechanism is place. Various things online about it.
> The weird phantom disliker strikes again. He/she presumably dislikes me for being a Remainer (unless it's just a psychiatric thing of disliking me per se). Yet I agree with someone that the anti-Brexit petition could be flawed, and I get a dislike. All I can do is laugh, actually.
Don't worry. I've got one too. Share him?
You're not quite right about this: they have various ways of trying to prevent bots (you have to give an authenticatable [ouch] name, don't you?) Anyhow, I live in a fluffy world in which I'm quite convinced that the vast bulk of Remainers are NOT cheats, by nature.
> You're not quite right about this: they have various ways of trying to prevent bots (you have to give an authenticatable [ouch] name, don't you?)
I'm right insofar as it is, from a technical point of view, trivially easy to subvert the petitions system, and to organize mass submissions. Whether or not that is happening in this case, I have no way of knowing.
Gordon, the broadsheets don't exist anymore. Only the Torygraph is a 'broadsheet' anymore. Broadsheet doesn't mean quality as you infer.
> the broadsheets don't exist anymore. Only the Torygraph is a 'broadsheet' anymore.
Fake news! There's still the Yorkshire Post.
OK, I'm using outmoded jargon. We have a truly shocking range of 'newspapers', most of which are no longer genuine newspapers at all. I don't know what you'd call them: propaganda organs. Only three that are in the range of acceptable to half decent (Independent, Guardian, Times)
Sorry, falling asleep ...
> The weird phantom disliker strikes again. He/she presumably dislikes me for being a Remainer (unless it's just a psychiatric thing of disliking me per se). Yet I agree with someone that the anti-Brexit petition could be flawed, and I get a dislike. All I can do is laugh, actually.
You are living dangerously Gordon, l you've now collected a dislike for laughing at the phantom disliker !
Technically it's trivially easy for the phantom disliker to set up a fake account on here and dislike a post twice, or any number of times
Even more reason to scrap the whole system
Why, I've even disliked a couple of my own posts with my other account just to get the ball rolling.
It's all a bit H. M. Bateman to me: "The man who discussed his own dislikes."
I am the phantom liker. The phantom disliker is a Toidi from the dark realms of anti-matter. We wage a continual battle across time and space and multiple dimensions. They are really evil they even dislike cute kitten pics
> I'm right insofar as it is, from a technical point of view, trivially easy to subvert the petitions system, and to organize mass submissions.
Yes, but I think you're being overly dismissive about how much of an obstacle having access to large numbers of suitable email addresses would pose to any such campaign. Yes, somebody in control of a domain has a vast number of addresses automatically under their control but a large grouping of addresses like that from domains not known as email providers would be trivially easy to filter out. Especially as, at the scale of this petition, you would need hundreds of thousands of bot submissions to make a significant difference. If you wanted to avoid easy detection, you would need a group of hundreds of people, each with control of hundreds of domains and all being quite sophisticated in their approach to automating the process. It strikes me as implausible.
The last petition on a scale like this didn't have the email verification step. Security experts seem to agree that the email requirement is too big a hurdle for bots to be having much impact this time around:
> I'm right insofar as it is, from a technical point of view, trivially easy to subvert the petitions system, and to organize mass submissions.
I’m open to accepting you’re right about this, as I’ve not really thought about it all that hard, but I would be interested to hear you explain why you think that is so?
Given that each individual signature requires email confirmation that means you’d either need a lot of signatures linked to the same email address which would be very obvious in the results (if not blocked outright), or you’d need a *lot* (to have statistical effect) of unique looking disposable mail boxes.
Small numbers of votes from ineligible voters are easy to organise, but I’m not so convinced mass votes are.
Obviously these sorts of things are available to state agencies but you did specifically say ‘trivially easy’ - I’m just interested if there’s some mechanism I haven’t thought of.
Snap!
It just crossed the 4 million mark!
Just passed 4m
Also, if this were the case – and the Brexiteers appear to be remarkably expert in their knowledge of how to fiddle the system – did they not do the same with their rival petition which only garnered a relatively paltry 300,000?
Well let's just give in and deny any voice to the people who want this stinking shitty mess that was foisted on us by dishonest cheerleaders ended. Let's deny the opinion that this whole escapade was a very inappropriate response to a badly set up referendum that still managed to indicate an almost split opinion in the country unlike the 2/3 majority that the first referendum gave us for membership to continue.
Let's just give up now. What point is there in trying to right a stupid wrong that is going to harm all of us?
I have spent a bit of time doing this sort of stuff for a living, though I'm no expert, lets see if we can jot down the process we need to go through.
To make a substantial difference to the results we need to either have or to create ~half an million email addresses a day without leaving an obvious trace. That likely means no controlling the domains involved, and if you do control them not using junk domains easily identified in the logs. The majority of our signups for personal accounts come from one of about a dozen email prviders (gmail, btinternet etc.) so i that's not the case here then that would be obvious in itself. I suppose the easiest way for a state actor to do it would be to have compromised one or more of the UK's larger email providers.
Having several hundred thousand domains sat around dormant for this kind of use would be a bit weird and expensive but possible - registering new domains would be blindingly obvious.
You then probably need to create some UI automation and run it millions of times in a way that doesn't raise an obvious pattern. It's one thing to have a botnet set up to ping a url and DDOS it, it's another thing to have it run selenium and an smtp client to handle the end to end flow. I feel like there're clever ways to avoid the need for automation but they'd all depend on how and what the petitions site is using for behaviour tracking.
Then finally you need a distributed system for ensuring that the bots are using postcodes in line with the expected voter profile. This isn't that hard either but you're probably looking at some sort of centralised postcode service and that's going to generate some suspicious traffic.
It's definitely not trivially easy, it requires a lot of infrastructure and I doubt I could do it in a way that wasn't traceable, even if I had access to a suitable botnet. Other people are much cleverer than me though.
I doubt it's been substantially gamed to be honest, I'm not sure why you'd invest the resource..
I see I missed off a crucial 'why' before 'did they not' in my last post.
> I doubt it's been substantially gamed to be honest, I'm not sure why you'd invest the resource..
I think the point is that it might be possible, which is enough to get lots of people believing it because they are predisposed to the idea, in very much the same way as a Brexit milk and honey outcome might be achievable. Dismissing either as unlikely almost to the point of impossibility, even with clear and detailed explanations why, seems unlikely to convince those who are determined to believe.
Yes, this was my thinking too. I don’t doubt that there are entities in the world who have the resources to do it, but I don’t think it’s plausible that any of them would squander then on a web petition
Sadly it seems that the lady who started the petition has been receiving telephone death threats. Nothing extols a love of democracy like threatening to kill people with a different view.
On a brighter note, I just heard that one of my most Brexity friends has had a significant change of heart and signed the petition!
The counter flipped over 4.5 million while I was checking it just now.
I never got the confirmation email, still waiting for manual validation.
It's not showing any signs of easing off, is it? Nearly 4.6 m now.
> Sadly it seems that the lady who started the petition has been receiving telephone death threats. Nothing extols a love of democracy like threatening to kill people with a different view.
Presumably it never occurred to any of the scum making those threats that they could, you know, start a petition of their own if they thought the arguments in favour of their viewpoint were so strong.
> I’m open to accepting you’re right about this, as I’ve not really thought about it all that hard, but I would be interested to hear you explain why you think that is so?
Aspects have already been touched on by subsequent posters, but what I meant was that it is technically trivial for anybody who controls a mail domain to automate as many petition submissions as they like.
That doesn't mean it's happening; nor does it mean that anybody doing so wouldn't eventually 'get caught.' But getting caught after the event doesn't necessarily matter in the potential timescales we're talking about: that's a modern political lesson which I hope we're all learning.
> Well let's just give in and deny any voice to the people who want this stinking shitty mess that was foisted on us by dishonest cheerleaders ended. Let's deny the opinion that this whole escapade was a very inappropriate response to a badly set up referendum that still managed to indicate an almost split opinion in the country unlike the 2/3 majority that the first referendum gave us for membership to continue.
> Let's just give up now. What point is there in trying to right a stupid wrong that is going to harm all of us?
Since that was directed at me, I'll say that I have no idea why you made the comment. I was merely pointing out the obvious technical inadequacies of the gov.uk petitions website: namely, that there is *zero* effective authentication.
> technically trivial for anybody who controls a mail domain to automate as many petition submissions as they like.
> Except, when we're talking hundreds of thousands/millions of non-immediately obvious fakes I'm pretty sure that's bullshit.
It's trivially easy to make as many submissions as is wanted. Whether they're picked up sufficiently quickly (which is crucial) - or at all - by the petitions system is another (non-obvious!) question. The fact that the petitions system has only now - years after its origination - implemented this further layer of checking doesn't fill me with confidence.
However I'm not involved with the petitions system, so I don't know the internals.
PS: would you trust access to your voting rights in a general election - or, say, access to your bank account - to the levels of 'authentication' in the gov.uk petitions system? I certainly wouldn't.
He either hasn't read my earlier post:
/forums/off_belay/had_enough_of_brexit_-_sign_up_here-702173?v=1#x8961998
or he's preferring to ignore it!
Edit: the 'link to this reply' doesn't seem to be working properly. Try this one: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=702173&v=1#x8961998
> Presumably it never occurred to any of the scum making those threats that they could, you know, start a petition of their own if they thought the arguments in favour of their viewpoint were so strong.
But they did have a petition of their own about a week ago, and it was rather feeble, garnering a relatively small 330,000, iirc.
> Since that was directed at me, I'll say that I have no idea why you made the comment. I was merely pointing out the obvious technical inadequacies of the gov.uk petitions website: namely, that there is *zero* effective authentication.
As has been pointed out, there is quite effective authentication. It is possible to get around it to a certain degree, but unlike the issue in 2016, to get around it and actually influence the numbers would take a huge amount of resources held in reserve by (more than likely) a state player and then you would have to ask why. Even if the resources were in place, it is still likely to be reasonably detectable.
> As has been pointed out, there is quite effective authentication.
In practice, it has zero value. Would you trust your bank account to that level of authentication?
> you would have to ask why. Even if the resources were in place, it is still likely to be reasonably detectable.
Whether abusing the system is worthwhile in any particular case is a separate question.
> In practice, it has zero value. Would you trust your bank account to that level of authentication?
Funnily enough many things linked to bank accounts are set up based on exactly this level of authentication.
> Whether abusing the system is worthwhile in any particular case is a separate question.
A valid question, which would be somewhat remiss to ignore.
The fact is DDoS to restrict people’s ability to sign is much more likely than large numbers of fake signatures.
> In practice, it has zero value. Would you trust your bank account to that level of authentication?
Well that's a weird non sequitur. Its value is that it makes it harder, slower and more resource intensive to mass fake in a non trivially-obvious way. That doesn't mean that it's perfect, it means that it's good enough for this application. Are you under the impression that security is a binary thing?
> Funnily enough many things linked to bank accounts are set up based on exactly this level of authentication.
No bank would accept access to an account on the basis of the 'authentication' provided by the gov.uk petitions system. Nor (obviously!) should they.
> Well that's a weird non sequitur. Its value is that it makes it harder, slower and more resource intensive to mass fake in a non trivially-obvious way. That doesn't mean that it's perfect, it means that it's good enough for this application.
In practice it's a minor (and easily subvertible) choke.
> In practice it's a minor (and easily subvertible) choke.
you can keep repeating that but I’d be genuinely interested to hear how you’d make it work in practice.
4,923,235 now.
> you can keep repeating that but I’d be genuinely interested to hear how you’d make it work in practice.
According to his own statement at 21:26 on Saturday, he doesn't know how it works right now:
"I'm not involved with the petitions system, so I don't know the internals."
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/had_enough_of_brexit_-_sign_up_...
5 million!
Just gone over 5 million, obviously it’s started to slow down, but interesting to see how it grows over the next week!
> Just gone over 5 million, obviously it’s started to slow down, but interesting to see how it grows over the next week!
When it passes 17M will it be QED!??
It's certainly proving the lie of the Maybot's claim that "everyone just wants to get on with Brexit". So far, 5 million people have said they don't.
May has consistently ignored the 48% of those who voted, who voted for remain, never mind those who weren't allowed to vote.
Yeah, but we aren't "The People", just vermin perhaps?
ITN Evening News just this minute said the petition had broken the record for signatures, sadly not people!
> But they did have a petition of their own about a week ago, and it was rather feeble, garnering a relatively small 330,000, iirc.
Got a link to that? Not that I want to be able point and laugh, or anything like that...
I'm having trouble tracking it down now. I think it may have been this one: 'Leave the EU without a deal in March 2019.' https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963
But it’s 523,181 signatures, and the motion is not as I remember it.
Or it may have been this:
'Brexit re article 50 it must not be suspended/stopped under any circumst'
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/224908
But that’s only 116,484 signatures.
5.1 million and ticking away nicely.
Keep them coming.
Help people who have no electronic infrastructure to sign.
It's interesting looking at the Petition Map on the site as the number of signatures continues to grow. The contagion seems to be spreading out from the obvious metropolitan centres.
Looking at the numbers involved in some individual constituencies might give any MPs who are hanging on by a small margin pause for thought on their stance on Brexit...
If that's all this petition achieves then it's achieved something.
> May has consistently ignored the 48% of those who voted, who voted for remain, never mind those who weren't allowed to vote.
It's a bit morbid, but since the original vote, roughly 1.5 million people have died (statistically 2/3 were brexit voting) and probably a similar amount are now eligible to vote (of which roughly 4/5 voted to remain).
Assuming 70% turnout, then that's -700k old leave voters, -350k old remain voters. +840k young remain voters, +210k young leave voters.
Leave: 17,410,742 -700k +210k = 16.92M
Remain: 16,141,241 +840k -350k = 16.63M
This would put percentages (assuming everything else is the same) of 50.4% and 49.6% - the most razor thin of margins at best. Give it another year and it's swung to remain, with nobody having to change their mind. It annoys me to no end that this reality isn't acknowledged.
> It's not showing any signs of easing off, is it? Nearly 4.6 m now.
Nope. My bet is it's over 12 by the time we leave.
Jk
> This would put percentages (assuming everything else is the same) of 50.4% and 49.6% - the most razor thin of margins at best. Give it another year and it's swung to remain, with nobody having to change their mind. It annoys me to no end that this reality isn't acknowledged.
Have you considered the possibility that, as early 60-somethings turn into real OAPs, those soft metropolitan remainers harden into immigrant-fearing socially conservative quitters?!!
> Have you considered the possibility that, as early 60-somethings turn into real OAPs, those soft metropolitan remainers harden into immigrant-fearing socially conservative quitters?!!
No, almost like another vote to settle things is needed
> Have you considered the possibility that, as early 60-somethings turn into real OAPs
Good point. They're probably worrying about who is going to pay their pensions, once all the young, fit, tax-paying European workers are shipped back home...
This link shows both petition live counts side by side:
https://www.livefrombrexit.com/petitions/241584?fbclid=IwAR2-Dr7gDJYazkxZCu...
This is interesting....details of how constituencies voted, their mp & numbeer of signatures...
~(not sure what it means, but could result in some mp's feeling lent on..)
https://www.livefrombrexit.com/petitions/241584?fbclid=IwAR2-Dr7gDJYazkxZCu...
This is interesting....details of how constituencies voted, their mp & numbeer of signatures...
~(not sure what it means, but could result in some mp's feeling lent on..)
> PS: would you trust access to your voting rights in a general election - or, say, access to your bank account - to the levels of 'authentication' in the gov.uk petitions system? I certainly wouldn't.
You do know that to vote in a general election all you have to do is give a name and address?
There's no authentication at all, you don't have to prove you are that person.
Sorry Gordon, definitely not personal. Probably because you always put your points across well that I can find the time to read them. Not that I always agree with you though.
Unfortunately that table lets itself down a bit by including the rather misleading "Percentage of Electorate" as you do not have to be a member of the electorate to sign the petition. This does not reduce the meaning of the petition at all as it allows interested youth to register their opinion and also EU citizens from other states who are resident here but they should have omitted that column as it renders the table vulnerable to attack.
> You do know that to vote in a general election all you have to do is give a name and address?
> There's no authentication at all, you don't have to prove you are that person.
Voting in general elections isn't done on-line. Apart from abusing the postal voting system, it's therefore a much more difficult system to abuse en masse.
> Voting in general elections isn't done on-line. Apart from abusing the postal voting system, it's therefore a much more difficult system to abuse en masse.
There is no authentication needed in order to vote, there is some authentication (only of your email address) for a petition, so neither really authenticates who you are and hence your right to vote.
If they are not comparable (and I'm not arguing they are, why would you have the same level of authentication for a general election and an online petition?) why did you bring it up in the first place?
More to the point, why would he be trying to discredit the petition when the experts at the cross-party HoC Petitions Committee don't believe there's been any widespread abuse of it? Those pesky experts spoiling the narrative again?
> When it passes 17M will it be QED!??
If it doesn’t get close will that be?
The 48% plus all those bregretters, non voters and children should be 20+
> If they are not comparable (and I'm not arguing they are, why would you have the same level of authentication for a general election and an online petition?) why did you bring it up in the first place?
I was making the point that the 'authentication' in use for the petitions system would not be acceptable for a general election, were balloting for that ever done on-line.
Sigh. I am not trying to discredit this particular petition; I am pointing out the obvious weakness of the 'authentication' system in place. Arguably it's sufficient for petitions; it's certainly not sufficient for more important votes.
In any event, it's not a very logical approach to turn a blind eye to the weakness of the system just because the current outcome might suit your particular purpose.
I think I'll leave it at that.
I've just signed the revoke article 50 petition. In the referendum I voted leave but I've changed my mind because of the complete incompetence of politicians.
I would still like the things I voted leave for, but not at any price, and currently, remaining looks better than anything offered or promised so far
There was a substantial group of Leavers who had become Remainers on Saturday's march.
> I've just signed the revoke article 50 petition. In the referendum I voted leave but I've changed my mind because of the complete incompetence of politicians.
> I would still like the things I voted leave for, but not at any price, and currently, remaining looks better than anything offered or promised so far
Well done, Michael, for admitting that especially in this shire which is very pro-remain. I was a close remain and thought long and hard about leave. I am now very pro-remain. My wife voted leave and would vote remain now.
Please let me know however, what these things are which you voted leave for. I have had many discussions with leavers since the vote and on the whole, the responses have been pretty poor so I am keen to learn from you why you voted leave and why you have changed your mind, despite still holding the same values.
> I've just signed the revoke article 50 petition. In the referendum I voted leave but I've changed my mind because of the complete incompetence of politicians.
> I would still like the things I voted leave for, but not at any price, and currently, remaining looks better than anything offered or promised so far
Have a like for your intelligence and ability to assess the situation and change your mind. It was only an 'Advisory' referendum anyway...
I did hear that enough had died already that it would be remain now.
But people can change their mind anyway. This was 3 years ago.
Democracy is about changing ones mind.
I cannot see any argument for getting a deal then going back to the people and just say, now what do you want?
> I am pointing out the obvious weakness of the 'authentication' system in place.
... which, by expert appraisal, isn't a weakness significant enough to substantially affect the petition outcome.
> it's not a very logical approach to turn a blind eye to the weakness of the system just because the current outcome might suit your particular purpose.
Nobody has been doing that. They've been open to the potential for weakness in the system. But they have been reassured by the pesky experts that the petition outcome has not been substantially weakened.
That's very different from it being because the outcome suits their purpose (which is a convenient coincidence). Indeed, I suspect the only reason you're apparently so keen to continue trying to cast doubt on the validity of this expert opinion is precisely because it suits your own particular purpose to do so.
Check out the petition live signature count and graph! Inspiring!
Thanks Michael, can I ask what your opinion on the Customs Union and Single Market is, are you in favour of coming out of the EU, but retaining some or all of those trading relationships and free movement?
Thank you, sincerely
> Sigh. I am not trying to discredit this particular petition; I am pointing out the obvious weakness of the 'authentication' system in place
Without taking any time to understand what it's there to do and how it functions
> it's certainly not sufficient for more important votes.
Umm... well noone said it was
> In any event, it's not a very logical approach to turn a blind eye to the weakness of the system just because the current outcome might suit your particular purpose.
No, it's a good idea to analyse that weakness and look at whether it has any chance of impacting the system and if you don't have the knowledge or experience to do so, listen to people who do.
> I think I'll leave it at that.
Mainly I wanted legislative sovereignty to rest with parliament - they're actually doing a reasonable job reminding politicians that they only have power whilst parliament lets them.
I don't think the European Union is very democratic. Probably my main gripe is that the MEPs in the European parliament are almost an irrelevant add-on. I suspect the EU would hardly notice any difference if its parliament disappeared just leaving the commission and council of (prime) ministers.
I wasn't taken in by the propaganda and realised that leaving would mean taking an economic hit. I was ok with that even though it would almost certainly affect me.
However, as I effectively said above, I'm only happy to achieve this for a reasonable price. At the moment the words reasonable and Brexit make a rather strong oxymoron.
Quite happy to stay in customs union and single market even if that means freedom of movement.
My pragmatic approach would have been to soft Brexit, see how that goes for a few years (1 term maybe). Then debate and/or ask the question: back in, stay soft, go hard.
Oh one other bit, immigration.
Actual immigration, not an issue with me. But what I would like to see debated etc is questions like, how many people can the UK have before it's overloaded, if our population increases by 10m in the next 20 years (birth, immigration, cloning, whatever) then what does that mean for infrastructure, services and standard of living.
Once those kind of questions are answered (obviously there's no single answer), then immigration policies that are rational, fair and minimise any strife can be (relatively easily) worked out because there would be a coherent end point for the policies to aim at.
That may mean restrictive immigration or it may mean open immigration, but at least the country might have some idea what it's trying to achieve in that area.
Thanks Michael. I actually agree with you in all those areas.
> then what does that mean for infrastructure, services and standard of living.
It’s impossible to predict as it depends on future circumstances which are unknown.
> Once those kind of questions are answered (obviously there's no single answer), then immigration policies that are rational, fair and minimise any strife can be (relatively easily) worked out because there would be a coherent end point for the policies to aim at.
> That may mean restrictive immigration or it may mean open immigration, but at least the country might have some idea what it's trying to achieve
You want the immigration issue solved ? What you need is not a top-down statist approach, but a bottom-up approach. It needs to be devolved to regions and/or nations.
If having high immigration suits London, let them have it, if it doesn’t suit Lincolnshire, let them not have it. Everybody gets what they want.
> If having high immigration suits London, let them have it, if it doesn’t suit Lincolnshire, let them not have it. Everybody happy.
Im not sure how you would police this.
> Im not sure how you would police this.
It would be up to the regions and/or nations to police it whichever way they want.
Of course, if for example, a region adopts a particularly restrictive immigration policy, policing it will be harder and more expensive for them, but that’s a choice they’d have to make and take responsibility for.
Rather than looking at immigration as an issue or problem, I feel we should look at it as a range of potential solutions.
But, we as a nation need to have a better understanding of the problems that immigration (or lack of) can solve.
I don't think regions would fully work whilst there is freedom of movement throughout a nation state.
Where it might work is in different regions having different criteria for immigration which can then be totalled in sum way (couldn't resist that one ) across the nation.
I.e. one region needs 3 doctors, another needs 7 mechanics, etc. Or maybe one region only needs people for a particular work area at a high level whilst others need all levels.
> Rather than looking at immigration as an issue or problem, I feel we should look at it as a range of potential solutions.
> But, we as a nation need to have a better understanding of the problems that immigration (or lack of) can solve.
Problem is, we don’t understand it, and we can’t predict what we will need in the future.
> I don't think regions would fully work whilst there is freedom of movement throughout a nation state.
Regions would be free to stop freedom of movement with the rest of the UK if they wished to do so. As long as they pay for it.
> If having high immigration suits London, let them have it, if it doesn’t suit Lincolnshire, let them not have it. Everybody gets what they want.
What is so tragically sad is, if the Lincolnshire Fens 'get what they want', with a vastly reduced number of EU fruit and vegetable pickers, they're going to be really f***** economically ... a lot worse than they already have been.
> What is so tragically sad is, if the Lincolnshire Fens 'get what they want', with a vastly reduced number of EU fruit and vegetable pickers, they're going to be really f***** economically ... a lot worse than they already have been.
If that’s their choice I’m fine with it as long as
1) they pay for it
2) don’t impose it on others.
5.7 million and still going up.
Appears to have slowed to a crawl though (ta for the graph), and today would have to match yesterday to hit 6m so you’re not on course at the moment. As things stand from the petition people signed the day after the vote you’ve convinced less than 2m extra to join you...only 10 million plus to go and you’ll equal the leave vote.
Well, seeing as the leave vote is almost static and struggled to make 10% of the remain, I'd say you're talking bollocks...
https://brexit-petitions-count.now.sh/?fbclid=IwAR049bzpIrkuq3486ad14q_H16U...
I see no reason to sign that, why would I? I voted.
Leave or Remain, you've got to admit that the whole affair is a total f*cking farce.
It's about three years ago since the Ref was announced, and it's now come down for us (them, the MPs) to decide and agree what we want and get it past the EU within two and a half weeks!
Pull A50 and stop it all now!
> Leave or Remain, you've got to admit that the whole affair is a total f*cking farce.
Certainly don’t think it’s going swimmingly.
> Pull A50 and stop it all now!
No, do what you promised to do MPs, or go back to the electorate if you aren’t willing to.
> No, do what you promised to do MPs, or go back to the electorate if you aren’t willing to.
Absolutely... with the relevant question. A GE doesn't answer the question MPs are struggling with, not least because neither big party will be able to stand united behind an unambiguous and deliverable manifesto.
Still, it's the more likely outcome posing marginally less risk to the tories than a being seen to facilitate a referendum to actually address the issue at hand.
jk
> I see no reason to sign that, why would I? I voted.
I bet you have though, you little tinker!
I’ll take that, much are you betting?
The one thing the million plus march and the 6,000,000 petition should tell the politicians is there's going to be an awful lot of very angry people if this Brexit shambles goes ahead on the same trajectory and there will be a very bloody (figuratively speaking) reckoning for the Tories and Labour .
Look at the Farage march, (does anybody know where they are?), look at the Leave with no deal petition. The Brexiters have had their moment and they really haven't got the heart to keep their hopeless project going.
During the referendum I had a tiny Remain poster in my window because I didn't want to upset the neighbours.The mood has flipped. Next time I won't just walk away from the guy who calls me a traitor. Putin and Trump want Brexit. One because he wants a victory in his asymmetric war on the West, the other because his whisperers want to destroy our agriculture and take over the NHS. If you're for Brexit I ask you who's the traitor ?
> Look at the Farage march, (does anybody know where they are?), look at the Leave with no deal petition. The Brexiters have had their moment and they really haven't got the heart to keep their hopeless project going.
One thing we need to be wary of is the same complacency that probably landed us in this mess in the first place. I happened to see a Facebook comments thread for a Portsmouth newspaper covering the people’s vote March and the pro-leave sentiment was full of all the same broken, discredited reasoning and meaningless patriotic drivel as usual but was also overwhelmingly dominant.
I voted remain but if I get the chance I'll be voting leave after seeing the eu leaders true colours ! Gangsters and children running the uk !
Better off with just the kindergarten we've got here running the show , at least we save 39 billion quid by leaving !
> I voted remain but if I get the chance I'll be voting leave after seeing the eu leaders true colours ! Gangsters and children running the uk !
Gangsters? What, for asking us what we want before they decide whether they can agree?
> I voted remain but if I get the chance I'll be voting leave after seeing the eu leaders true colours ! Gangsters and children running the uk !
Would you care to articulate an example of such gangster or infantile behaviour so we can assess whether your perception tallies with the reality as we perceive it?
> No, do what you promised to do MPs, or go back to the electorate if you aren’t willing to.
That's what the march was about on Saturday.
The trouble is, in order to have time to prepare and hold another 'meaningful' referendum (ideally, this time with a proper representation of the consequences), we'd either have to get another extension, or revoke A50 to prevent a default no deal.
If we went back to the EU and asked for an extension on condition of holding a second referendum, I think we might get it. Especially if another condition is that the EU are allowed to make the Remain case, with facts to counter the lies...
What is it about the "eu leaders true colours" you have taken a dislike to?
My impression is they have a plan and are powerful negotiators which are examples of the benefits of EU membership.
> Better off with just the kindergarten we've got here running the show , at least we save 39 billion quid by leaving !
<sigh>
No we don't. Our NET contribution last year was 9.8 billion.
>
> No we don't. Our NET contribution last year was 9.8 billion.
Citation to support that: https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
I hope Tim Jones, with his dislike of the term ‘magical thinking’ is reading this thread, because I suspect he’s about to see one or more rabbits pulled out of an entirely fictional hat.
> Better off with just the kindergarten we've got here running the show , at least we save 39 billion quid by leaving !
Other posters have dismantled the 39B rubbish, but to try and inject actual facts in to the other size of the equation, the CBI say:
A CBI literature review suggests that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK could be in the region of 4-5% of GDP or £62bn-£78bn a year – roughly the economies of the North East and Northern Ireland taken together.
http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/fac...
But what do they know, eh? Better to trust that greying troll doll who owns Wetherspoons.
> Citation to support that
Thanks.
fullfact.org really ought to be compulsory reading for BBC interviewers, so they can slap down the bollocks spouted by interviewees.
Actually, I'm sure there ought be be a nice AI application that does voice recognition, creates a suitable search string, parses the results, and displays a 'Bolloxometer' on screen, in real-time, during interviews...
> Better off with just the kindergarten we've got here running the show , at least we save 39 billion quid by leaving !
Oh god, no we don't save that, at most we exchange deferring paying what we owe for a massive hit to our economy, the erosion of what little good will remains with our negotiating partners in Brussels and an ugly stain on our national reputation that will make the difficult and costly business of digging ourselves out of that hole more so.
Anyway, vote as you see fit, I just hope you get the chance and don't grow to regret your choice.
Jk
Yeah they suggested ! Speculation is a funny thing when used negatively
Yes just watch all the live footage of them making demands at their euro meetings - not prepared to negotiate / they can't otherwise they loose their control over all the other countries ! Also the eu you has just started the censorship of the Internet assuming they are in charge of what we see , say and hear 🤔 just saying , not very friendly behaviour if you ask me .
I said we save 39billion if we leave not every year .
Err no , for just about evrything else they've done whilst lining their pockets .
> I said we save 39billion if we leave not every year
How do you calculate that, then? Considering we would save about £10bn a year, every year, from when we leave.
> Err no , for just about evrything else they've done whilst lining their pockets .
Who *exactly* is they in this context because you're making serious sounding allegations?
Jk
> I said we save 39billion if we leave not every year .
Is £39bn a big number and what are the costs of your policy proposal?
Jk
Ah. You're talking about the bill to leave.
It appears we may have to pay that, deal or no deal:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-3...
You say Putin is at war with the west.
How do you work that out?
Did he start the economic warfare or was that the "West"?
Did he start a Banderov fascist coup in Ukraine or was that the "west" that started it?
Was it Putin that started the problems on 8.8.08 in South Ossetia by bombing civilians or was that the "west", and their grovelling tie munching mafian puppet Saakashvili that started bombing men, women, kids and old folk?
PS. Is it the Russian Federation that is surrounding the "west", with missile bases and military bases or the Russian Federation surrounding the "west"?
Pps. Is it the RF making up fairy stories about British MIsix going to Russia and "poisoning ", two British people or the other way around ?
You know Putin is a Capitalist, Russia is not longer a Marxist / Leninist utopia, you are no longer obliged to defend their every action.
We’re in a crap position in time, granted (partly due to the fine efforts of Hammond and co in blocking good preparation for the other option). That doesn’t mean we should go back.
The EU have said that they’ll only grant a longer extension if we vote for the deal. If you believe them there are two options and we need to pick one. MPs are wasting time instead of getting on with picking from the options they left us with.
Going back on article 50 is not acceptable to me, and I don’t think you have a majority - certainly not numbers so great it should be done. Nationwide coverage for the petition - the last chance for people to ask - gets 6million (it’ll grow, granted, but it’s looking like the rush is over). Looks like polls don’t support a referendum either https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47693645
Some Tory MP was on Newsnight this evening. This was his argument:
"We shouldn't patronise the electorate; they knew what perfectly well what they were voting for: leave means leave".
If that is true, how come, 30 months later, and just two days away from the original deadline, we still don't know what leave actually means? If we don't know now, how the hell could anybody really know what they were voting for 30 months ago?
Putin is conducting an asymmetric war against the west. His disruption and divide strategy is splitting individual countries in half and putting alliances under what could be terminal strain . And all so we can all be permanently ruled by gangsters. Having woken up we need to stay awake.
> Yes just watch all the live footage of them making demands at their euro meetings - not prepared to negotiate / they can't otherwise they loose their control over all the other countries !
But do you have any actual examples, as it sounds a bit nebulous the way you've phrased it so far? I hope that, by 'not prepared to negotiate', you don't mean 'not prepared to change their long-established principles agreed over decades by all member states (including UK) just because May now demands that they do to stop her party falling apart quite so quickly'.
The Government has formally rejected the Petition, which has nearly reached 6M - see the link in the OP for it's reasons.
> You know Putin is a Capitalist, Russia is not longer a Marxist / Leninist utopia, you are no longer obliged to defend their every action.
I think she would still support them if they were goose stepping round Red Square with the Kremlin draped in swastikas.
If you enjoy signing things you might want to take a look at this (plus the posts around it). The poll poster desperately needs a larger sample size in order to get the result she’s after:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=795411157524216&id=56003469...
I definitely want to Honour the Referendum - 67% said stay on a national turnout of over 60% - Stay Means Stay!
Such firmness needs an equally firm indication to be changed and over a decent sampling period
> Some Tory MP was on Newsnight this evening. This was his argument:
> "We shouldn't patronise the electorate; they knew what perfectly well what they were voting for: leave means leave".
Well, there's at least one politician who expresses my position and actually seems to care about my rights:
"Before the European Council I said we should be open to a long extension if the UK wants to rethink its Brexit strategy, which would of course mean the UK's participation in the European Parliament elections," he told MEPs in an address in Strasbourg on Wednesday.
"Then there were voices saying that this would be harmful or inconvenient to some of you: let me be clear, such thinking is unacceptable.
"You cannot betray the six million people who signed a petition to revoke Article 50, the one million people who marched for a people's vote, or the increasing majority of people who want to remain in the European Union. They may feel that they are not sufficiently represented by the UK parliament but they must feel that they are represented by you in this chamber because they are Europeans."
Donald Tusk, of course. One of those unreasonable, inflexible and undemocratic Eurocrats we keep hearing about.
Even I find myself approving of that.
If I'm not careful I'll end up becoming a born-again remainer
Edit: in the original referendum, EU politicians were noticeable by their absence. If we get a ref v2, hopefully they will be there telling us what we get from the EU and how much it costs. Maybe allowing us to make a properly supported decision.
> If that is true, how come, 30 months later, and just two days away from the original deadline, we still don't know what leave actually means? If we don't know now, how the hell could anybody really know what they were voting for 30 months ago?
Do you really not know? You know what the deal is, as much as you can, and you know what not having a deal means, so far as is possible. What are you looking for?
> Do you really not know? You know what the deal is, as much as you can, and you know what not having a deal means, so far as is possible. What are you looking for?
What exactly does no-deal mean for us Thomas? I'll settle for five positives, five negatives
jk
> What are you looking for?
I'm looking for evidence that people voting in the referendum could have known, when they voted, what deal they were voting for, as claimed by the Tory MP last night (which, if you read my post, was my point...).
We know what deal May is offering. That deal wasn't known at the time of the referendum. That deal had been rejected by parliament twice. What deal do you think might emerge in the next few days? Was that potential deal known at the time of the referendum?
> > What are you looking for?
> I'm looking for evidence that people voting in the referendum could have known, when they voted, what deal they were voting for, as claimed by the Tory MP last night (which, if you read my post, was my point...).
You’ve misunderstood his claim. Voting leave never meant (couldn’t have possibly meant) any specific deal. It meant leaving, with whatever deal could be arranged or otherwise without.
> What deal do you think might emerge in the next few days? Was that potential deal known at the time of the referendum?
None seems likely. No, of course not, we can’t know the future.
Parliament will debate this petition
Parliament will debate this petition on April Fool's Day 2019.
You'll be able to watch online at parliamentlive.tv
> You’ve misunderstood his claim. Voting leave never meant (couldn’t have possibly meant) any specific deal. It meant leaving, with whatever deal could be arranged or otherwise without.
When you have a representative democracy, it doesn't really matter if you don't understand all the details of a complex constitutional issue, you entrust all that to your elected representative (wisely or not). However, in a referendum, it really does matter that you know what you are voting for. Your vote in a referendum is assumed to amount to informed consent.
By your own admission, that wasn't possible, based on the question originally asked. If this is the process we are going to use, the only defensible way forward is a second referendum based on the options actually available. Of course, there isn't now time to do this without revoking, at least temporarily, Art 50.
The only other democratic option would be a general election. Two problems with this: (1) no time to do this either, without revoking Art 50; (2) there isn't a realistic choice of an opposition party with remain as part of its manifesto.
> We know what deal May is offering.
The deal May is offering is only the Withdrawal Agreement and says nothing whatsoever on the future relationship. That would take years to sort out and I don't think anyone is under any illusion that we'll end up with a future relationship that beats what we have now as members.
But it's ok because we'll then be able to agree fantastic terms with all of the non-EU countries that are way better than we have been able to achieve collectively now as part of the most powerful trading bloc in the world.
Easy!
> When you have a representative democracy, it doesn't really matter if you don't understand all the details of a complex constitutional issue, you entrust all that to your elected representative (wisely or not). However, in a referendum, it really does matter that you know what you are voting for. Your vote in a referendum is assumed to amount to informed consent.
Yes, consent to leaving. As you say yourself we trust working out the details to our representatives. That’s whats happening at the moment.
> By your own admission, that wasn't possible, based on the question originally asked.
The question wasn’t what you think it should have been. We gave informed consent to leaving, not to deal X. There was no promise made to give a vote on the deal.
> The only other democratic option would be a general election. Two problems with this: (1) no time to do this either, without revoking Art 50; (2) there isn't a realistic choice of an opposition party with remain as part of its manifesto.
The obvious democratic option is for MPs to get on with what they were voted in to do. The claim that this is undemocratic is based on majority support for the alternative - support that is not proven, and even if it were it’s not been seen that going against a majority (in terms of polls) is undemocratic in the past. That’s just here, and pretty much just argued by those who voted the other way. We’re a representative democracy, not run by day to day polling. We’ll have elections in time as per usual.
Ooooooo 😯
No I don't want them to change I belive in freedom to do what you see fit - the country voted to leave deal or no Deal - there is no deal so I can't see the issue? We just leave
> the country voted to leave deal or no Deal
Not on the ballot paper I had, we didn’t..
Edit: and for context, let’s remember the question that WAS asked was asked was asked in the ‘easiest trade deal in history’ Brexit bullshit era.
> We just leave
Right. And you have no qualms about what will happen on April 13 if we leave without a deal? Or have you already shorted the £ and the stock market, and have your pension stashed in BVI?
> The deal May is offering is only the Withdrawal Agreement and says nothing whatsoever on the future relationship.
Indeed.
But hey, "Leave means Leave", right? We all know what that means.
> Going back on article 50 is not acceptable to me, and I don’t think you have a majority - certainly not numbers so great it should be done.
The polls suggest about 55% would vote remain given the opportunity. That looks like a majority. What numbers would be so great that it should be done?
Did you read my post? The polls say people don’t think that vote should be held.
> Did you read my post? The polls say people don’t think that vote should be held.
Yes, however I didn’t conflate holding another referendum with revoking A50.
Back to my question, what percentage of support should be required for a major decision such as revoking A50? You seem to be suggesting that a majority isn’t enough.
You clearly didn’t read the bbc link - polls are not in favour of a leave/remain vote being held.
If a majority signed that petition that would be a big deal. They haven’t. My conclusion is that there isn’t a majority for what you want (either a referendum OR withdrawing art 50) - how do you explain the missing 10m+ signatures?
The article you linked to was ambiguous to say the least. The relevant question it was reporting having been asked was "Do people support having another referendum on Leave vs Remain?", which was opposed by more people than supported it, which is unsurprising since a great many Remainers like myself don't want to repeat the same mistakes as in 2016 when the Leave option was so poorly defined. A rehash of a poor referendum wouldn't be in anybody's interest.
Somehow the author managed to reinterpret this question as "should there be another referendum with Remain as an option on the ballot paper", which is a very different question indeed and one that would be expected to garner considerably more support, from me and many other like-minded people.
What’s your explanation for the missing signatures?
What missing signatures?
17m+ voted to leave, 6m want to undo it. You’re missing a lot of signatures if you’re claiming a majority. Especially since non voters and kids can sign it.
You'd have to be pretty unreasonable to compare signature counts on twitter to referendum ballots. As it stands, more people have signed this petition than any other in the history of the online petition process, and in far less time too. The level of support is off the scale.
Given that a significant proportion of people are not regularly online and possibly huge numbers of people are wary of posting their details online, only someone as determinedly deaf to reason as May would suggest you need 17m signatures on an online petition even to have a ballot on the issue.
But you know that already.
> You clearly didn’t read the bbc link - polls are not in favour of a leave/remain vote being held.
Don’t act stupid.
> If a majority signed that petition that would be a big deal. They haven’t. My conclusion is that there isn’t a majority for what you want (either a referendum OR withdrawing art 50) - how do you explain the missing 10m+ signatures?
A petition is never going to match a national poll, we have never claimed it would. The polls suggest 55% support for remain, back to my question.
2/3 of people who agree with you chose not to sign because they’re concerned about their name and address being online (you can hide it as I recall) or because they (aren’t they the youngsters?) don’t have access to the internet? Hardly credible.
> 2/3 of people who agree with you chose not to sign
And you know this, how exactly?
Polls suggest 55% of voters would prefer to Remain. Your continued obsession with petition numbers is starting to look very silly.
Polls are inconclusive, as the BBC article says. Your assertion that there is a majority with you isn’t proven, it’s wishful thinking.
It's demonstrated to the best available knowledge and information. But there's an excellent way for us to be even more sure ...
> Did you read my post? The polls say people don’t think that vote should be held.
Not true. I might accept (with evidence) 'the polls are a mixed bag' or 'the picture is unclear'.
Reputable and recent, YouGov: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zrgautmsk5/P...
Pg 4, bottom half: Thinking about Brexit more generally, would you now support or oppose a public vote on Britain's future relationship with the rest of the European Union? March 14-15th sample, 48/36 in favour of a public vote (15 don't know).
Pg 5 upper half: If there were a public vote, and the choice were to stay in the EU or leave on the Brexit terms negotiated by the Government, how would you vote? March 14-15th sample, 47/32 in favour of remain (22 other). That's 61/39 excluding other options and weighted by likelihood of voting
I've showed you mine, you show me yours.
jk
Wishful thinking? This is a summary of 19 different opinion polls over the last 5 months. It's shocking really.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-tomorrow-wi...
Shocking that people like yourself cherry pick polls to show the result you like? None of those are leave vs remain.
I don’t really see there’s anything more to say on this tbh. The BBC article is quite clear - the polls are not conclusive, they do not show a massive majority in your favour. If you lot are happy to ignore the BBC then (unsurprisingly) there’s clearly no reasoning with you.
If you are happy to ignore the reasoned critique I gave of the one line in the BBC article that your entire flimsy point hangs on, there's clearly no reasoning with you.
Your “reasoned critique” doesn’t counter the point I’m making, which is that the polls are ambiguous, that the support you claim is there is not proven.
Sorry, but it seems to me like you're being disingenuous now. Probably nothing further to be gained by us continuing.
> Shocking that people like yourself cherry pick polls to show the result you like? None of those are leave vs remain.
This is breathtaking: I show you a poll of 19 polls and you say I'm cherry-picking.
Actually, I had no idea there were so many polls. I've just had another look. Here are a few more:
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-t...
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was...
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-tomorrow-wi...
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-remain-a-me...
These are based, respectively, on 64, 113, 13, and 54 separate polls.
They're just so difficult to interpret, aren't they? Just so bloody 'ambiguous'. (The fools who designed the graphs didn't take into account the unfortunate 9% of the population who suffer from colour vision deficiency.)
> Shocking that people like yourself cherry pick polls to show the result you like? None of those are leave vs remain.
Well I suppose I could have 'cherry picked' the poll of polls for leave Vs remain but I figured better to specifically address the point you made regarding public support for a public vote. As indicated, please feel free to provide alternative contradictory data, perhaps from this week rather than last. Or perhaps you have methodological concerns with the YouGov poll? I'd genuinely be interested.
Jk
Your Algebra is wrong - a good part of the 17M is cancelled by the people who voted Remain. That leaves less than 2M to be compared with the Petition signatories.
Or were the 17M the only ones who voted in your opine?
> If you enjoy signing things you might want to take a look at this (plus the posts around it). The poll poster desperately needs a larger sample size in order to get the result she’s after:
I’m pleased to say this has continued to go terribly, to the point where it’s been picked up by the Metro https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/27/pro-brexit-group-really-regrets-holding-seco... and is well on its way to internet meme territory.
Make sure not to comment though because the most recent post threatens legal action against every one who has commented (total comments today currently stand at 16k).
Tim, if you’re reading, are we allowed to consider these ones stupid yet???
On top of the number of people who may want to overturn their 2016 vote (ouch, it's called democracy) there's the whole demographic question, with a 1/4 million Leavers dying each year and 1/4 million new young people coming into the electorate.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-remain-vote-...
Thomas, I'm genuinely curious why did you vote leave?
What are the benefits? In fact, this question is open to any leave voter.
I voted remain and I'm not looking for a fight, but would like to understand why people think leaving is sensible. I'm not an EU fan boy and have some issues of my own with the EU. But I think its easier to fix something if you're part of it, and from what I understand we're better off in than out.
Fundamentally, democracy. The EU wasn’t designed to be a democratic institution and it doesn’t function as one.
The Lisbon Treaty gives a great example - people had objections to the Constitution and so referendums were held on that. The French and Dutch rejected it so it was repackaged with another name and this time without referendums. The Irish voted against so they had another go. The EU gave democratic consent a go, got rejected so didn’t try again. That’s the attitude to democracy, good as a veneer but if you can’t get that do it anyway.
Europhiles say we have MEPs, and yes, we do, but they have a limited role, the EU “Parliament” is nothing like ours. There’s the Council, and europhiles will point to the veto, but when the EU is barely on the notes at elections (and this is EU wide, not just here) there’s no meaningful control - and so Brown can sign Lisbon without any real mandate, but with major, permanent, effects for us. Europhiles will point to our right to leave - but look at what happens! We get more integrated by the day, that right becomes less and less meaningful, and as a source of democratic power to effect change it’s worthless in practice.
Yes, it’s difficult to leave and there is risk, but the direction of travel is not one I’m happy with - more and more power in the hands of people we have no real power over. We voted leave, and since then basically the same lot of politicians that signed Lisbon have been doing their best to prevent that, to make it harder. They get in promising to do X, but once in argue that this decision is too much for us, that it should be best left to them, and that to me illustrates the problem, they do not really think democracy is a good idea. They just use it as a buzzword when it helps them - like now, when they argue it’s “democratic” to have another go. Or “democratic” to do what petitions and polls say (since when!?).
The last few years just prove my concerns are fully justified.
Thanks for replying.
> On top of the number of people who may want to overturn their 2016 vote (ouch, it's called democracy) there's the whole demographic question, with a 1/4 million Leavers dying each year and 1/4 million new young people coming into the electorate.
“Among under-25s who did not vote in 2016 but would be certain to do so in a new referendum, 82 per cent said they would back Remain”
Assuming they can be arsed when it comes to it...
> Putin is conducting an asymmetric war against the west. His disruption and divide strategy is splitting individual countries in half and putting alliances under what could be terminal strain . And all so we can all be permanently ruled by gangsters. Having woken up we need to stay awake.
Nonsense!
And you know it fine well because Putin stopped the US and EU getting its bloody hands on Crimea after their murderous fascist coup in Kiev and because Putin stopped the US, Israel, Ksa, UK and France from putting their terrorist invaders into power in Damascus that is why there has been a concerted economic and propaganda war against the Russian Federation using all sorts of lies, false flags and real mass murders.
The gangsters?
They live happily in the government buildings in the US, UK, EU and all their Nato cronies.
You are Vladislaw Surkov and I claim my five pounds.
Your post says to me that it's UK democracy that's broken, not the EU's. Other members didn't like the Lisbon treaty and the EU (which is run by it's members) changed it. We (the UK electorate) didn't get a say, in a referendum, but the EU is not to blame for that.
The UK has been run for the benefit of the 1% since Thatcher, aided and abetted by FPTP and the fact that the 0.01% control / massively influence our media.
> Your post says to me that it's UK democracy that's broken, not the EU's.
How, why?
> Other members didn't like the Lisbon treaty and the EU (which is run by it's members) changed it. We (the UK electorate) didn't get a say, in a referendum, but the EU is not to blame for that.
Thy didn’t change it in effect, they just changed the package. They passed the new rules the French and Dutch rejected.
> The UK has been run for the benefit of the 1% since Thatcher, aided and abetted by FPTP and the fact that the 0.01% control / massively influence our media.
The 1%? They’re running the banks, etc, they argued for remain!
> The 1%? They’re running the banks, etc, they argued for remain!
Do you know how much wealth you have to have to be in the top 1% in this country? £688k. Top 1% income level : £99,000
Let's just review the Brexit cheerleaders shall we?
Nigel Farage: wealth £2.4m, income (official salary only) £84,000 [1]
Aaron Banks: wealth £100 million – £250 million, income? Sufficient to pay £2.4m income tax on it. [2]
Grand Wizard Mogg: wealth £55 million to (including his wife's prospects) £150 million. [3] income, over £1m/year
Bojo: wealth: couldn't find a figure, but the house he sold last year was worth £11m so I think we can assume he's not struggling. income: MP salary, circa £75k? £23,000 a *month* for his telegraph column(!!!!) [5] probably others. So much of it that the poor lamb sometimes forgets to declare it all anyway.
Tim Martin: wealth: £448million, income: who cares at that point. [6]
Charles Dyson: net worth: £7.8 billion. [7]
1: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-much-nigel-farage-worth-1608426
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Banks
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rees-Mogg
4: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-conservative...
5: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/boris-johnson-told-to-apol...
6:https://www.dailystar.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flatest-news%2F711487%2FTim-Martin-net-...
7: https://en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJames_Dyson&usg=AOvVaw1NULPpagduzPEBF...
So, to recap, the wealthy posh people voted remain, did they?
Largely, yes. Not all of them, of course, but the idea that leaving the EU is an idea pushed by our elites, that it’s part of the 1% ruling things since thatcher, is ridiculous.
> Largely, yes. Not all of them, of course, but the idea that leaving the EU is an idea pushed by our elites, that it’s part of the 1% ruling things since thatcher, is ridiculous.
I've literally just given you a list of the people who pushed leaving the EU with information supported by citations showing that that they are all in the top 1%. Most of them are in the top 0.1 - 0.001%.
There is no more direct answer to your statement, and yet you still don't accept it? Do you consider yourself to be making decisions based on information, or are you happy to accept you're just ignoring the facts you don't like?
You’ve listed a few rich people. On the other side - Blair, Richard Branson, Clegg, Cameron, Osborne, Hammond, Boris’s brother and sister, etc etc.
https://www.islington.gov.uk/about-the-council/voting-and-elections/electio...
I never claimed there aren't rich people pushing remain? It's just that this claim that the Leave vote is some sort of initiative of the people pushing back against the established elite is utter, utter guff.
Farage and his mates don't have your interests at heart. He isn't pushing for this because they want to stick it to 'the 1%' and make things fair for the little people, like a maroon-faced Robin Hood. He's every bit as much of the 'establishment' as all the rest and he will be a multi millionaire either way. You, on the other hand, will be poorer.
You are being manipulated.
My original reply was not to you, and I’m not making that claim. I was countering a claim made by Andy Hardy by pointing out that the 1% here (and in the western world generally) are largely in favour of remain. They are, that’s just a fact.
I am not being manipulated, I just don’t agree with you.
To summarise:
In reply to thomasadixon:
>the idea that leaving the EU is an idea pushed by our elites, that it’s part of the 1% ruling things since thatcher, is ridiculous.
me:
List of the people pushing leaving the EU, showing they are all part of the 1%
In reply to thomasadixon:
> I am not being manipulated, I just don’t agree with you.
Disagreement is fine over matters of opinion - everyone is entitled to their opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
> .... the idea that leaving the EU is an idea pushed by our elites
Of course, if you define anyone who, on the basis of their education and experience, can see the many advantages of EU membership and is unwise enough to say so as part of the elite, then this is rather self-fulfilling, isn't it?
It’s a fact that leave is being pushed by the 1% as a collective, as part of them ruling things since Thatcher?!
Something’s being manipulated for sure - my words, by you. I have not made the claim you’re arguing against.
> It’s a fact that leave is being pushed by the 1% as a collective, as part of them ruling things since Thatcher?!
> Something’s being manipulated for sure - my words, by you. I have not made the claim you’re arguing against.
I've quoted your post. Twice!
I'm not sure that anything has harmed democracy in this country as much as Brexit and its proponents.
All our time in the EU has shown is that it is difficult to get nations working together but that does not mean we should give up like the snivelling shits in the ERG and Farage's mob
Plus you have shown that you don't understand democracy by quoting 17M people being let down as if they were the only people who voted.
> The 1%? They’re running the banks, etc, they argued for remain!
My point really was the 1% have run the country for themselves over the last 30 years. A section of that 1% now want to take this to its logical endpoint, which is not good for me or you, but the EU stand in their way, so that fraction of the 1%, have been poisoning the well of public opinion against the EU for the last 30+ years.
> My point really was the 1% have run the country for themselves over the last 30 years. A section of that 1% now want to take this to its logical endpoint, which is not good for me or you, but the EU stand in their way, so that fraction of the 1%, have been poisoning the well of public opinion against the EU for the last 30+ years.
That makes no sense at all. A larger fraction of them are and have been on the other side arguing the benefits of the EU. The direction of travel for the last 30+ years has been further integration, leaving isn’t a logical endpoint it’s upsetting the apple cart. The 1% might be running things generally, but they are not running this.
No answers on the substantial points I note, just on this irrelevance.
The real interesting stuff around Brexit isn't the 1%, it is the 0.01%. The Mercer family are up to their eyeballs in it, whoever Arron Banks is fronting for; then of course there are the media men, Murdoch and the Barclay Brothers for a start; Radcliffe, Bamford, Odey and Dyson, I guess in comparison Tim Martin is pretty small fry, but he is a trier.
Of course Farage, Banks, Rees-Mogg and many others are getting rich off Brexit, but they are playing the game for others.
It's just possible that the 1% are not a homogeneous mass. As to whether you think it relevant, that's up to you, personally I think it's illuminating to follow the money.
I might do a spot of googling around changes to the Lisbon treaty resulting from the various referendums I'm a bit tied up atm
Now you’ve jumped the shark. Completely bonkers 🤪
> Now you’ve jumped the shark. Completely bonkers 🤪
Which part of it isn't true?
> Which part of it isn't true?
That it’s driven by the money motive.
Get a grip man!
> That it’s driven by the money motive.
It's not just money of course, there is some murkier stuff as well. However, the money is more than a happy coincidence.
Perhaps you can get a grip of an argument rather than just sneering!
> Perhaps you can get a grip of an argument rather than just sneering!
Utter waste of time. I've tried before and was genuinely shocked by the lack of awareness, let alone understanding of some of the major issues of some of the leading remainers, and it's gone way beyond the stage at which sensible discussion is possible on here anyway. Just a very unpleasant bullying atmosphere. Quite illuminating what apparently rational people can come to believe though. Nuremburg trials for brexiteers?!!!
Just more sneering and ad hominem. Utterly predicactable.
> Just more sneering and ad hominem. Utterly predicactable.
What do you think the the f*cking remainer bulies on here have been doing for the past three years? Insulting anyone who disagreed with them so that most others have , very sensibly, buggered off. Look at yourselves in the mirror. You've made these forums a f*cking no go zone with your conceited and abusive crap.
And yes, I'm angry hence I succumbed to the need to call out your ad hom conspiracy theory
I'm angry as well, this country is being screwed over on the basis of fraud and deception. Being told repeatedly that we lost so our opinion is irrelevant adds to that anger.
In terms of the behaviour of "remainer" on these forums, you are completely delusional. Sure, they represent a majority, but generally they have not been abusive, especially when compared to some of the leave voices on the forum.
Edit to add: “Ad hom conspiracy theory”, you’re shitting me surely!
> In terms of the behaviour of "remainer" on these forums, you are completely delusional. Sure, they represent a majority, but generally they have not been abusive, especially when compared to some of the leave voices on the forum.
>
Nonsense. There was one brexiteer who was apparently even angrier than me and let himself down by voicing it, usually as a reaction to the attacks on him or the (often ignorant) sneering at his arguments.
Anyway, you're never going to see it so I''ll leave you to it.
Edit: Ad hom in the sense of assuming the basest motives on the part of those that you list.
> In terms of the behaviour of "remainer" on these forums, you are completely delusional. Sure, they represent a majority, but generally they have not been abusive, especially when compared to some of the leave voices on the forum.
Agree completely. I'm not a frequent contributor, but my contributions have always been on the Remain side and, I believe, never abusive.
Walking down Charing Cross Road on the way to the "Put it to the People" march last Saturday we passed a small "Leave means Leave" march. Less than a hundred marchers surrounded by around 50 police. Once we had joined the million strong "Put it to the People" march there was barely a police presence to be seen. I saw just 15 or so officers at the gates to Downing Street. I thought it was quite a reflection on the nature of the two sides in this debate that the Met decided they needed 50 police to keep 100 Leavers in order and virtually no police presence at all to control a million Remainers.
Martin
Don't think I've been bullied and I've expressed my Brexit views quite often. But I've always made sure I've talked about the subject and not any individuals except for politicians.
Of course it may have been too subtle for me; I'm not very good with subtle
Did you make Gordon’s list?
> It's just possible that the 1% are not a homogeneous mass.
Well, exactly! If they were they’d all be remainers, not just most of them.
> As to whether you think it relevant, that's up to you, personally I think it's illuminating to follow the money.
This isn’t about money.
> I might do a spot of googling around changes to the Lisbon treaty resulting from the various referendums I'm a bit tied up atm
Fair enough...here’s a start.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7069181.stm
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-desta...
> What do you think the the f*cking remainer bulies on here have been doing for the past three years? Insulting anyone who disagreed with them so that most others have , very sensibly, buggered off. Look at yourselves in the mirror. You've made these forums a f*cking no go zone with your conceited and abusive crap.
> And yes, I'm angry hence I succumbed to the need to call out your ad hom conspiracy theory
You whining little cry baby (and I don't think it's fair to call accurate descriptions an insult). You won, we're leaving, you're getting what you want (whatever the f*ck that is). But what you don't get, you precious little snowflake, is a safe space where nobody calls out the bullshit.
So, bugger off, don't bugger off, but "bullied"? That's truly pathetic.
> You whining little cry baby (and I don't think it's fair to call accurate descriptions an insult
> So, bugger off, don't bugger off, but "bullied"? That's truly pathetic.
>
lol. Been on the turps? Read more precisely. It’s a common characteristic of you guys to miss what is written.I don’t regard myself as bullied, just angry.I can look after myself just fine thanks.
I regard the remainer cabal as bullies who have ruined the forum with their incessant and obsessional half truths, propaganda, abuse and general failure to recognise value in any view but their own and to mischaracterise any opposing point of view. It used to be a place for reasonable and often well informed debate. It’s now characterised by emotive bile. It may be therapy for you guys but it’s fxxx all use as a discussion forum.
> You whining little cry baby (and I don't think it's fair to call accurate descriptions an insult). You won, we're leaving, you're getting what you want (whatever the f*ck that is). But what you don't get, you precious little snowflake, is a safe space where nobody calls out the bullshit.
> So, bugger off, don't bugger off, but "bullied"? That's truly pathetic.
The best post I've seen on UKc for ages.
I have similar feelings about the views expressed by leavers; delusional half-truths, propaganda, etc. And not just on UKC.
That's what brexit has done, i'm afraid; it's split the country, and I don't see that split ever healing. That may be the worst thing to come out of it. Britain is not the country I hoped it was, and I'm not sure I want to be part of it any more. But it may be much harder to find somewhere else to live after brexit.
Where is the bullying?
I see people very passionate about staying in the EU making very passionate but well written comments on that subject but never abusive.
Perhaps you are confusing being on your own with everyone else having a different opinion with bullying. It's not the same thing and I should know as I've been fighting a lonely battle on here for socialism over the years with the odd ally popping up then disappearing.
If you know your position is true then it doesn't matter how many are against you as you can only continue to be truthful.
Throwing in the towel is a cop out because even if people all hate what you show the truth seeps into their heads. So flouncing off is either having a weak argument or being lazy and both show you are not fully committed to your stance and lack the passion showed by those you oppose.
> What do you think the the f*cking remainer bulies on here have been doing for the past three years?
To the best of my knowledge no remainer has actually killed anyone for disagreeing with them. Unlike some Brexiters who think it ok to kill politicians and issue death threats
Can I suggest that you all listen to the interview with Mervyn King on the Today programme (around 8.40am). Almost exactly articulates my view on, amongst other things, the failure of the debate about brexit both in general and on UKC: in particular the failure of the remain camp to acknowledge or address the major failings of the EU and misleading characterisation of the economic impact of brexit.
> Can I suggest that you all listen to the interview with Mervyn King on the Today programme (around 8.40am).
I did, and you make a fair point.
I can't listen again just yet but another of the points he made was about the big issues of philosophy and national attitudes, which weren't really addressed by the political process. This I completely agree with and here the Remain campaign was especially woeful.
I have no illusions about the shortcomings of the EU. It's certainly in need of some practical and financial reforms, and needs to rein in some of its more political ambitions for expansion (I think this has already sunk in actually). However, that's also true of our political system and I believe that the answer should have been for us to be more involved, not less.
I just feel European. I am very comfortable travelling and working in Europe. I collaborated with European (and American and Australian and Brazilian and South African) colleagues when I was a scientist, I have a European legal qualification, I manage teams in Germany, Finland and Lithuania (and US), I'm responsible for sites in Norway throughout the EU. Like many others on this site I've climbed throughout Europe. I just seems blindingly obvious to me that we are geographically, economically and culturally integrated into Europe. Even if we are notoriously reluctant to learn their languages, they have made extraordinary efforts to be fluent in ours. In the European institutions I visit, I am struck by how many Brits work there.
This is what makes me furious about Brexit. Most Europeans I meet bend over backwards to accommodate us, and far too many of us make very little effort to reciprocate. We were genuinely extremely highly respected and valued in the EU, and disproportionately influential, despite never really being more than half-hearted about it. In return, the EU has been a huge civilising influence on us and it's tragic to see how little we seem to appreciate it.
Mervyn King is right. It isn't just about the finances, the customs arrangement, the trade deals, the reciprocal health arrangements, the freedom to work and study, and the regulatory conformity. It's about the shared values, the shared culture and the shared history. We have a tendency to be rather inward looking. I hear Brexiteers banging on about how we should have the confidence to go it alone and show others how great we are. That's the sort of thing a lot of people who lack the confidence to make healthy relationships tend to say.
I don't think we are leaving because we are proud, capable, self-confident and comfortable in our skins. I think it's because too many of us don't really believe we are big enough to stay.
Edited for typos.
Meryvn always makes me question my remain views.
He is right that if the country had been better prepared for leave then we might be in a more comfortable position.
But he failed in detail to address the issue of how my business will be affected by 40% tariffs if we go into WTO rules. He also failed to address those long delays at European airports when standing in the non E.U. queue like you see at Madrid airport for example.
He is very plausible until you sit back and think how it affects you.
> Meryvn always makes me question my remain views.
> He is right that if the country had been better prepared for leave then we might be in a more comfortable position.
> But he failed in detail to address the issue of how my business will be affected by 40% tariffs if we go into WTO rules. He also failed to address those long delays at European airports when standing in the non E.U. queue like you see at Madrid airport for example.
> He is very plausible until you sit back and think how it affects you.
Well yes, and I'll be in those queues and my daughter who works in the Netherlands will potentially be affected.
I absolutely agree that there are obvious practical advantages of being in the EU but (and I accept that if it is your business that is at risk this is not realistic) these have to be set in the context of the bigger picture and weighed against the downsides of staying in. If somebody could put forward a realistic scenario of how the UK (or anyone) could reform the EU and the Euro (Varoufakis and Wolf have tried but unconvincingly) then there maybe the scales tip in favour of remaining.
> ... Most Europeans I meet bend over backwards to accommodate us, and far too many of us make very little effort to reciprocate. We were genuinely extremely highly respected and valued in the EU, and disproportionately influential, despite never really being more than half-hearted about it.
except you probably have to work in Europe but outside the UK to appreciate that point & most of the pro-Brexit folk I talk to have never worked, even for short periods, outside the UK or had any dealings with EU institutions/agencies
Mainly perfectly reasonable points, the problem being that because of the structure of the Euro it is impossible for the EU to stay as it is and no sign of it deconsolidating. The Euro demands fiscal and therefore political integration of the EU and the leaders of the EU have always understood it as a tool to achieve that.
Most of the things you treasure about the EU would be perfectly possible in a looser arrangement and many leavers and many eurosceptics within the 27 would like that, but it is simply not on the agenda.
Well Margaret Thatcher & then Tony Blair were pretty influential in pushing the EU's expansion into central Europe and the adoption of the single market - both show change is possible & that the UK can be influential
I've said many times that the UK made the big mistake of not wholly embracing the EU, either at governmental and popular/media levels. It was always railing from the sidelines and perceived as that by the "core". Yes, it was influential in the EU's expansion into central Europe and the adoption of the single market but these were things that suited the existing expansionist and integrationist mindset. it was never able to seriously influence the direction of travel which had been set in stone at inception.
The issue is fundamentally that you have “no skin in the game”. Meryvn will not be financially affected by coming out, I and my employees will be.
As I keep saying to my hard Brexitetr friends, it does not matter to you whether you or in or out. There is no change to you.
But to a lot of people there is. .
so I just do not buy into yours or merv the swerves arguments.
And have you seen some of the non E.U. queues at say Madrid airport. Add another 4-6 hours on for queuing.
Why on earth would anyone want the EU to deconsolidate, unless they like nationalism and conflict and economic obstacles? And long queues at customs.
> Why on earth would anyone want the EU to deconsolidate, unless they like nationalism and conflict and economic obstacles? And long queues at customs.
Because there seems to be only a small minority who want full federation-which would create massive frictions in itself-and the status quo is unsustainable and undemocratic.
Globally there is a loss of confidence in the ruling elites who are not seen as representing "ordinary people". This, as we've seen, is true of the UK , but the EU is the worst example of a distant unconnected elite. The "elites" need to reconnect with the electorates not to dismiss their concerns and ignore them which is what they are perceived as doing. This means devolving power not centralising it.
> The issue is fundamentally that you have “no skin in the game”. Meryvn will not be financially affected by coming out, I and my employees will be.
>
Well, I could say that the issue is that you do have skin in the game and therefore can't see the bigger picture. I've always respected your view on the subject and still do.
I wasn't talking about 'full federation'. There are surely (logically) five possible positions: no, less, neither more nor less, more, and full federation. My position - and I think that of most Europeans – is not the latter
It’s my employees I worry about , not me .
> Well, I could say that the issue is that you do have skin in the game and therefore can't see the bigger picture. I've always respected your view on the subject and still do.
Incredible!
jk
> I wasn't talking about 'full federation'. There are surely (logically) five possible positions: no, less, neither more nor less, more, and full federation. My position - and I think that of most Europeans – is not the latter
But that's my point, because of the inherent surpluses and deficits created by the Euro the options of a the stautus quo or a little bit more don't really work. There has to be fiscal consolidation and that implies political consolidation so you are most of the way towards a federal Europe and that is what Junker, Macron and Merkel are all pushing towards (in varyin degrees).
If actually a very hard line to draw. If you have free trade you need some form of overarching regulation. Trade is easier with a single currency, but if you have a single currency you need a proper central bank and consolidated fiscal policy and once you have that you effectively have a federation. Personally I think the Euro was the point at which the EU crossed the Rubicon towards federation.
I don't see why it is impossible to have relatively loose controls on movement of people and co-operation across vast swathes of business, academia, science, etc etc without the political unification that has been championed.
> Incredible!
> jk
Don't be so aggressive. It's not helpful and it's what's wrong with the debate. Nearly everybody has skin in the game of varying degrees. In that sense they can provide insights but it doesn't make them right.
For example, fisherman believe they have been rogered by the EU. Let us suppose that they are correct in this belief and that leaving the EU would help them. Does it mean that they are right in believing that we should leave the EU? They may be right for themselves but not for the country as a whole.
Petition sitting at just under 6 million now. Any bets on it breaking that before "parliament debates" it on Monday (April Fool's day, of course).
Re: your post
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/had_enough_of_brexit_-_sign_up_...
I think you've absolutely nailed the issues.
One thing that strikes me about UKC is that many forum users seem to be either ONS 'social grade' AB or business owners who are well placed to take advantage of all the EU has to offer.
The CDE elements seem to be under represented, and many people I meet in those groups don't see those advantages. Fear of huge debt and social factors mean their kids largely don't consider Uni, let alone Erasmus placements, and the only tangible benefit might be a few hundred metres of cyclepath funded by the EU.
To many it's just an abstract concept.
> Of course it may have been too subtle for me; I'm not very good with subtle
I have never taken offence to anything you may have directed towards me
>
> One thing that strikes me about UKC is that many forum users seem to be either ONS 'social grade' AB or business owners who are well placed to take advantage of all the EU has to offer.
> The CDE elements seem to be under represented, and many people I meet in those groups don't see those advantages. Fear of huge debt and social factors mean their kids largely don't consider Uni, let alone Erasmus placements, and the only tangible benefit might be a few hundred metres of cyclepath funded by the EU.
> To many it's just an abstract concept.
This was exactly the point I was making when I , somewhat facetiously, referred to the marchers as "posh innit". My anger is generated by those who dismiss the CDE elements as either thick, xenophobic or (partronisingly) as "manipulated" by demagogues. A lot of their concerns are entirely real, and their feeling that they are ignored is rational. Leaving the EU may not solve their problems but condemning them and dismissing their concerns is going to alienate them even further.
> Don't be so aggressive. It's not helpful and it's what's wrong with the debate. Nearly everybody has skin in the game of varying degrees. In that sense they can provide insights but it doesn't make them right.
Aggressive? Disbelieving and exasperated really.
Given how thin skinned you've become it's a good job I deleted what I actually thought to you arrogantly telling those of us whose livelihoods and businesses, whose residency status and family cohesion and whose opportunities your callous paranoid bollocks has jeopardised that we should pipe down and let the big boys with their big picture manage things. I know I should rise above this but I'm absolutely f*cking sick to my back teeth of it!
> For example, fisherman believe they have been rogered by the EU. Let us suppose that they are correct in this belief and that leaving the EU would help them.
Except the reality is they've predominantly been shafted by a nasty combination of mismanaged stocks and our government selling them out. Leaving the EU will fix neither issue, does anyone seriously believe they won't be be first in line to be sold out again in exchange for a dotted i or crossed t in any forthcoming service or even manufacturing sector agreement.
> Does it mean that they are right in believing that we should leave the EU? They may be right for themselves but not for the country as a whole.
All things are possible. Most likely though they're about to learn like the rest of us in the hardest possible way not to trust self interested tory bastards interested only in their civil war and profiteering at the fringes of it.
jk
You're welcome
> Leaving the EU may not solve their problems but condemning them and dismissing their concerns is going to alienate them even further.
I agree. There have been several TV vox pops recently where people have made a direct link between how poor and disadvantaged they feel and the EU. It was very clear that they voted leave either because they somehow thought this was the fault of the EU, or just to give whoever was in charge a kicking.
Of course, such misconceptions have been actively encouraged by the Leave campaign (eg the £350M for the NHS type nonsense). However, in a much broader sense, there is an almost complete lack of educational priority given to the EU at school level, dating back 40 years. The popular media has had little interest beyond negative (and largely untrue) trivia about metrication martyrs and straight bananas.
Even conspicuous examples of EU infrastructure projects seem to have gathered little support or appreciation. I'm baffled by the hostility in Cornwall, for instance, which has benefited greatly from funding that almost certainly would not have been forthcoming from Westminster, and which has a much greater chance of gaining more autonomy under EU subsidiarity principles than anything UK government is likely to permit.
> My anger is generated by those who dismiss the CDE elements as either thick, xenophobic or (partronisingly) as "manipulated" by demagogues. A lot of their concerns are entirely real, and their feeling that they are ignored is rational. Leaving the EU may not solve their problems but condemning them and dismissing their concerns is going to alienate them even further.
How ironic it is then that Brexit is a project of a few on the right who are happy to harness that simmering resentment but have zero interest in concrete action to resolve it. I see very few on here condemning anyone other than those cynical architects of this situation.
The tragedy is that those CDE groups will be hit hardest by Brexit. The impact can already be seen. Even if you buy in to the Minford vision, it is those CDE groups that will pay the price.
Upto a point you are right. Except for the fact that Business Owners like me employ alot of CDE people... I hate those classifications, they are demeaning. Apart from 1 person, you will not find a Brexit supporter amongst my team. 2 who recently joined were Brexit supporters ( made redundant etc and looking for work). Now they get it when I run through the possible implications and say to them I am keeping my fingers crossed that the worst case scenario will not happen.
And I bet you if there was another referendum those in Slough ( honda) or at Nissan just might change their tune when faced with reality.By the way I am not a fan of another referendum ( the democratic deficit it would create will be horrendous). Just a very soft Brexit that tones down the anti European bile.
> Aggressive? Disbelieving and exasperated really.
> Given how thin skinned you've become it's a good job I deleted what I actually thought to you arrogantly telling those of us whose livelihoods and businesses, whose residency status and family cohesion and whose opportunities your callous paranoid bollocks has jeopardised that we should pipe down and let the big boys with their big picture manage things. I know I should rise above this but I'm absolutely f*cking sick to my back teeth of it!
>
I acknowledge that were I Neil , or probably you, I would probably have voted to remain because i had responsibilities to myself, may family and my employees. However, that wouldn't necessarily make me correct on a broader scale and you know this.
King is, like most economists and analysts, trying to look at the issue on a broader scale, as he should. It doesn't make him "callous", nor me. It means he is trying to have a rational discussion and not assume the worst motives of anyone who disagrees.
You're a clever bloke. What would you say to the fishermen who was screaming about the evils of the EU and those who supported it (for the sake of argument accept the claim that his problems are a function of the EU)?
Point taken about social grade, but it's used by the ONS and is convenient shorthand.
My point is that these people clearly don't feel that that the EU listens to them and that it is far to distant and nebulous for it ever to do so. Moreover, as the EU has expanded the widening claims on its resources push them further down the queue.
Frankly they don't believe Westminster does either (and they're probably right). If nobody listens you end up with Trump, so best to start by giving them some voice. It doesn't solve the problem but it gives the potential to make their voices heard. If one good thing comes out of all this it might be that we finally recognise that our 19th century democratic system is no fir for purpose in the 21st century.
All you need is free trade you do not need a common currency, it worked well with our £ and the Euro for both sides. It allowed the Euro countries access to London and so on.You do not need be in the Euro to have legal systems aligned and so on.
The Euro /EU countries and the £/UK had developed a political system which generally worked . Where are both sides now? Trying to develop a political system where the UK is " legally" outside the EU, but in reality is in as it suits both political sides.The only advantage maybe that immigration is a bit more controlled, but then that works both ways.
> The Euro /EU countries and the £/UK had developed a political system which generally worked . Where are both sides now? Trying to develop a political system where the UK is " legally" outside the EU, but in reality is in as it suits both political sides.The only advantage maybe that immigration is a bit more controlled, but then that works both ways.
>
It's worked OK for the UK and for Germany and other parts of Northern Europe (as long as their banks get bailed out every few years). It's worked very badly for Southern Europe so there has to be change, probably fiscal integration.
> What would you say to the fishermen who was screaming about the evils of the EU and those who supported it (for the sake of argument accept the claim that his problems are a function of the EU)?
The reality is it's our government that has sold out our inshore fisheries, bundling up and trading away their quotas leaving devastation in their wake to be blamed on Brussels. But what's the point, in reality I'd probably just buy him a pint and talk about growing up by the sea. The time for the blame conversation has passed, whatever the reality the drip drip drip of 40 years of scapegoating is impossible to counter with a conversation and facts. Doesn't make it right but not all battles can be won.
jk
> The reality is it's our government that has sold out our inshore fisheries, bundling up and trading away their quotas leaving devastation in their wake to be blamed on Brussels.
>
You are not answering my question but avoiding the point. I assume you know that. If you can't bring yourself to accept the hypothetical that his view on his problems is correct can you at least accept that there are some losers from membership and tell us what you would say to them.
As it happens what say you would be doing is much the same as most brexiteers on here do most of the time, which is leave him to scream and shout and change the conversation or go to different pub.
> My point is that these people clearly don't feel that that the EU listens to them and that it is far to distant and nebulous for it ever to do so.
And that's fair enough. The EU isn't meant to be your local council or your national government. But for it to remain relevant our UK government needs to be more engaged with Europe and our politicians need to start supporting it and not conveniently blaming it for their shortcomings.
The EU is there to provide a framework for consistency and regulatory alignment across Europe, which is useful for all of us, and to allow free movement for anyone who has a job. It also provides a legal backstop (hah!) where our government isn't complying with legal principles for local political reasons. It isn't dependent on our short electoral cycle and so can afford to be more strategic and principled in its decision-making. It provides a legal forum of last resort to which any one of us could appeal against a bad legal decision, or a fair legal decision based on bad UK law.
So, most people won't interact with European institutions everyday, but they should be subject to national government and law that is consistent with European principles - and should they ever need it, they can appeal to the European Courts for help.
Of course, we will soon need to have all that in the past tense. How comfortable do you feel being governed by either of two main current parties with no European human rights guaranteed and no European employment rights guaranteed?
>
> You're a clever bloke. What would you say to the fishermen who was screaming about the evils of the EU and those who supported it (for the sake of argument accept the claim that his problems are a function of the EU)?
That you have what you have because Farage attended no meetings yet took a salary to represent you.
That European seas and never been so healthy. That fish stocks are finally being well managed at a macro ecosystem level. That they will have fish to fish for the next 50 years because of the EU. That we now have clean seas thanks to the EU.
And you know you say we'd have done that anyway? The Trump administration are now arguing that soot in the air isn't a bad thing and disbanding previous air quality regulations.
> My point is that these people clearly don't feel that that the EU listens to them and that it is far to distant and nebulous for it ever to do so. Moreover, as the EU has expanded the widening claims on its resources push them further down the queue.
> Frankly they don't believe Westminster does either (and they're probably right). If nobody listens you end up with Trump, so best to start by giving them some voice. It doesn't solve the problem but it gives the potential to make their voices heard. If one good thing comes out of all this it might be that we finally recognise that our 19th century democratic system is no fir for purpose in the 21st century.
And how did people come to think that it was for the EU to be listening to them over and above their own government? When was the last time we had a government that did any better than placate working class/CDE people? One that didn't recommend "aspiration" but instead that working class people could be comfortable and yet remain working class? It's people have pointed to the irony of Wales and Cornwall voting Leave after all the EU investment, but it's not surprising as the EU investment exactly follows a massive under-investment by successive Westminster governments.
> The EU is there to provide a framework for consistency and regulatory alignment across Europe, which is useful for all of us, and to allow free movement for anyone who has a job. It also provides a legal backstop (hah!) where our government isn't complying with legal principles for local political reasons.
>
But it's not just doing that is it? If it were just a free trade area overseeing regulatory alignment to make free trade work, and that's all it aspired to be, then I'd happily vote remain as probably would millions of other brexiteers.
> You are not answering my question but avoiding the point. I assume you know that. If you can't bring yourself to accept the hypothetical that his view on his problems is correct can you at least accept that there are some losers from membership and tell us what you would say to them.
I have answered your question, you can tell I don't believe their issues are the EU's fault because I clearly said as much, the relative poverty of our small fishing communities is not the fault of the EU, to the extent that it is anyone's fault (but all of ours for poor conservation, thankfully now being addressed by the EU. Also changing tastes, we don't buy what they fish and we hon't holiday at home like we once did topping up seaside community income) it is our government's fault, they choose how to distribute quotas, prioritising big factory operations, huge bundled quotas can be traded for profit and generous contributions to the party coffers. The benefits do not feed back back into the communities they were looted from directly or even indirectly in the era of austerity. I don't know how I could be clearer about this, I blame the tories not the EU.
> As it happens what say you would be doing is much the same as most brexiteers on here do most of the time, which is leave him to scream and shout and change the conversation or go to different pub.
True. I can't persuade someone to change deeply ingrained beliefs, I know my limitations, I'm not a people person (shocking I know!) and I don't enjoy conflict for conflict's sake.
jk
> I have answered your question, you can tell I don't believe their issues are the EU's fault >
Sheesh. I know that. I am asking you to accept a hypothetical.
Unless you genuinely believe that there are literally no losers at all from the EU then choose a different hypothetical example of a loser you don't choke on and answer my question.
"no European human rights guaranteed"
I thought we were staying part of the European Convention on Human Rights (not an EU institution) - have I missed something?
> Sheesh. I know that. I am asking you to accept a hypothetical.
And I refuse to indulge you in perpetuating that lie.
> Unless you genuinely believe that there are literally no losers at all from the EU then choose a different hypothetical example of a loser you don't choke on and answer my question.
Why don't you pick a group that has genuinely lost out to the EU through our membership and stands to gain by brexit, we'll discuss them. Needless to say I'm struggling to think of one except perhaps tax evaders. Or maybe to stay grounded in familiar reality we can talk about whichever EU oppressed group it is you're in?
jk
> And I refuse to indulge you in perpetuating that lie.
>
I've no idea what you mean by that. It's not a discussion about the what has heppened to UK fishing.
I am trying to establsih what you would say to somebody who believes that they have been hard done by (in this case by the EU) and that you feel has drawn the wrong conclusions about what should be done about it.
Take another example if you like: maybe somebody injured by a cyclist who therefore thinks that cyclists should therefore be banned?
In reply:
Whether the UK is still a UK even in or out of the EU after the dust settles won't make a blind bit of difference to the ordinary British workforce (CJUs or R2D2s) who will continue to get shafted by the ones who hold all the power.
Most ordinary workers can't go to work in the EU as it isn't worth their while financially so we are camped here, and the only effect of the EU we really see is more EU workers we have to complete with for jobs, housing and parking ie. Making things harder for us here in our day to day living which makes being in the EU a struggle. So there will be many DFSs who voted out for that reason.
But, were the majority of leave voters not older and retired rather than C23POs? Hmm.
Nevertheless in Scotland we voted to stay in the EU as we recognise that we need more people even if it means more competition and our NHS would be a NoHS if it were not for Immigrants. English workers may have different priorities I don't know.
In the future this could lead to a natural collapse of the UK as more countries want out to join the EU. I know there is talk here now of an Indyref2 out of this.
Do not disagree with you. EU has failed a generation of under 30’s in those states. But they probably would have failed post 2008.anyway they all upped and moved to the uk,well most of them.
That's really naive. The R2D2 begin to suffer when their shitty oppressive jobs cease to exist and interest rates rise to stabilise the pound and they can't pay their rent or mortgage etc.. Maybe you're too young to have lived through this or so old that senility has robbed you of the memories but the chances are high and the consequences severe and the average drone does suffer.
> I am trying to establsih what you would say to somebody who believes that they have been hard done by (in this case by the EU) and that you feel has drawn the wrong conclusions about what should be done about it.
I'v told you honestly, I probably wouldn't. I'd seek common ground and talk about that instead, I don't seek conflict and I lack the interpersonal skills necessary to constructively shape the conversation required to even start changing someone's deeply ingrained belief whether it's grounded in fact or fiction. I know my limitations.
You say:
> (for the sake of argument accept the claim that his problems are a function of the EU)?
But I don't, it is this lie I won't ingulge you in. Anyway, if I did accept this why the hell would I be making a case to an angry fisherman that the EU wasn't the cause of his troubles?
> Take another example if you like: maybe somebody injured by a cyclist who therefore thinks that cyclists should therefore be banned?
I could point out any obvious logical and factual fallacies but again, I probably wouldn't bother. If someone is invested enough in an idea to be ranting at me about it I'm not rhetorically or intellectually equipped to disabuse them of it.
jk
> "no European human rights guaranteed"
> I thought we were staying part of the European Convention on Human Rights (not an EU institution) - have I missed something?
It's incorporated into UK law at the moment but it rather depends on what the next Prime Minister thinks escaping the jurisdiction of the European Courts means. I suspect there are plenty on the far reaches of the right who can't wait to get rid of it.
> I could point out any obvious logical and factual fallacies but again, I probably wouldn't bother. If someone is invested enough in an idea to be ranting at me about it I'm not rhetorically or intellectually equipped to disabuse them of it.
>
Which is why most brexiteers don't spend much time on here.
But it doesn't make them "callous" or "arrogant" if they occasionally react to the ranting by voicing the thought that there may be logical or rational fallacies in some peoples' thinking.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong what I am showing is the point of view from many British workers who are also drip fed xenophobia from your billionaires who own the daily British Volkisher beobachters.
> Most ordinary workers can't go to work in the EU as it isn't worth their while financially so we are camped here
Many of us have moved for varying lengths of time and not only 'professionals' - ever see Auf Wiedersehen, Pet ? fiction but based on facts to some extent. My Grand Dad left the valleys of South Wales to look for work in the 1930s, now the options have expanded geographically, at least they had until now. Who knows what the situation will be after the 12 April?
Oh, well, the chaos continues ...
Yes but you are now not going to move to Portugal, Poland or Czech Republic and get £700 a month when the same work here will get you 2k a month ye know.
I'll have to agree with Shona. The flow in labour for lower paid jobs is pretty much one way. If you can't give your family an adequate standard of living on a ZHC in the UK, moving to Poland isn't going to improve things.
but a job in France, Germany, Sweden etc might be better than being unemployed or on a very low wage in the UK & the cost of living needs to be looked at as well as wages.
> You win. Have a nice day, I'm done.
> jk
And you! X
To the six dislikers: that’s intriguing, is it your view that it is callous and arrogant to raise what one regards as rational arguments to people who shout loudly that they are losers from brexit and that it is a bad thing?
Is this specific to brexit or is it a general rule?
If so, should any such debatedtherefore be curtailed?
> but a job in France, Germany, Sweden etc might be better than being unemployed or on a very low wage in the UK & the cost of living needs to be looked at as well as wages.
Good point, and that might be true in some cases especially if you're single with no dependents. If you have family to consider then it's not really feasible (unless you could move your family to an EU country with a lower cost of living and remain working in the UK for the salary/tax credits).
If I were working for Nissan or Honda, who are only in the UK to access the EU, then I'd have to be mad to vote for brexit. If I were pushing a brush round a factory that makes scotum burgers for the UK market then I can see how I might think brexit mught get me promotion to the production line.
To the six dislikers of my last post: a bit shy? Cat caught your tongue?
Have a dislike from me and stop whinging on about dislikes this thread is tedious enough already
> Have a dislike from me and stop whinging on about dislikes this thread is tedious enough already
You seem to have confused whinging with asking. But you’re right that it’s tedious.
Sorry but that's a classic whinge, next you'll be whining on that it's not fair, that you won't eat your courgettes, that it is all my fault and you won't go to bed early - take it somewhere else.
Fewer than 2,500 votes to go now for the petition to hit 6M
> Sorry but that's a classic whinge,
>
Actually I regard being (somebody actually checked) the second most disliked poster on here as a badge honour, not something to whinge about. Sometimes I’m just curious as to what is going on in People’s heads. Probably not much, I guess.
Have you considered that it is because you are quite dislikeable?
> Have you considered that it is because you are quite dislikeable?
Yes, but more likely because I post (sometimes) quite a lot, my views are not typical of the UKC majority and I’m pretty blunt about it.
Those pesky experts spoiling the narrative again?
People will support the pesky experts as and when they see fit.
Look no further than the quibbling that went on over the number of people attending the march last week.
6m has been passed
> Yes, but more likely because I post (sometimes) quite a lot, my views are not typical of the UKC majority and I’m pretty blunt about it.
Or more likely, because you are consistently, systematically, wrong.
Let’s remind ourselves, your principal Brexit argument was that it would allow us to regain « sovereignty ».
It was laughable then, but now, in light of what’s happening, it’s actually hilarious.
> It was laughable then, but now, in light of what’s happening, it’s actually hilarious.
If you are in to really dark humour. Personally, I find it tragic.