Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,870 comments
- 301,758 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The speed at which signatures are being added is pretty sceptical. At times it was 50,000 a minute
Plausible for that many people to be hitting a website that's getting a lot of publicity on a popular subject. Still, it'll be interesting to see if that figure's pruned down if parliament have a way of verifying botmail accounts.
2,232,118 at the time of this post.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Problem is that de-legitimatises it even more, if it's that popular it means its gone viral and usually when things go viral it means anyone and everyone is clicking on it for a laugh. Just looking around social media there are people encouraging signing it just as a trolling exercise to get a kick out of the turmoil. Its no different to a YouTube video getting down voted for example because doing so went viral.
I would like to see a genuine poll if they could find some iron clad way to do so but its almost impossible on an online poll with no verification. Either way its not 17.4 million yet but who knows, maybe by tomorrow morning it will be 100 million
- 17,346
- United Kingdom
Took circa 3 hours to get the confirmation e-mail for registering with the petition, maybe using vlad@theKremlin.ru wasn't the best idea.
It doesn’t matter.
Like I said when I linked it, prior to this petition there was another one for a second referendum that got 4m signatures.
Ah yes, what we need is a legitimate result, just like the Brexit referendum... oh right... but at least that hasn't affected a country and it's international relations... oh right...
But still this is an OUTRAGE FOREIGNERS CAN ASK FOR PARLIAMENT TO LOOK INTO SOMETHING!?
I personally have my suspicions about the background of this "Margaret Anne Georgiadou" !!
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,603
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
Well at least someone hasn't lost his sense of humour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47662526/brexit-three-moments-that-raised-a-smile
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47662526/brexit-three-moments-that-raised-a-smile
- 29,380
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
So Brexit is heading for Brextra-time, and then penalties.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,603
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
Oh. Good. Penalties. We are so good at that.
- 9,262
- Corsham
- lipming
The PM is full of 🤬. She is not 'on our side' (whatever that means, because the public isn't all on the same side). Why she decided to run as PM when she campaigned to remain knowing full well she would be spearheading leave is completely beyond me, unless she's deliberately been tiring to thwart this the whole time and was hoping no-one would notice.
I don't support a second referendum, but if she gets unlimited votes on her stupid deal it's only fair that the public gets a bit of say in what's going on.
I don't support a second referendum, but if she gets unlimited votes on her stupid deal it's only fair that the public gets a bit of say in what's going on.
- 87,636
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
There is a passably interesting thing that emerged from yesterday's shenanigans. As we saw earlier in the thread, it seems May got tired of it all and suddenly came down on a no-deal. Very shortly after that, the EU27 voted unanimously to grant an A50 extension.
As mentioned long, long ago, a no-deal would be extremely harmful to the UK, financially and in the short-to-medium term, but also to the EU (maybe less so, but still not a great option, and far more harmful than any other option). Some might even say that May played the no deal card at last and the EU responded with immediate capitulation - and perhaps suggest that we should have been negotiating with no-deal as our default option in mind throughout.
May's deal changed between the two votes, to address the concerns many MPs expressed the first time with the Irish backstop. That allowed it to go before the House to be considered as a different deal.
Bercow's objection to the third vote is that the deal has not changed, thus it would be a second vote on the same deal, so by blocking it he is preventing "unlimited votes on her stupid deal". It seems that many MPs did not realise that their second chance was their last chance, and are now whining because they pretty much voted against it in order to delay it for their own grandstanding (and travel expenses) purposes.
That'd be hard to argue I think.
From all reports no-deal would be suicide and no-one (myself included) thought the MP would be as insane to pull the trigger. But the word from sources close to the PM openly talked about how she'd basically broken down and given into the ERG and was open to no-deal just to end the suffering.
I think it was this, realisation that she really was unhinged that triggered the EU to give Parliament the extension, as the tone changed with a day.
- 29,380
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The next three weeks will probably prove that there is no majority in the House of Commons for anything that hasn't already been ruled out by the EU.
There is no majority for No Deal either, but No Deal is the only option that does not require a Commons majority to make it happen.
In the coming days/weeks, there is supposedly going to be a range of 'indicative votes' to test the water for what the Commons will approve. I suspect that nothing that hasn't already been rejected (in part or in whole) by the EU will come forward (as is already the case). Unfortunately, every form of Brexit other than No Deal requires the Withdrawal Agreement to be accepted (which, by next week, will have been rejected three times already).
Failing a negotiated Brexit deal, it comes down simply to No Deal or No Brexit. No Brexit might require a second referendum and/or a change of Government (e.g. a General Election), but, vitally, it absolutely will require a longer extension (well beyond the end of June) that will only be possible if the UK have agreed (by way of a Commons majority before April 12th) to participate in EU elections in May.
If the UK decides not to take part in the EU elections before the April 12th deadline, then No Brexit will be effectively become impossible. Also, if the WA is not accepted by that date either, then all possible forms of Brexit other than No Deal will be impossible too.
There is no majority for No Deal either, but No Deal is the only option that does not require a Commons majority to make it happen.
In the coming days/weeks, there is supposedly going to be a range of 'indicative votes' to test the water for what the Commons will approve. I suspect that nothing that hasn't already been rejected (in part or in whole) by the EU will come forward (as is already the case). Unfortunately, every form of Brexit other than No Deal requires the Withdrawal Agreement to be accepted (which, by next week, will have been rejected three times already).
Failing a negotiated Brexit deal, it comes down simply to No Deal or No Brexit. No Brexit might require a second referendum and/or a change of Government (e.g. a General Election), but, vitally, it absolutely will require a longer extension (well beyond the end of June) that will only be possible if the UK have agreed (by way of a Commons majority before April 12th) to participate in EU elections in May.
If the UK decides not to take part in the EU elections before the April 12th deadline, then No Brexit will be effectively become impossible. Also, if the WA is not accepted by that date either, then all possible forms of Brexit other than No Deal will be impossible too.
- 29,380
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
We can also pretty much guarantee what ever happens, the government will make as big a mess of it as physically possible.
- 29,380
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Parliament are to be given a series of "indicative votes" on seven possible Brexit outcomes, with some reports suggesting that there could be a 'knock-out' style format that will eliminate options one by one, a bit like Masterchef but where the outcome is the future of our country.
The 7 options are supposedly going to be something like this: (and subject to various amendments, I assume...)
The first two are, in effect, the same, and involve a return of free movement and EU/ECJ jurisdiction.
The next four options involve acceptance of the WA.
- Of those four options, two involve returning to free movement and EU/ECJ jurisdiction.
- The other two are effectively the same/are not mutually exclusive - a standard free trade agreement requires the WA anyway.
No Deal is the legal default and thus cannot be eliminated unless one of the above commands an overall Commons majority.
I reckon that anything that involves free movement and a return to full EU/ECJ jurisdiction will not happen. That leaves the other three options. I reckon the most likely is that a standard free trade agreement will be the most popular, but since this is conditional on the WA being agreed, it could fail to command a majority.
The 7 options are supposedly going to be something like this: (and subject to various amendments, I assume...)
- Revoke Article 50
- Second referendum
- The Prime Minister's deal/WA
- The deal/WA with a customs union
- The deal/WA with a customs union and single market
- A standard free-trade agreement (also requires WA)
- No-deal Brexit
The first two are, in effect, the same, and involve a return of free movement and EU/ECJ jurisdiction.
The next four options involve acceptance of the WA.
- Of those four options, two involve returning to free movement and EU/ECJ jurisdiction.
- The other two are effectively the same/are not mutually exclusive - a standard free trade agreement requires the WA anyway.
No Deal is the legal default and thus cannot be eliminated unless one of the above commands an overall Commons majority.
I reckon that anything that involves free movement and a return to full EU/ECJ jurisdiction will not happen. That leaves the other three options. I reckon the most likely is that a standard free trade agreement will be the most popular, but since this is conditional on the WA being agreed, it could fail to command a majority.
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
You should do seeing as she commits borderline hate crimes, insights violence and plans attempted murder.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
As opposed to your source who publishes documents in contempt of legal inquiries, styles himself as the man who wanted to blow up parliament (words he specifically repeats in his description of himself) and publishes the "Totty Watch" section with it's well-known voyeuristic shots? Georgiadou does indeed appear to have made some utterly contemptible posts but it's hard to take moral lectures from Staines.
Anyway, presuming that she's signed it once... what about the other 3 million people? They can't all be psychos, probably
4 million now!As opposed to your source who publishes documents in contempt of legal inquiries, styles himself as the man who wanted to blow up parliament (words he specifically repeats in his description of himself) and publishes the "Totty Watch" section with it's well-known voyeuristic shots? Georgiadou does indeed appear to have made some utterly contemptible posts but it's hard to take moral lectures from Staines.
Anyway, presuming that she's signed it once... what about the other 3 million people? They can't all be psychos, probably
But with May possibly bring ousted it’s time to look for a new leader! What about this guy?
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
As opposed to your source who publishes documents in contempt of legal inquiries, styles himself as the man who wanted to blow up parliament (words he specifically repeats in his description of himself) and publishes the "Totty Watch" section with it's well-known voyeuristic shots? Georgiadou does indeed appear to have made some utterly contemptible posts but it's hard to take moral lectures from Staines.
Anyway, presuming that she's signed it once... what about the other 3 million people? They can't all be psychos, probably
Doesn't matter about the source, she wrote it and a threat is a threat. Also this was carried by the Daily Mail sighting the original source which is where I initially saw it. Sure, she might be the only 'psycho' in that petition but she's also one of the few people verifiable as being real!
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,450
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
When I signed the petition yesterday it asked me to click on an email link to verify my address.
All these made up people would have to have made up email addresses if they weren't real. That's a lot of effort just to defraud a non binding online petition - you'd think the fakers'd get tired of typing after the first million or two.
Staines also said what he said and did what he did. Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Good thing the pro leave petitions are all signed by verifiable British residents... oh, wait.
All these made up people would have to have made up email addresses if they weren't real. That's a lot of effort just to defraud a non binding online petition - you'd think the fakers'd get tired of typing after the first million or two.
Staines also said what he said and did what he did. Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Good thing the pro leave petitions are all signed by verifiable British residents... oh, wait.
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
It's no effort at all, Bots can create email addresses en masse and also anyone can use those disposable email address websites of which there are many.
I don't condone any petitions being hacked by any point of view. All of them should be taken with a pinch of salt and the only truly verifiable thing was the actual referendum.
As for the source, if any website posts real information it doesn't matter what that sites agenda is. I'm sure many exclusive releveltions throughout history have been carried by opinionated sources, it doesn't make the story (in this case) any less real.
If the BBC had carried this story would it suddenly be OK?
Last edited:
It’s effect will be with some luck, indirect.
Many remain MP’s basically had their say removed in Brexit because the constituents they represented voted in favour of Brexit which is why the Brexiteirs are and have been so powerful.
Not only I think that MP’s shared my opinion that May wasn’t going to allow no deal because not even she was that unhinged. Seems she really is and with the sheer number and the speed of which this petition has sky rocketed, it gives those remainer MP’s some power.
So yeah, while it’s direct affect will probably be minimal, it’s indirect influence could help save the country from annihilation
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Um, we elect them to represent the constituencies views, not to have views of their own or ones that differ from the electorate that put them there. If they didn't agree with views of who they represent they should have either stood down or not voted to trigger article 50 in the first place, which plenty of them did.
