Slashdot Mirror


Web Petition For 2nd EU Referendum Draws Huge Interest (ap.org)

From an Associated Press report:An online petition seeking a second referendum on a British exit from the Europe Union has drawn more than 1.6 million names, a measure of the extraordinary divisiveness of Thursday's vote to leave the 28-nation bloc. The online petition site hosted by the House of Commons website even crashed Friday under the weight of the activity as officials said they'd seen unprecedented interest in the measure, which calls on the government to implement a rule that stating if that if "remain" or "leave" camps won less than 60 percent of the vote with less than a 75 percent turnout "there should be another referendum."According to reports, this is the biggest surge of support Parliament's website has ever seen. Looking at the keywords people were hitting up on Google after the news first broke, it was clear that a considerable portion of the population was clueless about the whole situation.

86 of 634 comments (clear)

  1. Web. Petition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Might as well go pray. Has about the same effect.

  2. Cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How cute, the democratic result didn't go our way so we'll make a new referendum with skewed option balance. This surely will make our way the only way!

    1. Re:Cute by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not? It is happening with gun control bills in the US that keep getting voted down...

    2. Re:Cute by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not? It is happening with gun control bills in the US that keep getting voted down...

      The people never voted on a referendum on gun control.

      It would be interesting to see what a referendum on the issue would look like if you took out all the people who are being funded by the NRA.

      http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Cute by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And what does the NRA pay? I'm open for a bribe.

      If you can make it to the US Senate, they'll pay you a bribe of up to $7.7million.

      http://thinkprogress.org/polit...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Cute by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 2

      Why not? It is happening with gun control bills in the US that keep getting voted down...

      The people never voted on a referendum on gun control.

      It would be interesting to see what a referendum on the issue would look like if you took out all the people who are being funded by the NRA.

      http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/...

      erm... you mean that big scary organization that is really mostly funded by average citizens? (https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from). I'm not a fan of lobbyists and I wish we could get rid of all of them but the NRA is one that is actually working as intended (giving a group of average citizens a collective voice).

      So you're suggesting we exclude the people average gun owners have chosen to support (through donations to the NRA) when it comes to the specific issue they have chosen to support them for?

    5. Re:Cute by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      So you're suggesting we exclude the people average gun owners have chosen to support

      No, I'm saying that a public referendum has never on gun control has never been put to the American citizens. The only ones who have gotten to vote on the issue are people who get paid directly by the NRA.

      And I don't think you want it put to a referendum, because the NRA (and its members) will lose:

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Cute by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Because far away government is best? Fuckwit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Cute by kaizendojo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the thing people alway get wrong about the NRA, they put so little money into campaign donations and 'gifts', less than many lobbyists. What the NRA fights with is their ability to get asses in the seats. NRA members vote. They go to protests. They go to caucuses and rallies. They go pretty much anywhere they are told they need to go. And their platform is single issue; namely any kind of gun control is a take over of the constitution or a slippery slope leading there. It's easy to put into sound bites and their membership believe it fully and feel like they responsibility as citizens is to stand between the Second Amendment and armed militia in the streets coming to take their guns, They honestly believe that - not because they are stupid but because the NRA pounds it into them through every means possible. So they have a **VOTING** army at their disposal - and that is the power they use to control politicians who want to keep their jobs instead of doing them. If you want to blame the NRA for something, you need to understand this. Otherwise you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

    8. Re:Cute by MightyDrunken · · Score: 4, Informative

      How cute, the democratic result didn't go our way so we'll make a new referendum with skewed option balance. This surely will make our way the only way!

      Well not really, the petition states:

      We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.

      The petition does not state how the new referendum should be phrased. What is most interesting is that this petition was started a month ago by an ex political student who supports Leave. This is not the only Leave supporter to suggest a second referendum if the vote was close. Of course now they have got the result they wanted, suddenly no more are needed. ;)

      The leave side suggested many things like taking back control of our borders, sovereignty and saving money but there is no plan and no definition of what leaving the EU means. When people realise that immigration will be about the same, that things cost more and the short term financial volatility harming the UK. They may feel that the Leave campaign "promises" were a bunch of wishful thinking

    9. Re:Cute by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      The Commission decides the laws and regulations and it writes them.

      The commission writes the laws... just like the civil service here. You don't think MPs actually sit down and write laws do you? Because that's not actually their job.

      You're whining because you don't understand the difference between the executive and the legislature and you're prepared to fuck over an entire country to support your own ignornace.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Cute by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Brits are not French, Frenchmen are not German, etc. Borders keep the peace and allow more autonomy to local populations. Taking your position to its logical conclusion, a world government would obliterate individual liberty.

    11. Re:Cute by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Who, specifically, do you wish to revoke the 2nd Amendment for in this referendum?

      How about we start with this lovely Christian woman and self-avowed Second Amendment activist who shot and killed her two young daughters today?

      http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

      She had been posting on Facebook recently that Obama was going to come and take away her guns. Well, if he had, she and her daughters would still be alive today. So, I'm suggesting going back to those old days (pre-2008) before there was an individual right to own and carry guns.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Cute by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      How's that working in the US these days with Obamacare? Oh right...dismally. And that's why having a group of unelected bureaucrats who make all the decisions away from the people who actually need it is a terrible idea.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Cute by ultranova · · Score: 2

      So they have a **VOTING** army at their disposal - and that is the power they use to control politicians who want to keep their jobs instead of doing them.

      An elected officials job is to represent the people who elected them. That's why they're elected rather than appointed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Cute by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Because far away government is best? Fuckwit.

      A far away government is better than local government at dealing with some issues, like defence, standards, disaster relief, etc. And local government is better at some things, like deciding where local roads are build. It's a good thing we can have multiple levels of structure.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:Cute by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      Who, specifically, do you wish to revoke the 2nd Amendment for in this referendum?

      How about we start with this lovely Christian woman and self-avowed Second Amendment activist who shot and killed her two young daughters today?

      http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

      She had been posting on Facebook recently that Obama was going to come and take away her guns. Well, if he had, she and her daughters would still be alive today. So, I'm suggesting going back to those old days (pre-2008) before there was an individual right to own and carry guns.

      We already have laws that take away her guns. Mental instability and violent crime both work for that... And considering how many ways there are to kill people, can you be sure they would be alive, and not run over with a car or drowned in a bathtub? Both have been done before...

    16. Re:Cute by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Mental instability and violent crime both work for that... And considering how many ways there are to kill people, can you be sure they would be alive, and not run over with a car or drowned in a bathtub? Both have been done before...

      We're talking about Texas. If they took the guns away from the mentally unstable in Texas, it would reduce gun ownership by 80%.

      And isn't it interesting how often mental instability, violent crime and gun advocacy (or at least, enthusiasm) intersect? Do you also think we should be looking into the Baptist church where she was radicalized? Maybe find out if she's had any online contact with the NRA?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Cute by beastofburdon · · Score: 2

      It is rather interesting how often they do not intersect. Your few stories do not represent more than a tiny fraction of gun owners. You certainly seem to fit the bill for mental instability. You have a terrible phobia of guns and Stockholm Syndrome with authority. You are at terrible risk of becoming another Cold Fjord worshiping the boot on your neck.

  3. Clueless? by chispito · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How could anyone have remained clueless with the wall to wall coverage? More importantly, why should anyone that apathetic be taken seriously now?

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Clueless? by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Willful ignorance and frustration. There have far too many interviews with people who admitted to not paying any attention to the media coverage because they either didn't care what the talking heads thought or because they wanted to be told the facts and make an informed choice rather than listen to politicians launching personal attacks on each other. Both campaigns actually did present some cherry picked "facts" to support their case, but the rebuttals were either lost in the noise or came too late.

      I do agree that the reason the result went the way it did is apathy though. Apathy on behalf of the politicians who have ignored the growing disconnect between themselves and the electorate rather than trying to address it, and apathy on behalf of all the voters who couldn't be bother to look up a few things for themselves, or even vote. Given the impact and importance of the vote I'm still amazed that the turnout was a "mere" 72% which, while well above a typical general election turnout, pales compared to the 84% turnout of the Scottish independence referendum.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Clueless? by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Yes, there was heavy rain, and especially so in the south east where some polling stations were closed due to flooding, yet the turnout is still fairly consistent across the entire country, from the worst rain-hit areas to the least, so while there would definitely have been voters who were rained off, most seem to have made an effort. Personally, I put it more down to the large number of people who still hadn't made up their minds on the day of the election - around 10-15% according to polls - deciding not to vote and go with the flow; again a failure of the campaigners to provide people with the information they wanted because they were too tied up in a slanging match.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  4. Whaaaa ! by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    We didn't get the vote we wanted. Lets vote again.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Whaaaa ! by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just to be clear... Are you talking about Brexit, or the Democrat sit in to vote again on removing Due Process?

    2. Re:Whaaaa ! by rworne · · Score: 2

      Gotta love Twain.

      He's like the George Carlin of his time... without all the dirty words.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  5. Super majority by Kwelstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a perfect example of why life changing decisions should be by a super majority of votes, 60% or more. Making such a big change like exiting the EU on the whim of a 50% vote is moronic. :/

    --


    ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    1. Re:Super majority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I came here to say that as well. Most "country-altering" things in the USA (constitution changes, adopting new states, etc) are done with a 2/3 supermajority, usually at the state level. It isn't a perfect solution, and you could argue 2/3 is arbitrary, but it's got to be something. Making sure there's a really solid majority behind the biggest decisions seems like a good idea.

      As an American watching from across the pond, I was surprised a mere majority was sufficient.

    2. Re:Super majority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Require? Not sure. But it got one: 67% yes in 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975

    3. Re:Super majority by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      What was the voting standard to enter the pre-morphed EU?

    4. Re:Super majority by rilister · · Score: 2

      I'm as horrified about this result as anyone, but it's hard to argue it's undemocratic.
      52% voting LEAVE on a 72% turnout is 37% of the entire population of the nation.
      Even the most historic wildly popular presidential victory like Reagan in 1984 only got 59% on a 53% turnout: 31% of the nation. No-one would argue that Reagan didn't have a mandate to govern.
      I wish it weren't true, but this is a mistake made decisively.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    5. Re: Super majority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If 50.1% decided a super majority was justified.

    6. Re:Super majority by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Constitution is changed all the time by a single elderly judge

    7. Re:Super majority by lgw · · Score: 2

      If you cannot limit immigration, you are not a sovereign nation.

      We didn't lose it, we morphed it into something better.

      You really love twisting the meanings of words to pretend to be correct, I see.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Super majority by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      would never involve any significant loss of sovereignty.

      We never lost sovereignty and to claim otherwise is an out-right lie. This is literally proven by the referendum and the existence of Article 50: we can at any time walk away and there's nothing they can do to stop us.

      We ALWAYS had sovereignty.

      There seems to be a lot of confusion between sovereignty and "making other people doing exactly what we want all the time". They are not the same and not having the latter does not mean we didn't have the former.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Super majority by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      I don't usually agree with you but I'm going to throw my hat into the ring on this one. I've seen a lot of shit all over the web about how the young in Britain are getting their future "stolen" by the older generation by this vote. Two things stick in my mind. First of all, what kind of ageist/classist shit is it to pretend that people that by mere virtue of having been around a little longer somehow should have less voice in their future. The idea repulses me. And the second, maybe those old geezers having been around the block a few times actually know a few things the young naive whippersnappers don't. Anybody every thought about that?

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    10. Re:Super majority by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2

      In my country of the Netherlands, a change in the constitution requires a 2/3d majority vote in parliament, a re-election of parliament, followed by a majority vote. The insertion of the re-election gives the voters sufficient power to elect representatives that can counter the vote if they don't agree. I think the UK should also go for a re-election of parliament to give the voters a chance to speak about how important they really think this issue is wrt all other issues that the country is facing. That's what a representative democracy is about. Careful balance, not mob rule.

    11. Re:Super majority by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      If you cannot limit immigration, you are not a sovereign nation.

      We could invoke 50 and limit immigration from the continent, so we were never not sovereign.

      The only thing we couldn't do is limit immigration from the continent while benefiting from all the privileges of being in the EU without shouldering the responsibilities. That's not a loss of sovereignty, that's just duhhhhhh.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Super majority by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. That was a vote on joining a free trade organisation.

      The uk has never before Thursday voted on membership of a European superstate.

  6. Re: No take backs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope this serves as a warning for the ignorant people considering a vote for Donald or Hillery.

    There corrected that for you.

  7. Re:No take backs!! by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah really. *I had no idea that Trump would actually become president just because I voted for him!*

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. And so what ?!? by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About 22 million of people voted for "stay". They can have all of them to sign the petition, they still remain the minority. This is supposed to be they way democracy works, or is internet changing the rules ?!?

    1. Re:And so what ?!? by pixie.pt · · Score: 2

      About 22 million of people voted for "stay". They can have all of them to sign the petition, they still remain the minority. This is supposed to be they way democracy works, or is internet changing the rules ?!?

      This is not internet changing rules, this is using internet as medium to lay their rules, this is not a random internet petition, it is part of the uk democratic system.

  9. No by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know what? Tough shit. You had plenty of time to research the issue *before* the vote. But no, it only occurred people to even do something as paltry as a freaking google search, AFTER the vote had already taken place.

    It's about fucking time people actually started taking responsibility for their actions. It's this "Oh whoopsie! I didn't mean to do that! I want backsies!" bullshit that is the reason why the entire world is deteriorating before our very eyes.... because people can't be bothered to spend two lousy seconds to stop and think about what they're going to do, before they actually do it.

    What's the phrase? Measure twice, cut once? Well guess what... That little rule applies to a hell of a lot more than just cutting wood.

    But of course, I'm just pissing in the wind. (Which is amazingly difficult to do from a squatting position, let me assure you...) The average person isn't going to make any effort to change, and the world is going to get even more fucked up than it is now.

    The only thing that is going to happen is that those with both the foresight and the means to protect themselves, will hunker down and wait while everyone else blows a gasket and likely start killing each other.

    1. Re:No by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      If a large enough fraction of any electorate wants a do-over on a referendum, then why not? Why does this have to be a winner-take-all scenario?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You had plenty of time to research the issue *before* the vote.

      They did. And people chose to leave. This is just butthurt remainers trying to fuck the system until they get the result they want, regardless of majority opinion.

    3. Re:No by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I doubt it's a minority any more. The Leave campaign has reneged on many of their key promises and been proven wrong on any of their predictions. Buyer's remorse is completely understandable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Re:Standard Operating Practice by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realise, that it is a petition from the citizens, not the government. I guess, many of the signers were disappointed voters who believed the bullshit about giving the EU money to the NHS. Unfortunately for them Farage changed his mind after the vote.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  11. No deal by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd prefer a united Ireland and an independent Schotland in the EU and a high Trump-like wall between Scotland and England to secure the EU outer frontiers, like the Brits always wanted. :-)

    Germand car companies repatriating their English car factories (Mini, Vauxhall, Rolls Royce, Bentley etc) is a given, 5 Chinese banks already moved to Luxemburg, others will follow.

    It will be a mighty small empire when this is finished.

    1. Re:No deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      England and Wales should do the decent thing and secede from the United Kingdom, taking themselves out of the EU that way. Note: I'm English.

      Edit: This is priceless - the CAPTCHA was 'penance'!

    2. Re:No deal by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I'd prefer a united Ireland

      Ain't gonna happen. There might be a republic of Northern Ireland though.

      and a high Trump-like wall between Scotland and England

      We've already got one. It's very nice.

      No really, the Romans build it, since those pesky Picts wanted their independence so badly. It's called Hadrian's wall and you can walk along it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  12. Re:Standard Operating Practice by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    He didn't change his mind. He just lied. I vaguely remember a similar thing happening during the US 2008 campaign and while passing their health insurance bill. Same shit, different day.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  13. Re:What percentage exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A supermajority requirement is to politics what hysteresis is to control loops. It's not even an analogy, just two words for the same concept really.

  14. Re:Standard Operating Practice by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The result was very narrow. The turn-out was relatively low for such an important decision. A lot of people are expressing regret, the victorious side instantly reneged on a number of promises and the predicted economic meltdown that people didn't believe would happen happened.

    Given all that, a second opportunity to vote, especially now that young people are realizing that if they had bothered to turn out they could have overcome the baby boomer vote stealing their future away, seems like a reasonable request.

    Even if it isn't granted, Scotland will likely leave the UK, and maybe Northern Ireland too, so they have the power to reject the result anyway and it's not fair to deny the rest of the UK the same opportunity.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  15. Re:Web. Petition. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's over millennials. Your parents know better than you and we're hoping you'll grow up and figure that out at some point.

    I'm not sure where you're going with that. The demographics of the vote show clearly that millennials and under-50 voters were solidly in the "remain" camp.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  16. a rule that stating if that if by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    a rule that stating if that if

    Is that perl?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Re: No take backs!! by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope this serves as a warning for the ignorant people considering a vote for Donald or Hillery.

    There corrected that for you.

    I hope this serves as a warning for the ignorant people considering a vote for Donald or Hillary.

    There I corrected that for you.

  18. Re:Standard Operating Practice by Archtech · · Score: 3, Informative

    I guess, many of the signers were disappointed voters who believed the bullshit about giving the EU money to the NHS. Unfortunately for them Farage changed his mind after the vote.

    It is true that the UK currently pays the EU a net £13.5 billion (about $20 billion, at least until yesterday)) a year in contributions. That's after deducting the payments that come back from Brussels - although it should be noted that the EU bureaucrats choose who gets "their" largesse. So the equation is roughly like this: the British government takes a lot of British taxpayers' money and gives it to Brussels. Brussels then gives chosen "good causes" in the UK about a third of that money, and keeps the rest.

    What Nigel Farage (and many others) think is that it would be nice if the UK government kept that money and spent it on whatever useful priorities it thinks best. The NHS is certainly one of our biggest and most resource-hungry public utilities, and I don't see why it shouldn't get some of the £13.5 billion the UK could save by not being in the EU.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  19. Re:Standard Operating Practice by PPH · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reporter on public radio was saying that Google UK search terms on 'what is Brexit' and 'consequences of Brexit' jumped AFTER the vote. I think a lot of people listened to the activists and voted based on emotion. Now they are thinking "What the f*** did we just get ourselves into?" Some accounts of the British vote had a primary reason for Brexit as fear of the refugee crisis in the EU. But Britain is not part of the Schengen Area and has maintained independent control of immigration and visas.

    Pretty much the same thing hapens in our town. Politicians don't like something, so they scare the shit out of the public and it gets voted down. OTOH, if it's something the pols want to do, they sell it and even if it's riskier and more expensive, the public votes it up.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Re: No take backs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your comment is ignorant. There's no proof whatsoever that going against free trade had hurt anyone. Call it protectionism or whatever you want. In America we've had NAFTA and WTO free trade agreements that have killed the American labor force. I've seen it since the 1990s. The corporations lead a strong PACs that want you to believe how much better off you are now than going against their wishes. People like Romney fill their pockets at the expense of the middle class.

    You people that support free global trade are the same ones whining about H1B, product dumping, and speaking to foreigners whilst calling Concast.

    Can't have it both ways folks.

  21. Re:Standard Operating Practice by johanw · · Score: 2

    What economic meltdown? A few % lower stock prices and a lower off the pound? Doesn't sound like an "economic meltdown" to me. And most of the economic damage will probably be at the expense of bankers, stock traders and wealthy property owners in London. Most ordinary people don't care about that.

    The UK can now drop the stupid EU sanctions against Russia and open new trade opportunities.

  22. Re:Standard Operating Practice by Archtech · · Score: 4, Informative

    The result was very narrow. The turn-out was relatively low for such an important decision.

    That turns out not to be the case. The turnout was 72.21%, and the number of votes cast for "Leave" was 17,410,742 - the highest number of votes ever cast for one candidate or option in any British election. While the margin of victory was a relatively narrow 3.8%, that represents over 1.25 million votes.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  23. Re:Standard Operating Practice by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    52-48 is so narrow that even the head of Brexit declared that it was too narrow for a decisive decision.

    Well he said that when he thought he might lose, back in may.

    Anyway I signed the petition for what good it might do. Given how fast Bojo is back pedalling (he actually said there's no need to leave, or specifically there's no need to invoke Article 50---which means precisely leave) and the large amount of buyer's remorse, it isn't over yet.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  24. Re:Standard Operating Practice by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    A lot of people have been on radio, on TV and on social media saying that the voted as a protest or not really expecting leave to win, and are now regretting it.

    People are talking about coming together to weather the storm. That clearly won't happen. Scotland will leave, and the rest of us blame the leave voters for creating the storm. An apology for the lies and the miscalculation won't be enough. A generational war is likely too, with young people realizing that the boomers have screwed them and fighting back. By rights the coming recession should be paid for out of their pension pots.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  25. Re:Web. Petition. by morcego · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A recent web petition revealed that a large majority of US citizens want Muslim immigration stopped.

    I find it hard to believe that the majority (50%+1) of US citizens even participated on the petition, let along the vast majority.

    And if it wasn't the vast majority actually participating, then you fall into statistics. And statistics require methodology. What was the methodology for the sampling? What was the error margin? Standard deviation?

    No wonder you are posting anonymously. You are a moron.

    --
    morcego
  26. Having a do-over by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The result was very narrow. The turn-out was relatively low for such an important decision. A lot of people are expressing regret, the victorious side instantly reneged on a number of promises and the predicted economic meltdown that people didn't believe would happen happened.

    Yep. Lots of reasons to disavow a democratically voted referendum.

    Can you think of any reason why disavowing the vote would be bad?

    I don't have a dog in this fight, but a (Brit) friend asked me about this a couple of months ago. The conversation went like this:

    Him: Should I vote for the UK to leave the EU?
    Me: Yes, absolutely.
    Him: Why?
    Me: Because if you don't, nothing will change

    Expounding on that last bit, note that if the vote had happened 5 years ago the results would probably have been 55% stay/45% leave. If you'd done the vote 10 years ago it would have been 60% stay/40% leave, and the poll actually taken in 1975 was 67% stay/33% leave.

    Leaving the EU right at this moment may seem like a bad idea, but from the historical perspective it's the most efficiently timed revolution that's ever been.

    It's clear that being part of the EU was causing a slow buildup of problems for the English people. Dissatisfaction was on the rise, and there were valid reasons for wanting change.

    The EU is blithely unsupportive of the needs of its members - it's like any government who, once they are in power, tends to ignore the needs of its people. Looking at Greece as an example, it's clear that the EU puts the needs of the banks ahead of the needs of Greece as a country. As many people pointed out, the EU could have just let Greece default and the banks take a loss. That would have been the best outcome for Greece and its people, but the banks...

    The EU management saw the referendum coming and did nothing about it. They could easily have swung the vote by making concessions.

    And note that earlier, Cameron went to the EU to ask for some relief. It's my understanding that not only did they say "no", they treated him disrespectfully. (And probably were chuckling to themselves saying "what 'ya gonna do - leave? HAH HAH HAH!)

    And now I hear that even if the UK manages to reverse the referendum, France, Germany, and Brussels won't let them. The EU in general didn't like the UK to begin with, are glad to see them go, and will enforce the referendum in any case.

    Really, it was a bad situation and there'll be tough times at first, but when the dust has settled I think you'll see that this is much better for the English people.

    Oh, and about "this is sooooo bad", note that no one has accurately described the flip side of the situation. John Oliver's treatment of the flip side could be summed up as "yes, it's not perfect". It was clear that he, and all the woo in the media, was trumping up all the disadvantages of leaving without addressing or even describing the reasons people wanted to leave.

    Lots of people used extreme rhetoric to try to get people to stay (Cameron's various statements were particularly transparent), and it was transparently bullshit.

    Once the dust settles, I think the UK will be stronger, more secure, and more satisfied.

    1. Re:Having a do-over by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Me: Because if you don't, nothing will change

      That's a stupid reason. Change is not good if it's not for the better.

      And note that earlier, Cameron went to the EU to ask for some relief. It's my understanding that not only did they say "no", they treated him disrespectfully. (And probably were chuckling to themselves saying "what 'ya gonna do - leave? HAH HAH HAH!)

      Yeah no shit. Cameron was basically going and asking:

      Hi, you know that club I'm in that I pay membership fees for that are used to run the club? Yeah, I'd like to pay less but I'd like to keep all the benefits of being in the club please. Oh and while you're at it, I'd actually like bigger benefits too, thanks.

      I can't imaging why that went down badly.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Having a do-over by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 2

      Yep. Lots of reasons to disavow a democratically voted referendum

      Hell, if you didn't vote in something you thought was important and then don't like the outcome, you deserve no right to bitch about the outcome. Clearly some folks didn't think it was a serious enough issue to go do so and now have slackers remorse. Tough. Elections can have consequences. This should be an example to anyone too smug to think "there's no way (candidate you don't like) could win" or "clearly (issue I care about) is going to happen" and stays home instead of voting.

      Now I think it's silly to have made this a simple majority decision and that any action should have required a 2/3 vote but I'm not British so that's not my decision.

    3. Re:Having a do-over by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To give you an idea how fickle and overrated referendums are as a form of democracy, if we had waited 5 years enough old people would have died to give the opposite result.

      In a few years the result will no longer reflect the will of the people. In fact, it probably doesn't today, now that the truth has come out.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  27. Re: No take backs!! by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one really wants to be free. It's much safer to have your betters make decisions for you.

  28. Re:Standard Operating Practice by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The £13.7 billion figure comes from the disproven £350m/day figure (£350m * 365 = £12.8b) that Nigel Farage has described as "a mistake" because it's from *before* the rebate and subsidies; once you take into account the rebate and subsidies it's actually about half that. You are right about the EU choosing who gets the difference, although again that's not the whole picture as most of the money is allocated to projects that would have needed to come out of the public purse anyway - in practice, it's a money-go-round that attempts to make people feel good about the EU because of all the "EU funded" signs when their taxes would have paid for it anyway. Assuming no changes to the level of taxation, there's undeniably going to be more money per annum in the UK public purse once we leave the EU, but after things like additional import/export duties and other potential costs of leaving the EU are factored in, it's anyone's guess as to how much is going to be available to be spent on things like the NHS - and it's going to stay that way at least until all the post Article 50 treaties are hammered out.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  29. Re:Standard Operating Practice by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2

    I think the wise thing to do is write out new elections. If it came to a vote today in parliament to leave the EU, the majority of representatives would say no. If the UK population really wants to leave, let them elect representatives that are in favor of leaving and are responsible for carrying it out. As it stands, 70% of the people's representatives don't want to leave the EU, so how can they be trusted to do this?

  30. Re:LOL by scsirob · · Score: 5, Informative

    European here. Contrary to your belief (as probably induced by the somewhat biased media reports), many European civilians are not mourning at all. Many of us are happy to finally see EU dictatorship come to a halt. The Brits will do fine outside the EU. And so will many other countries.

    EU is a failed project, perhaps good for the elite and large companies, but it sucks for ordinary citizens. Unlimited import of society-wrecking hordes, unreal money pits, total neglect for ordinary citizens, destruction of carefully crafted wellfare systems, pensions down the drain, job losses, and mind-boggling burocracy. That's EU for us. This project should return to being an economic powerhouse, without the common currency and without tens of thousands of useless, overpaid burocrats.

    The Brits have taken the lead. Will it hurt? Sure! But better to cut the ties now then to stay aboard a ship heading for the cliffs. I expect other countries to follow. The Clash had this in their lyrics: "If I go there will be trouble.. If I stay it will be double!!"

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  31. Re:Standard Operating Practice by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    There's no legal reason to overturn it or attempt to overturn it by holding another vote.

    If we can successfully petition our representatives to do that then not only is that legal, it's precisely what democracy is about.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  32. Re:Standard Operating Practice by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Due to the stock exchange crash after the vote UK has lost more money than it has paid into the EU budget for the past 20 years. It is like cutting the nose to spite the face.

    But by all means, go. UK has caused far more problems to the EU than it was worth.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  33. Re:No take backs!! by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah really. *I had no idea that Trump would actually become president [telegraph.co.uk] just because I voted for him!*

    Trump analogy usage aside (#), the interesting thing about that "regretful Brexit voter" story is it appears on the Daily Telegraph website; the Telegraph being the quintessential "quality" broadsheet rag of the right-wing, conservative, "Middle England"- and indeed, "Little Englander"- demographic whose stereotypical reader is a retired colonel in the English home counties.

    In short, the paper whose readers- and editors- you would expect to be among the most enthusiastic Brexiteers.

    Guess now it's all over there isn't much to lose, given that even Nigel Farage announced the morning after that the "£350m a week for the NHS" figure the Brexit campaign had been spewing about was actually BS. (##)(The same figure that pretty much any unbiased observers had been saying was BS for weeks, but if you repeat a lie enough...)

    Anyway, yeah. I bloody regret that she and her countrymen voted that way as well. I also regret that there wasn't an easy way to have her live with the consequences of her decision while I didn't have to. Believe me, I've no sympathy for any of the Little Englanders who for years swallowed (and regurgitated) the endless anti-EU propaganda that used it as a whipping boy for everything under the sun while failing to acknowledge its successes. Oh, what? You didn't really want to leave the EU despite years of saying you did? You didn't realise the consequences of voting leave?

    Fuck off. It's too late for you to start crying now. You shat the bed; now you have to lie in it.

    (#) It's a legitimate analogy, and makes a point I already suspected regarding Trump voters' "we're voting for him to punish the establishment" mentality. But as someone who lives in Scotland- i.e. currently part of the UK- you'll forgive me if I'm currently more interested in the actual story than its reduction into an analogy for US-centric purposes.

    (##) As if- even if they *did* have that extra £350m- UKIP would spend it on the NHS they're ideologically opposed to. (Given UKIP's stereotypcal popularity with defecting members of the right wing of the Conservative party- a faction which is itself known for being blatantly anti-NHS, what the hell would anyone expect?!)

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  34. Re:Web. Petition. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    It's over millennials. Your parents know better than you and we're hoping you'll grow up and figure that out at some point.

    I'm not sure where you're going with that. The demographics of the vote show clearly that millennials and under-50 voters were solidly in the "remain" camp.

    Indeed. The NY Times has a few articles about this and an Op-Ed titled Brexit and Europe’s Angry Old Men mentioning a poll over there indicating the older the person, the more likely they were inclined to leave the EU:

    Some 64 percent of the age group from 18 to 24 said they would vote for Remain; just 35 percent of those between 50 and 64 wanted to stay.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  35. Re:Web. Petition. by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Funny

    My anecdotal experiences have clearly shown that prayer has at least a 50% chance of success, far better than web petitions.

  36. Re:No take backs!! by HiThere · · Score: 2

    It's not over, it's barely started. Parliament has to notify the EU that it wants to withdraw. And it appears that it's going to need some legal changes made by the Parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland before it's allowed to do so. And both of those areas were staunchly "remain", so they may be reluctant to make the needed legal changes.

    Also, Scotland appears to have started negotiations for remaining in the EU after Britain leaves. Who knows what the result will be, but if might need to vote to separate from Britain before the effective date of Britain's withdrawal...which might lead the Scottish Parliament to delay making the changes that Britain would need for it's withdrawal.

    And, in addition, Britain had just negotiated a set of changes and exemptions from standard EU terms, but which were conditional on the BREXIT vote failing. Those have all been declared invalid, and the negotiators are not pleased. And they are high EU officials.

    And the pound had lost 1/3 of it's value during last Friday. Perhaps it will recover, or partially. But many corporations are planning to move their headquarters out of Britain, or to not locate there, or to decline to make loans. Signs of this are already present, but actions probably won't be clearly in motion before Monday.

    And the Prime Minister has promised to resign before October, leaving the request to withdraw to his successor. And nobody knows who that will be, though various people have made various unhappy guesses.

    And...

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  37. Why don't the Leave groups want to leave? by radarskiy · · Score: 2

    The leaders in the Leave groups have gotten very bitchy when asked about when the UK will leave and how they will conduct the negotiation. You would think that if they were campaigning for a Leave result in the referendum they would be eager about getting to the leaving part.

  38. Re: LOL by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    One benefit of leaving the EU- fewer problems with Unicode characters.

  39. Re:LOL by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another European here. Basically what you said, except the exact opposite.

    Most of what you say should result in you looking inward to your own country, not outwards to the EU. Welfare is alive and well (pun intended) in many EU member nations, as is societal integration, pensions, and ... wait what job losses? Unemployment has been steadily dropping the past several years, it's low as it was in 2000 there was this niggling little thing called a global recession in between in which the EU fared quite well compared to many industrialised nations.

    There is quite a bit of bureaucracy, but that's the only thing I'll agree with.

    As for breaking up the common currency. Pass thanks. Ideally we combined the central banks to prevent each country screwing with the system, but really screw going back to the driving for 1 hour and having to have 3 difference currencies because ... reasons.

  40. Re:LOL by iris-n · · Score: 2

    I am also an EU citizen.

    The only good thing about Brexit is that people like you are soon going to realize what a terrible idea it was. So this poisonous propaganda will stop, and the rest of the union will be saved. I feel sorry for the Brits, though, they will suffer through this crap so that the rest of us don't need to.

    Don't believe me? Let's just wait one year, and see what were the short-term consequences of this vote. Then we talk.

    --
    entropy happens
  41. Re:Standard Operating Practice by iris-n · · Score: 2

    You might want to check your math, son.

    --
    entropy happens
  42. Re:Web. Petition. by HanzoSpam · · Score: 2

    Dear young Remainers..

    65yo+ knew rationing
    75yo+ knew the Luftwaffe
    90yo+ knew Panzers

    They didn't "steal your future", they gave you one.

    --

    Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
  43. Re:LOL by houghi · · Score: 2

    Living in Belgium, working in Brussels.Many I know are also not mourning at all, but for different reasons.
    The UK was never a full member of the EU as we see it. Not signing Schengen, not joining the EURO. Those are the major ones.
    So we say: good riddance and we will welcome Scotland and Northern-Ireland. The last as an independent country or as a part of the Republic of Ireland. We have expereience with these situations.

    You know why people blame the EU for all these new laws and burocracy? Bceuase it is easier for your local politician to say "I tried, but, you know, Brussels ..." than it is to say that it might be something unfavourable, but better in the end.

    Is it 100% perfect? Obviously not, but it is better than having all these countries compete with each other. I live in Belgium. My sister lives in Germany, my parents in Spain and this since before the EURO, so I know what it is without all these advantages.

    Roaming cost will be something of the past very soon. I can go to any country and buy something wiithout paying extra taxes or import things (some exceptions apply) and I can work anywhere I like.

    So yes, for me the EU has more advantages than it has disadvantages and loosing a nagging UK will only benefit that. Will it hurt? A little bit perhaps as the markets panick. For the EU this will even out. For the UK? Probably not. They will be worse off, but who cares?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  44. Re:LOL by houghi · · Score: 2

    I remember when we went to the Euro. People all said it would be worse and we would loose money and what not. The Euroa was apparently a very bad idea.

    Not sure in other countries, but in Belgium prices did not jump besides the standard increases. And what is more important, the money they used WAS already a Euro. It was just named differently in each and every country.

    A bit like the Imperial system that uses the Inch, but is actually SI where it is fixed how long an inch is comaperd to cm. So if the cm changes, the inch changes.

    Same with the euro, before it was real monies. You Franc, Guilder or Mark where fixed to the EUR.

    And then that first trip from living in Belgium, visiting friends in The Netherlands, to my sister in Germany and then a trip to my parents in Spain, all within a week and no need to change money. Delightfull.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.