Online Petition Site Crashed By Millions of 'Cancel Brexit' Signers (time.com)

"More than 3 million people have signed a petition to cancel Brexit on the U.K. government's official petitions website -- so many that the website crashed multiple times," reports Time: The petition had received some 600,000 signatures at a rate of 1,500 every 60 seconds before the site crashed at about 9 a.m. U.K. time on Thursday, the Guardian reported. By mid afternoon, the site was back online but suffering intermittent outages. There were 2 million signatures by Thursday evening and 3 million by midday Friday...

The U.K. government must now allow a debate on the petition's contents in parliament.
The Guardian notes that the CTO of company that built the petition site had bragged in a tweet Wednesday that the 1,000 signatures per minute was "Not too bad, but nowhere near crashing the site --you all need to try harder tomorrow."

By the next morning he had tweeted âoeWell done everyone -- the site crashed because calculating the trending count became too much of a load on the database."

Comments

Re:Crap software

[DontBeAMoran]

1500 divided by 60 equals an average of 25 hits per second.

Shouldn't even a low-end Raspberry Pi Zero be able to handle that?

Let me guess: the fucking page was trying to push 1MB of HTML, 2MB of CSS, 5MB of javascript and 10MB of images for each page hit?

Re:Open to abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that UK citizens can live abroad, right? And somebody taught you to write deceptively ambiguous phrases.

Re: Open to abuse

[Midnight Thunder]

Thatâ(TM)s not what happens today. FUD is doing a good job of helping those destructive to society get in power and stay in power. In the meantime a well researched stance is screamed at for being elitist, left wing, supporting already defeated candidates and non-patriotic

Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote. It has hurt the US, the UK and other countries.

Your opinion and votes matter more than ever. We should not need to resort to demeaning opponents (dead or alive) to try to make our arguments. Taking time to understand what scares a person will likely help make a better argument for trying to win them over.

Re: Open to abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

> Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote.

If you don't agree with them you'll be denounced now, imprisoned later, killed eventually. Whatever it takes.

So says the Pan Europa voice of Jean Monnet, Coudenhove-Kalergi, Blair, Juncker and you.

Re:3 million is nothing

[drinkypoo]

Yes, looking out for your own interests is selfish. It's something all humans do, called self-preservation. Why you try to say that's a bad thing just proves that you are being disingenuous.

Selfishness is a bad thing when it's taken to an illogical extreme. Suggesting otherwise is socially retarded.

I assume you're from a country that would BENEFIT from the UK staying in the EU, so you're doing the same thing.

Everyone but perhaps Russia and China will benefit if the UK stays in the EU, including the UK.

The free ride is over, the EU is dead, and the world government they want is going down the toilet.

The UK is not providing a free ride to the EU. They are getting quite a bit.

Fuck off, scum.

Run along, kid.

Re:3 million is nothing

[Registered Coward v2]

17 million voted to the EU and in the second vote (which we've already had, something the petitioners dishonestly ignore) 25 million voted for political parties that had 'leave the EU' in their party manifesto.

So forgive me if I ignore the constant stream of selfish stupid people demanding that we ignore the democratic wishes of the UK population. Perhaps instead they should focus on removing the hundreds of MPs doing their best to overturn that democracy.

Quite. Let Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK and remain in the EU as their population wants and let the UK become the United Kingdom of England and Wales. Put the hard Border at UK Scotland and France. Solves the NI backstop issue as NI would now be an independent country in the EU.

Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information.

Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.

Brexiteers are hilarious

[anarcobra]

In two years they went from "easiest trade deal, we hold all the cards, germany has to sell us cars, have our cake and eat it" to "we always knew our economy would crash and we would lose jobs, we never promised a deal, we will survive just like the blitz".
Fucking idiots and grifters all of them.

Re:Brexiteers are hilarious

[Ashthon]

In two years they went from "easiest trade deal, we hold all the cards, germany has to sell us cars, have our cake and eat it" to "we always knew our economy would crash and we would lose jobs, we never promised a deal, we will survive just like the blitz". Fucking idiots and grifters all of them.

It could easily have been easiest trade deal in history, since the deal we wanted was on offer. EU Council President Donald Tusk made clear in a Tweet that a Canada style deal had been on offer from the start, which is exactly what we voted for:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1047825916905357312

So, the deal we wanted was on offe, and we were already in regulatory alignment with the EU, so this should have been a simple proccess. The problem isn't the Brexiteers, but the bitter remainers, who flat out refuse to accept the results of the referendum. The key problem is most MPs are remainers, and they're doing everything in their power to prevent Brexit. The biggest saboteur has been Teresa May herself, who is a staunch remainer and who has been the biggest obstacle to us leaving the EU.

The Department for Exiting the European Union was created to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, and was headed by a leave voter David Davis. However, in parallel with those negotiations, Teresa May was engaged in a separate negotiations headed up by the unelected civil servant, and fanatical remainer, Olly Robbins (a man who has expressed his admiration for the Soviet Union, which is probably why he likes the EU so much). May and Robbins 'negotiated' their own deal with the EU, though 'negotiated' is the wrong word since all they did was to give the EU everything they asked for, keeping us permanently shacked to the declining block.

Teresa May then called the cabinet together at the Prime Ministers country residence and revealed her deal, which was substantially worse than remaining in the EU. David Davis resigned as Brexit Secretary the next day (he couldn't resign immediately because May had confiscated the phones of the cabinet members and had said anyone who disagreed would have there ministerial cars taken, leaving them stranded). Since then May has taken control of the process and has been trying to force her Ultra Remain deal through parliament. However, the terms of the deal are so bad that both leavers and remainers are united in rejecting it, leading to the biggest defeat in parliamentary history. Despite this, May is still trying to sell the country out to the EU, and still trying to force her terrible deal through parliament, bringing it back for a second vote, and then trying to bring it back for a third vote on the same deal.

Of course, it's not just May who has allowed this to happen, but most other MPs. Notably, there's Speaker of the House John Bercow, who has a "Bollocks to Brexit" sticker on his car. As speaker, he is responsible for selecting the amendments to be voted on, and he consistently selected pro-remain amendments. Then there's Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, who has refused to unlock funds for preparations for a WTO Brexit, meaning few preparations were made.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that we knew what we voted for, the deal was on offer, and the remainer parliment has steadfastly refused to honour the results of the 2016 referendum and has done everything possible to prevent us from leaving. It could have been the easiest trade deal in history, but instead it's a fiasco.

So who's the problem here, the Brexiteers, who simply expect the result of the referendum to be implemented, or the remainers who are attempting to subvert democracy simply because they didn't like the result?

Too little credit

[Okian Warrior]

Thatâ(TM)s not what happens today. FUD is doing a good job of helping those destructive to society get in power and stay in power. In the meantime a well researched stance is screamed at for being elitist, left wing, supporting already defeated candidates and non-patriotic

Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote. It has hurt the US, the UK and other countries.

"Oh, if only our citizens had been correctly informed, they would never have voted for Brexit!"

That seems to be the defining rationale for all the dissent in the UK today, and it's complete and total bullocks. It's used as justification by people who didn't get their way to make the transition as painful as possible with the faint hope of reversing the decision.

Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying, from an economic, cultural, and game-theory point of view. The economic arguments for staying are based on invalid assumptions(*), and in practice staying in the EU is causing more economic hardship than staying.

The arguments against leaving center mostly on the transition, and not the end result. It's always what will happen "in the next 6 months" or "in the following year" and whatnot. No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations - and there would be little hardship.

But mostly, the argument that "not enough correct information got out" and "people would have chosen differently with better information" is completely false.

Most people simply don't think what people tell them to think any more, and instead they rely on what they can see. So let's examine this: what do the UK people actually see when they look around their country nowadays?

The UK culture has undergone a massive shift these past 30 years, and the people are not happy with the results. Teens are stabbed every week in London, people are being arrested for online criticism, jobs are hard to come by, and different-culture people are everywhere.

That's what drove the vote to Brexit and if you held the referendum again you would find *more* people would vote for it, simply because the changes have become worse in the past 2 years.

I suppose the single most obvious culture shift indication was in the police: in previous decades, bobbies didn't have to carry guns. Nowadays UK police they are armed and armored like US swat teams.

Your opinion and votes matter more than ever. We should not need to resort to demeaning opponents (dead or alive) to try to make our arguments. Taking time to understand what scares a person will likely help make a better argument for trying to win them over.

You are giving the people too little credit. Making them "not scared" by talking or presenting information or reasoning simply won't work. You can only make people "not scared" by making them safer. No amount of argument will change that basic fact.

You give the people of the UK to little credit. They chose, and even if you don't agree with it you should abide by that choice.

(*) For example, the assumption that a bigger pool of workers and jobs makes for a better economy. When the countries are economically equal it works out - a dental hygenist in the UK can get a good job in Germany, and vice versa. When this assumption doesn't holds true the better country gets pulled down - a dental hygienist in Greece can get a good job in the UK, but the reverse isn't true. The result is massive unemployment in the UK while high-paying jobs are filled with non-UK citizens. A large number of assumptions - which turn out to be false - underlie the economic arguments for being in the EU.

Re:Too little credit

[quantaman]

Thatâ(TM)s not what happens today. FUD is doing a good job of helping those destructive to society get in power and stay in power. In the meantime a well researched stance is screamed at for being elitist, left wing, supporting already defeated candidates and non-patriotic

Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote. It has hurt the US, the UK and other countries.

"Oh, if only our citizens had been correctly informed, they would never have voted for Brexit!"

That seems to be the defining rationale for all the dissent in the UK today, and it's complete and total bullocks. It's used as justification by people who didn't get their way to make the transition as painful as possible with the faint hope of reversing the decision.

Except it's a good point.

There were two big problems with the pro-Brexit campaign:
1) There were a lot of flat out lies or distortions.
2) The Brexit that was promised isn't actually possible. England simply can't have the kind of relationship with the EU that the Brexit side wanted. Of the different possible relationships to Europe the one most acceptable to voters is likely remain.

Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying, from an economic, cultural, and game-theory point of view.

You're objectively using the word "objectively" incorrectly.

The arguments against leaving center mostly on the transition, and not the end result. It's always what will happen "in the next 6 months" or "in the following year" and whatnot.

I've seen lots of long term predictions of bad things happening. It's just that the short term ones are a more immediate concern to most people.

No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations - and there would be little hardship.

Except a bunch of bi-lateral agreements are hard to negotiate and way harder to administer. That was a big reason for the EU in the first place, to simply things by getting rid of all the N to N agreements.

And if you implemented all of the agreements then what was the purpose of Brexit in the first place? You're basically pulling the same stunt as the leave side, pushing for hard-Brexit while selling a soft-Brexit.

But mostly, the argument that "not enough correct information got out" and "people would have chosen differently with better information" is completely false.

... followed by a bunch of complaints about immigration.

The complaints about misinformation were largely about economic misinformation, and the hard/soft trickery. If people were really freaking out about immigration maybe leave will win again, but then at least you'll also have a clear answer about a hard vs soft exit. And about whether to bring back an "unrestricted travel" agreement that you were happy to bring back a few paragraphs ago.

For example, the assumption that a bigger pool of workers and jobs makes for a better economy. When the countries are economically equal it works out - a dental hygenist in the UK can get a good job in Germany, and vice versa. When this assumption doesn't holds true the better country gets pulled down - a dental hygienist in Greece can get a good job in the UK, but the reverse isn't true. The result is massive unemployment in the UK while high-paying jobs are filled with non-UK citizens. A large number of assumptions - which turn out to be false - underlie the economic arguments for being in the EU.

Though you forget that raising a dental hygienist to adult hood and then putting them through additional training is really expensive. Getting that hygienist as a productive adult is a pretty good deal, though one that will eventually have to be paid for in retirement (though you likely still win)

Re:Too little credit

[AmiMoJo]

The Brexit that was promised isn't actually possible.

Indeed, the official Leave campaign's leaflet and web site said that the UK would negotiate a deal before triggering Article 50, which is impossible and had already been ruled out by the EU when they said it.

Having said that, at least deciding what deal they were going to try to negotiate and getting Parliament to approve it before triggering Article 50 would have been a very good idea, and avoided this crisis. Assuming they had proposed something vaguely realistic of course, which given May's red lines was unlikely.

Re:3 million is nothing

[Cederic]

Typically, online petitions and opinion polls only have a tiny participation rate.

So do referendums, but the one to leave the EU was the largest vote in favour of any issue in the history of the country.

Re:Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors?

[dunkelfalke]

By this logic you already had a vote in 1972. But yes, get the fuck out already.

Meanwhile French Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau has revealed she has named her cat Brexit. "He wakes me up every day meowing like mad because he wants to be let out, then when I open the door he just stands there, indecisive, then gives me a dirty look when I put him outside," she told Le Journal du Dimanche newspaper.

Re:3 million is nothing

[drinkypoo]

a bit more liberty-impinging bureaucracy every year, all for a taste of that radiant socialist future that's always just around the corner!

The UK is one of the most government camera-dense locations on the planet, and a member of five eyes. The UK is that thing you described with or without the EU.

Re: Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors?

[Wheely]

I do find it interesting how twisted truth becomes reality so easily. No liberal or indeed, any other faction had anything to do with stopping a second vote on the same motion.

There is a long standing tradition in the UK parliament that members of parliament can not vote on the same motion twice in the same sitting of parliament. This is to stop a government crippling parliament by re-submitting the same issue over an dover again. This tradition is applied nregularly in the house of commons but nobody ever hears about it because few people actually pay attention to what is going on in parliament.

All that happened in this case is that the government were reminded that parliament will not vote on the same bill twice in one parliament.

Re: Are you afraid of a new vote, Brexit traitors?

[r2kordmaa]

Dunno about begging but if they have sense they'll rejoin and it'll result in stronger EU for all. Short term Brexit will be bad for all, but Brits need to get it out of their system, canceling Brexit at this point would not be good idea, it would come back to haunt everyone in a year or few. Once the dust settles a better path forward can be agreed upon.