Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
Signatures to the petition aren't verified as being British citizens and it doesn't prevent multiple voting. This has been demonstrated by newspapers. Analysis has already shown a large number of signatures from outside the UK, including North Korea and Russia.
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?
#DeleteFacebook
like its 2001....
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Hey nice try Vlag...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47678275
If there was ever a case where eventually-consistent databases instead of straight SQL would be better, this is it. This had nothing to do with images and stylesheets, I'm sure.
Do you live in a sovereign state in the US? Does it have open borders with neighbor member-states? You seem to hate it without remembering where they got the idea.
Or wait, you must be from Texas.
...Analysis has already shown a large number of signatures from outside the UK, including North Korea and Russia.
Last time I checked there were shown to be 25 from Russia... The petition site is far from infallible but this is one of the most signed petitions since the sites inception, and clearly the one with the highest signing rate - Aren't you missing the point.
It also probably had nothing to do with SQL, 25 txns per second is barely a pulse.
So forgive me if I ignore the constant stream of selfish stupid people demanding that we ignore the democratic wishes of the UK population.
You mean the stupid selfish wishes of the UK population? Pretty sure it's selfishness and stupidity across the board.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you RTFS, you would know it was the ever changing trend analysis that brought them down.
They most certainly could have done better, but there's no indication it had anything to do with pushing static assets.
More than 4 million sign Brexit petition to revoke article 50.
See the Petition. 4,392,160 signatures at Saturday, March 23, 2019, 09:11 am Pacific Time.
My point is that we had a vote, then had a second vote.
Parliament sabotaging the entire fucking process of leaving the EU combined with a Government incapable of negotiating affection in a brothel means that many people now think leaving wont work and want a third fucking vote.
How about instead of wasting time and resources on that we get the fuck on with leaving the EU.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm going to guess its astroturfing, and articles like this portray it as something "everyone" is against. These large trade deals are worth a lot of money.
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.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information.
Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
I posted this comment. It has been modded down: The British government is VERY poorly managed.
One example: The EU leave campaign has dishonesty at its core-- and it hasn't convinced us. (Mar. 11, 2016, not 2019)
Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU (Jan. 31, 2019)
In general, the British government has presented low-level details, and not generally helped citizens have a serious, in-depth understanding.
Well, that load you state would just about cover the required GDPR disclosures, so we'd also have to add in the overhead for the actual content - the number 25.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Representative democracy is not that every representative works for the idea the majority voted for, it's that representatives work for the things _they_ were voted in for. It's an inefficient and fuzzy system. You are wishing for tyranny of the majority and not a functional democracy.
I can't say for sure, but from this side it looks like British parliament would be better off dissolved, seemingly filled with corruption and incompetence. Maybe it would be better to have a king?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Parliament can't be said to have "Sabotaged" a process flawed by false information from the start... they said millions of dollars was going to be saved on healthcare alone, to make no mention of the trade/border issues. It's a clusterfuck.
Parliament rightfully dragged their feet in coming to impossible(!) realizations that there IS NO GOOD SOLUTION to do it like this. May tried, you can't say she didn't try. In the end the EU said "no, go fuck yourselves, no free lunch."
And that's where it stands now, you're either in or you're out. There's no halfway gray option. Renegotiate the entire thing, or stay in. Those are the choices now.
The people didn't get a vote on that. They were promised a bill of goods that was never possible, and further an unrealistic pretend-option that didn't ever exist about a soft-exit from the EU that wouldn't break the bank.
No deal = breaks the bank, the borders, the everything. It's retarded to say people voted to do that. Retarded.
So arrange protests, demand to make a hard exit.
What is the EU and how does it work? An un-dated explanation by the BBC. (Before the end of 2017.)
It's not the inserts. It's probably the aggregate functions to display "trends" that was mentioned. Probably recounted on every page load with no indexes.
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.
If only rights would also cross State lines, because right now many States trample all over your Constitutionally enumerated rights...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
UK has always been responsible for their borders.
UK politicians chose to not enforce their borders and deport EU citizens mooching off welfare.
They blamed the EU, even though other EU countries deport people just fine.
They are just blaming the EU for their own incompetence.
Typically, online petitions and opinion polls only have a tiny participation rate. Not everybody has readily available internet access, not everybody follow the media, and most importantly, not everybody bothers to get involved, even if it is in their own interest. This means, seeing 4+M signatures equals a much much bigger actual number of voters. And as is, the petition already represents about a quarter of the people who voted to "remain" in the referendum. That's significant. It suggests that there is a groundswell of support for remaining in the EU.
The petition site isn't run by some shady online opinion poll. It's run by the UK parliament. According to a spokeperson, it actively filters submissions to detect bot activity. At the very least, it requires a unique name, verified (!) e-mail address and UK postal address. Some unconfirmed reports also state that it requires a UK passport number (maybe, that only happens for suspect submissions?). The UK parliament trusts that these numbers are substantially accurate.
That's huge. It means anybody saying "the will of the people" is to continue with Brexit is blatantly lying to themselves and to the rest of the world.
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.
You are seriously misrepresenting the facts. First of all, it is highly unlikely that all the people who voted in the referendum would also sign the petition. In fact, it is amazing that so many people did sign. That's pretty much unprecedented. Participation rates in online petitions are traditionally tiny compared to actual referenda and elections. And the UK parliament assures everybody that the petition actively filters out bot activity. So, we have to assume that the numbers are close to accurate.
Secondly, the petition is just that. It is a petition. It doesn't invalidate the non-binding referendum. It asks parliament to do their job and to actually confirm that "the will of the people" is in fact to leave the EU, as Theresa May keeps pretending. And from the numbers presented so far, I personally doubt that the vast part of the population shares that believe. It's just that Brexiteers are louder -- and parliament seems to have their fingers in their ears. So, if they hear anything over their own self-imposed din, it's the loud voices.
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.
By this logic you already had a vote in 1972. But yes, get the fuck out already.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
How many votes are needed until the globalists get the results they want?
Apparently democracy is asking the people once for their uninformed consent and then have them live with that forever.
Not at all, it took maybe too long but after the 1975 vote for the EEC the UK was indeed given a chance to vote on the EU.
Admittedly long after we'd been promised a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, but when it comes to the future of nations a little patience is justified.
So sure, lets have another EU referendum. Since 41 years seems to be the traditional period between votes I suggest you start your 2057 campaigning now.
Or you could listen to the voice of the British people in the 2017 parliamentary elections, in which 80% of the votes went to parties promising to take the UK out of the EU.
Re-running referendums until the result matches the EU desires is a very EU thing to do, so no, I don't want to keep doing it.
You know there are reasons why democratic elections happen on a regular basis in politics. People can change their opinions.
I think previous decisions should be implemented before asking a new question.
Parliament: "Do you want A or B?"
Country: "B"
Parliament: "We wanted A so fuck you, we will block and inhibit implementation of B until everybody gets fed up and goes for A just to get the thing over with"
That's not the will of the people.
at this point it's difficult to claim that people were not informed in the mean time
Oh please. The last 30 months have been a litany of bullshit from politicians and the BBC all geared towards blaming everything bad on Brexit. The people have seldom been so deliberately misinformed.
it would certainly be a lot more difficult to deny that this was the will of the people
The only people denying that are the ones living in denial.
What wasn't part of the vote, or the manifestos of the parties (neither of which gained a majority) were any specifics of the deal.
We now have a specific deal. Parliament doesn't believe this is what the people want, and have voted against it twice.
So, I propose this decision is handed to the people.
If this is what the people want, the referendum will pass. We will leave on the terms that you know doubt want. If this is not what the people want, the referendum will return a "no" result. This is probably not what you want but you do seem keen that the democratic wishes of the UK population are upheld, so I don't see any reason for objection should this be the case.
Parliament can't be said to have "Sabotaged" a process flawed by false information from the start
What, like economic collapse, housing market collapse, mass unemployment and the risk of global conflict? None of which have happened, despite promises from the remain camp.
they said millions of dollars was going to be saved on healthcare alone
Who said that?
Oh, nobody. Well, nobody representing the 'leave' campaigns anyway. People wanting to stay in the EU constantly lie about the leave arguments, so thanks for confirming you want the UK to remain.
Parliament rightfully dragged their feet in coming to impossible(!) realizations that there IS NO GOOD SOLUTION to do it like this.
What makes you think I give a shit about a good solution. I'll settle for a shit solution, because it's still better than being in the EU.
May tried, you can't say she didn't try.
I tried to win the F1 World Championship. Now admittedly I didn't even get in a car, but you can't say I didn't try.
In the end the EU said "no, go fuck yourselves, no free lunch."
Of course they did. They were always going to. The only thing that would stop them was the economic damage that could cause them, and it was the UK parliament (and May's inability to negotiate) that allowed the EU to blithely ignore that possibility.
Renegotiate the entire thing, or stay in. Those are the choices now.
The EU wont renegotiate so I'll take option 3: Just fucking leave.
They were promised a bill of goods that was never possible, and further an unrealistic pretend-option that didn't ever exist about a soft-exit from the EU that wouldn't break the bank.
They were promised a fuckload of shit by the Government with dire warnings galore, and still went "That's better than being in the EU"
No deal = breaks the bank, the borders, the everything. It's retarded to say people voted to do that.
Yeah, nobody could possible support that. Except.. https://www.westmonster.com/pu...
Retarded
Please, that's a terrible insult. Especially used by someone with such inept understanding of the issues.
Barely passed is still a pass. Referendums have consequences, public vote is not a bloody facebook like button and "we were idiots" is not an excuse. There is no new information, all the consequences of brexit were as obvious then as they are now. It's going to suck, but you'll survive and learn a lesson about listening to politicians.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...most of those fervent "down-voters" couldn't be arsed to get out of their chairs and actually vote back when IT COUNTED.
Sadly, in real life you don't get a "do over" just because you weren't paying attention the first time, or because you're on the (to you and ALL YOUR FRIENDS) "right" side.
I'm guessing, of course, but if the groundswell so "universally" portrayed today had actually voted, Brexit would have gone down without question.
-Styopa
WHY should there not be a vote based on the ACTUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION? Why do you need to pretend a vote based on proven lies from UKIP is somehow more representative of the will of Britons? Stop lying traitor.
UKIP pretended this was going to be a massive economic windfall, the opposite is true. The public knows now how dangerous this path is. Before the vote it wasn't even 10% discovered. Good information replaced bad, new vote assured.
Brexiters should move back to Moscow. Fuck you traitors and liars. If you want to leave the UK in an orderly fashion, that's fine. A new vote will see that happen.
Your lies will not.
for this mess.
Seriously, they thought they could leave the EU, keep the current state (no border) between the republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and remain out of the EU customs union and single market. I am quite surprised 52% of the voters bought that BS.
Well look, if you really want to vote on May's deal or No Deal then I'll actually support that.
See, no objection at all.
Are you suggesting deposing the Queen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Seems like a simple fix is to just cache the results for a minute? Nobody needs that level of freshness on a trend line.
The UK passport requirement must be for people out of the country as I'd guess a sizeable chunk of the population in the UK don't have a passport.
Even passport isn't that good as a person can have a UK passport without the right of abode in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
For a major constitution level change, that is not a very clear majority. Most countries (well western ones) need more then that to change their constitutions or multiple votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
well designed
I needed a good laugh.
The petition website has data of the signatures by county (the "Get petition data (json format)" link). I downloaded that file just before writing this comment and I see that are currently 123 signatures marked as coming from Russia. According to this 2015 news article, there are (were?) 1688 British expats living in Russia.
Of course, we're all technical people here. We know that foreigners could be using VPNs or botnets (so all the requests wouldn't obviously be coming from the same VPN endpoint) to proxy their requests so they appear to be coming from inside the UK.
Since it's a petition, not a poll, there's an actual list of names (i.e. not just IPs or whatever) associated with it. You could do QA on the data by simply sampling the names, confirming they're real people, contacting them, and asking them if they really did sign the petition at the timestamp on their signature. (Needless to say, doing this for all 4+ million would be a lot of effort, but a statistically, you should be able to get fairly high confidence on your measure of accuracy with a properly designed random sample of thousands.)
Last, we have a good proxy for how many signatures we expect: there's a protest today and we can count the crowd. It's on the order of a million (the group organizing the protest says slightly over a million, BBC says "hundreds of thousands"). If a quarter of the people who signed the petition showed up for the march, that would be incredibly high turnout for the march; if anything, given that information, we should be surprised the petition signature count isn't higher (probably best explained by it having started very recently) not looking for reasons the real count should be lower.
Let me guess: the fucking page was trying to push 1MB of HTML, 2MB of CSS, 5MB of javascript and 10MB of images for each page hit?
That's a pretty fucking terrible guess... anyone who bothered to follow the link would see one of the most spartan sites on the web - then it's just a button (12) and a mouse click (network tab) away to find out that it's a whopping 67 KiB... so no, your completely and utterly wrong. Also serving static content is almost never the bottleneck in any website, pipes are enormous these days and static content is the easiest think in the world to distribute among a cluster.
Oh, she can remain as a mistress.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Mistress to her son?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Hell, I didn't even bother to read the summary.
THIS. IS. SLASHDOT! /SpartanVoice
Would a new vote not be tainted by false information? Last I heard, the remainers were saying there would be empty shelves at the grocery stores, with the implication that there would be food shortages and mass starvation. But anyone with any business sense knows to stock up before a hard exit, so in reality there would be no disruption at all.
Which would you vote for?
The option that ties us to the EU but without the opportunity to change that relationship (May's deal), or the one that completely screws us over as a nation (No deal)?
I can't help thinking that the majority of those who voted leave would not want either option. The reason being most of them aren't complete fuckwits, but simply people having a hard time in life, voting in the belief that any change at least gives an opportunity.
National support for 'no deal' is now 46%. People would rather suffer economically than continue being fucked over by the combination of parliament and the EU.
Pretty damning of both, but there you go.
The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information. Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
I'm from Norway, we've rejected the EU twice (1972 and 1994) and I can assure you that if we had said yes once we'd never get a second vote a few years later to reconsider no matter how many was starting to think it was a bad idea. Britain voted to leave and it's the government's job to get it done, not flunk the negotiations and ask for a do-over. If that's the best they'll get either take the deal or not but get out already.
And no, what you have now is not solid facts it's a scary bluff pretending like the UK would be a pariah without the EU. I've heard that bluff before, the UK will still be part of Europe and a country of 60 million people that's the 21th largest in the world doesn't have to be part of a super-block. Right now they're trying to scare people with the no-deal monster but once leaving is a fact they'd go back to being constructive on how we could cooperate in the future. That's what they did with us, once it was clear we weren't joining the EU they got busy drafting the EEC instead.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Once the UK is kicked out of the EU things will get bad for them. Then they will beg for re-admittence under the old rules but get offered the same deal the rest of the EU gets instead. I suppose that's progress.
Don't be retarded.
He supports Brexit so you're probably asking to much of him.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
"people want their vote to matter, not be ruled by unelected bureaucrats"
Brexit does absolutely nothing about that, in fact it just leaves our own unelected bureaucrats (did anyone vote for Theresa May? No, they voted for David Cameron / the party as a whole) unchecked and able to implement laws that the person on the street will never know about.
The reasons for not leaving are many, the reasons for leaving are many. It's not that clear-cut that most people can even understand them.
There's a reason that we took two years to come up with a deal that neither side really wants but it was the best they could do to compromise.
"What do people when they have zero recourse over their lives?" Carry on, like they have for the last several thousand years of organised government?
If all it takes to invalidate a national referendum is that 20% of the Nay voters sign an online petition, then who controls the society?
All it should take to invalidate a referendum is a ruling that it was fraudlent.
Oh wait that did happen!
So tell me who does control society if we let it be ruled by fraud?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Also California. Ownership should simply be transferred back. Mexico would gladly refund the several million dollars they were forced to sell it for after losing the war.
> The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information. ... which you seem to be keeping in a locked file cabinet in a disused lavatory in a basement where both the lights and stairs are out. I love the excuse though. "People stupidly voted against me, so we need to vote again!"
> Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that "vote until things go my way" is at best a waste of time and at worst a good way to help people cheat. How about this, everyone else can use your idea, but only when they don't like the way you vote. Deal or no deal?
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.
The changes our societies need are (or certainly seem) greater than can be effected by change within the current system. New laws need to be enacted to end corruption but never will be BECAUSE they would need to be drafted and passed by the very same people whose interests those new laws would be contrary to.
Put simply:
1. Complacent or stupid or lazy people install, or suffer to be installed by others, elected officials carelessly.
2. Poorly chosen elected officials are bought off by people and/or corporations with lots of money.
3. In exchange for that money, corrupt politicians write, rewrite, massage, amend, or repeal or otherwise strike down laws to the benefit of their wealthy paymasters.
4. Corrupt governmental bodies (full now of mostly corrupt, morally bankrupt, criminal, conniving, or just downright stupid and/or unqualified, or any one or more of the foregoing up to and including possibly all of the above or worse,) continue to facilitate the hoarding of the wealth of the society in a few at the expense of all.
5. Tendrils of corruption reach out into all subdivisions and branches; partisan, bought-and-paid-for politicians ignore reality and install judges likely to be sympathetic to their cause and either permissive of, or outright supporting, aiding, and abetting the furtherance of corruption. This includes the “Supreme Court”. If you need proof, how’s about “Citizens United”... for one?
Government formed with the words, “WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT” ends up, ironically, becoming destructive to these ends, but the disparity between the power of the oppressed and their oppressor, when these words were written and took their place in history, is today about a million times greater.
American patriots who vastly outnumbered what the armies of their oppressor could bring to bear against them won as much by luck as anything else. Given the separation by an ocean and all that THAT entails, and the fact that the fastest means of communication between their government and their army and navy took months to convey information or instructions, (each way,) not to mention that they had other things on their mind, (like not being taken over by the French... again,) the odds, steep as they were, were immensely better than those of the citizens of the US being able to repair their broken government by force. Even during the American Civil War, with nearly half the country in open revolt, and things like airplanes, the telephone, radio communications, satellite communications and surveillance, rampant local surveillance, etc., still far-off, mostly undreamt, and definitely not yet available, they were unable to resist “Union” forces. Those forces they could not overcome, if combined and were to try to fight against the US government of today, would be crushed in seconds. What chance does the individual have today.
I’m not even ending that question with a question mark because really there IS no question.
So back to the U.K. , since this discussion is ostensibly about Brexit...
The U.K. has very nearly, in the modern day, the same problems as her erstwhile daughter, the US, partially enumerated above. But at least they
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Parliament sabotaging the entire fucking process of leaving the EU combined with a Government incapable of negotiating affection in a brothel means that many people now think leaving wont work and want a third fucking vote
Ah yes, tyical Brexiter, everything is everyone else's fault.
YOU voted to have an incompetent government take us out of the EU, now own your fucking decision like a man.
My point is that we had a vote, then had a second vote.
We had a bote on leaving which leave won. We then had a general election in which neither of the big parties promoting leave managed to win. We certainly didn't have a vote moving the country away from a parliamentary democracy.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
In many cases its over 25%. If over 25% have signed (even if it was really only 18.5%), then there is a good chance 60% are against it - a lot of people probably don't even know about the petition .
As an MP you might just want to think carefully before voting for any kind of Brexit, because when the Brexit hits the fan (no food and no jobs) they will know that the vast majority of the electorate thinks you are voting for the ERG to hide their ill gotten gains in a tax haven, and campaigning to stamp out workers' rights. (These are the EU policies that the ERG is opposed to, and remember they all have houses in France too).
All that stuff about straight bananas, etc, was invented by Boris Johnson when he was EU correspondent of the Telegraph - which he has admitted.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Or you could listen to the voice of the British people in the 2017 parliamentary elections, in which 80% of the votes went to parties promising to take the UK out of the EU.
Well arent you a dishonest little one!
You very well know the first past the post system pretty much ensures that those two parties command by far the majority of the votes almost no matter what.
Now what you failed to mention is that in a very unusual move, neither managed to command a majority.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
Some of us are working hard to make sure all 17.4 mil of you leave.
We aren't coming with you. Enjoy the UK while it still exists.
We are a very densely populated country which is dependent on imports for 75% of its food (mostly from the EU). Even when it is grown here, it is harvested by transient workers from poorer EU countries who fail to understand how expensive it is to live in the UK, and do not realize you cannot live outside the monetary economy in the UK (all land is owned by someone, there is not much edible wildlife, and without electricity, you life expectancy is months.
We have spent most of the last 20 years organising a division of labour where we do what we are good at, and give the rest to the the EU.
Some people imagining that we can "return to the good old days" (the 1950's) when we all lived on starvation rations imported from America, which we are still paying for, despite the fact that we had little manufacturing competition from the rest of Europe which we had just bombed to hell for most of the 50's and 60's. Mrs Thatcher abolished our engineering industry, and replaced it with global Ponzi schemes "financial services", which, post-Brexit we won't be able to export. For the most part, these people last visited mainland Europe in 1945 (in the D-day landings), if they have ever been, and they get their information from "news" sources that carefully avoid anything that might actually be true.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
No I did not visit the great link because I'm afraid of changelings.
#DeleteFacebook
The UK is not providing a free ride to the EU. They are getting quite a bit.
Yup, a bit more liberty-impinging bureaucracy every year, all for a taste of that radiant socialist future that's always just around the corner!
I take it that is a jab at the humongous EU bureaucracy? I know that is an article of gospel truth on the right wing but it is also a steaming pile of male bovine rectal secretions. The EU employs an order of magnitude fewer bureaucrats than the UK, something like 40.000 EU bureaucrats to 400.000 UK bureaucrats (a.k.a Civil Servants).
That is not even remotely true - think about it for a few minutes. Pretty much everything we do involves the EU - for example, if I manufacture stuff, either I make it to EU specs and I can sell it, or I make it to UK spec, in which case, for the most part, not even UK citizens will buy it. However, we give up having a say in the EU spec. How does that give us "freedom"? (Yes, this is an over simplification, but it is the bulk of the argument).
The purpose of Brexit, as seen by the ERG, is to avoid forthcoming EU legislation which will expose their ill-gotten gains in tax havens. The purpose as seen by the Brexit voters is based on lies told by the ERG - who have "posh accents" and are therefore mistaken for being intelligent and well informed by the ignorant masses.
Giving Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson more sovereignty does not mean anybody else gets any. The "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels" (EU government), is in fact composed of Euro-MPS, of which we elect our share, and the commissioners, who are elected in part by our own government who we elect - so, no, not unelected or unrepresentative.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Yes, very impressive. 4% of the population signed an online petition. Bow before the power of the people!
Except an internet poll counts for very, very little. Try making your voice heard when it *really* matters. Like, say.... maybe in an election? If I recall, about 51% of the people who actually count (aka the ones that bother to vote) went for the collective temper-tantrum that is Brexit. It would take another referendum to stop it.
The world is in some sort of retrenching phase right now. Far left and right wings on the rise, anger breaking out everywhere, treaties and alliances crumbling. Crap leaders taking power or getting elected all over the world and voters seem alright with it. It's not for lack of good candidates. It's just that most leaders who dare to be reasonable get rapidly replaced by autocrats or demagogues who are shouting the most extreme stuff at the most extreme volume. I'm not sure what's going on. It's not limited to any country or region, so it must be something emergent in the whole population. Brexit is a small part of a much larger human trend.
We'll snap out of this eventually, but no country is gonna move forward for the next decade or two. I suspect that whatever country manages to backtrack the least will be the one that winds up on top. My money is on the U.S. or Europe.
I did not vote, and nor did most of my family because we were out of the country at the time. A lot of people go abroad - and most of them are not likely to vote leave because it won't help their job or their family. Unlike the people who voted leave - many of whom presumably have no idea where Europe even is.
This fact alone could well account for more than the difference between the leave and remain vote.
Maybe, next time, you will think before you type.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Well arent you a dishonest little one!
No. But fuck you anyway.
You very well know the first past the post system pretty much ensures that those two parties command by far the majority of the votes almost no matter what.
There were zero ballot papers which had only those two parties on them, so there were always other options.
There was also the option of spoiling your ballot paper to indicate dissatisfaction.
Instead 80% of the votes went to parties promising to get on with leaving the EU.
Now what you failed to mention is that in a very unusual move, neither managed to command a majority.
What the 'first past the post' approach did was turn those 80% of the votes into over 87% of the seats in the House.
I'd call that a pretty fucking massive majority of seats elected to get the UK out of Europe.
Well, about half of the population have a below average IQ, so it is not really surprising, I guess.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mass London protest demands second referendum on Brexit. (Mar 23, 2019)
Quote: "Hundreds of thousands of people have poured onto the streets of central London asking to have a final say on Britain's departure from the European Union."
Okay. That's not exactly a democratic mandate though is it. 46% is less than 50%. It's less than the 48% who supported remain.
The ECJ says otherwise old boy. Maybe you should pay more attention.
I signed from outside the country, no passport number needed.
It's truly unbelievable that David Cameron allowed both the Scottish Independence Referendum and the Brexit Referendum to be on a 50%+1 basis. I bet all the political parties involved need super-majorities to change their own constitution. Why not the nation?
Putin wants us to leave. Why would he try and game a poll asking for a second referendum?
No. But fuck you anyway.
Yes, and you're welcome.
There were zero ballot papers which had only those two parties on them, so there were always other options.
Except we both know that's not how the system works. You could literally justify any foolishness by a country having a two party system. Oh that's exactly what you're doing!
Thing is we both know 48% voted to stay. We also both know if the referendum were rerun in a non fraudulent manner now, a majority would vote remain which is why you're so chickenshit scared of having too much democracy.
Only a fool and a liar can claim that means 80% want to leave. but youre a Brexiter so I repeat myself.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm sure you and your family would've swayed the result when first 17M voted exit and then 33M people voted for parties with exit in their platforms.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It's not Parliament's fault, it's May's fault. She didn't have a realistic plan, just some intractable red lines that completely fucked up the negotiations and ensured she would get a deal that everyone hated. Her priority has always been her legacy, and by extension keeping her party together, not getting a good outcome for the UK.
Parliament hasn't exactly covered itself in glory either, but May could easily have avoided all this be agreeing a realistic proposal for leaving with Parliament before triggering Article 50.
Cancelling is the best option now. If someone wants to try again let them put a very specific proposal in their manifesto and then before Parliament first, then we can trigger Article 50 again.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Breaking up the UK would solve a lot of problems, but it would also destroy the party that was in charge of it. So there is no way the government is going to propose or allow that if they can help it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Brexit legally scheduled for 29 March 2019 at 11 pm UK time. less than 6 days from now.
Read https://petition.parliament.uk... which got a government response
Consider https://petition.parliament.uk... which read We’ll have to reject your petition if: It calls for the same action as a petition that’s already open
Ask: why did they allow the petition https://petition.parliament.uk... post nine days later when it is essentially the same?
The government likes to play head games with the minds of the people.... shrug...
You have zero argument for a new vote, isn't there a cock that needs to be sucked calling your name Mohamed?
Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
Thing is we both know 48% voted to stay.
a majority would vote remain
The majority voted to leave.
80% want to leave
The massive majority voted for parties that would leave.
a majority would vote remain
Really? Why now when they haven't in the past? Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
1 - that bus said Britain would save the money it gives to the EU each week
2 - it didn't say we'd save money on healthcare
That is just literally the first result of searching for it, but... check your meds.
Try searching some more, and/or check your own meds.
It's a FEATURE!!!!
Really? Why now when they haven't in the past?
It's now obvious how much of a lie the Brexit campaign was.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You mean the wording of the non-binding referendum? Parliament can do whatever they have courage to do. Which is probably nothing.
In that case, just a rumour unless you have a UK postal address?
Still wonder about myself as the only proof I have of UK citizenship is my birth certificate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Barely passed is still a pass.
And non-binding is still non-binding.
Didn't Parliament already hold a binding vote rejecting a hard Brexit? And, while Parliament saw fit to hold a second vote on May's deal (!!!), they've said a third vote isn't allowed.
It seems that they only legal choices, based on these various binding and non-binding votes that have been taken by different parties, is to delay, or cancel.
It is clear that many people in the UK demand that a generation of British people cut their noses off, to stiffen their upper lips, but it seems that Parliament already rejected that.
If the British people wanted to do it that way, they'd hold a binding vote.
They didn't do that.
Insisting that a non-binding vote be treated as binding is simply to be dishonest.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yea, it's weird that Cameron went along with the 50%+1 to win in both cases. I could see Scotland arguing that 50%+1 was enough.
We had similar here in Canada when Quebec held referendums except it was Quebec claiming that 50%+1 was enough. Eventually the Federal government got a ruling from the Supreme Court that Quebec could not unilaterally secede according to both the Canadian Constitution and international law and the Federal then passed the clarity law which amongst other things,says it has to be a clear majority and a clear question, without actually stating what a clear majority is.
IIRC, it was also decided that for a Province to secede, would require all the other Provinces to agree. Under that idea, Brexit may have failed due to only 2 of the 4 members of the UK not agreeing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Do you live in a sovereign state in the US? Does it have open borders with neighbor member-states? You seem to hate it without remembering where they got the idea.
They won't let us prevent entry, but we did used to have a sign asking people not to come back.
California has a border post on the freeway and refuses entry to fruits and vegetables, though humans and pets are allowed through unchecked.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Clearly Parliament should declare Lord Buckethead Lord Protector and the problems will be resolved.
No need to dissolve parliament. Simply undo the Restoration.
Scotland doesn't need their permission, they can Brexit by local declaration too.
They probably will, if Brexit goes forwards, so they can rejoin the EU.
Northern Ireland is a bigger problem, but a border has to go somewhere and putting it inside of Ireland violates the peace plan. Interesting times!
Scotland was never in the UK under duress; it was by consent. They don't need England's permission to leave the UK.
And, it can only be thus without a written Constitution.
Yugoslavia votes to make Croatia rejoin Yugoslavia.
Argentina says its has millions of votes on the issue of the Falkland Islands.
French voters vote for a return of the monarchy.
The USA votes to become part of England again.
Ireland votes to become part of England again.
All of Korea votes to become part of Japan again.
South Africa votes on getting South-West Africa back.
East Germany votes to build a wall.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
There is a long standing tradition in the UK parliament that members of parliament can not vote on the same motion twice
If the people now have even a rough indication of what Brexit actually looks like even if the final option on what is delivered isn't yet clear, compared to the original vote is this really the "same motion" twice?
This is like a discussion with my wife:
"Do you want me to cook dinner tonight?"
"Yes!"
"Great I'll make a lasagna!"
"I don't want a lasagna!"
Honestly the original government which ran the referendum on an undefined yes or no question was retarded, in the most literal sense: retarded, adjective, "very foolish or stupid".
Yup, a bit more liberty-impinging bureaucracy every year
Wait ... isn't this the UK's wet dream? I mean your bureaucracy is infamous, ... the stuff of legends and jokes the world over.
So do referendums, but the one to leave the EU was the largest vote in favour of any issue in the history of the country.
The UK has had a total of 3 country wide referendums. The largest turnout was for the the leave referendum. The second largest was for the stay referendum in 1975. Incidentally the number of people who voted to remain in the EU in 1975 differs by less than 20000 from those who voted to leave in 2016, which actually reminds me: Why did the leave campaigners re-vote on the issue multiple times until they got the answer they wanted, and why are they so afraid of another vote now?
Yes, but to who? (looks around nervously).
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It was easy. Don't elect a government of morons who want a show stunt to diffuse voter tension, then when the stunt blows up in your face, don't pick a leader who only serves because she was the one person dumb enough to promise she could deliver what everybody wanted without consequence.
Sadly, the UK can't even realize they should have negotiated their own politics first.
then who controls the society?
That's a good question given that a statistical analysis of votes would show that through attrition and the fact that leavers were overwhelmingly stacked against the aging population and remainers overwhelmingly young if you recounted the votes now based only on who is alive and extended the 18/19 year old votes to the current number and turnout of 18 and 19 year olds ... you've actually voted remain.
So does Trump.
OST, that probably went without saying.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It must do, sir! To avow the contrary would go against the very tenets of democracy. It would make one an elitist of the sort that Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg continually warn us about.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's not weird. Being in the EU was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread. And the Remainer camp enjoyed a massive number of endorsements, the Remain vote should have won with 70+% of the vote. That would have ended the issue for Cameron.
As an experienced politician, Cameron should have understood that votes often go in unexpected directions with many an election decided by who bothered to vote and who stayed home.
Not sure of the turnout but it is quite possible that 70% wanted to remain and figured it was a shoe-in so 21% decided to stay home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
If you're supplying your passport number to a uk government site, then surely the government has the capability to check if the passport number you supplied has right of abode or not.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
The government will still have records of you, there will be records of your parents, records of you attending school, medical records etc.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Then why did the remain campaign not expose the lies of the leave campaign before the vote? If all the evidence is in favour of remain, then why did the remain campaign do such a poor job of informing the voters?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Yes, but those are harder to dig up, especially from back in the '60's. I doubt that they're used in evaluating petition signers. I'm not going to get involved as I don't live there but legally I could and it's interesting how I'd be verified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
you just proved you know nothing. The UK doesn't have to leave and then everything stays the same.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
bollox.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
some 16 million voted to stay and 17 million voted to leave. a petition of 3-4 million from either side is simply to small to be considered, now if they got 20 million then that would be something as it would actually demonstrate a change of mind, as it is this could just be the same people that were outvoted at the referendum trying to get their way.
yes, best you don't comment until you know just a little about it. The EU is not throwing up any roadblocks, they have not changed their stance one bit. the UK is trying to get a unicorn deal that has been refused by numerous times no matter how many times the re-paginate the document to say its a different offer.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Correct but the UK referendums are only advisory so a responsible government would have said "thanks but no thanks"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
that was said by the food businesses themselves. and you can only stockpile non-perishable stuff. And what happens when the imports get so slow because of all the introduced customs inspections and the stock piling runs out?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You have loads of trade deals already, all the UKs will be dead. Plus Norway has to obey every rule regarding trade, manufacture etc the EU creates and has no influence of the rule creation.
So if the Norway government let results based on lies and misinformation go unchallenged like the UK government and the Norwegians would not take a stand for truth?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Responsible government wouldn't have conducted that referendum to begin with. But in UK referendums are merely advisory, really? Directest form of democracy is just advisory? Over yonder referendums have power to roll over constitution if people so decide, there is no higher power than direct vote of the people. Of course, over here referendums are also not called willy-nilly as political power plays.
In 1975 the UK did not vote to remain in the EU. They voted to stay in the EEC, a common trading block.
I think there would be strong support now to stay in a strong trading group with other European nations. Unfortunately the EU doesn't want to offer that, instead demanding political control too.
Why did the leave campaigners re-vote on the issue multiple times until they got the answer they wanted
There has only ever been one referendum on the EU itself, and it was 41 years after the referendum on the EEC. So sure, come back in 2057 and ask about whatever the EU morphs into then.
public vote is not a bloody facebook like button and "we were idiots" is not an excuse.
In UK (and most of europe) it is not more than a like button. There is nothing binding in an "public opinion poll", or why exactly do you think the parliament is in charge and does its own thing?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It is a difference if you do a legally binding vote where every one knows the consequences or if it is a glorified opinion poll where people express their unhappiness about something unrelated to the poll.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII :D
At least you have a nice computer
Honestly, my first visit to the UK was quite antique, too. I was on a sailing boat.
When I have finished my sailing education I would like to sail to Scotland ... from mainland Europe :D ... to Islay most likely to buy some Whisky.
I hope they don't kill me when I try to leave my ship.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Something tedious like no-deal Brexit versus remain?
Naw, too boring. How about a new referendum to decide if the "Great" in "Great Britain" has become oxymoronic? Also the "United" in "United Kingdom".
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
oh thats true ? ...
my final review
https://myfinalreview.com/
Hopefully, people who understand the issues.
Good fucking luck finding them.
Then why did the remain campaign not expose the lies of the leave campaign before the vote?
They did.
If all the evidence is in favour of remain, then why did the remain campaign do such a poor job of informing the voters?
The remain job did do a pretty poor job, but the sheer brazenness of the leave camaign was something new. Everyone knows politicians weasel, break pledges and lie by omission etc. The attitude of splatting an outright bald faced lie front and centre was new to British politics. So people believed it.
And of course, people would rather believe a simple lie that tells them what they want to hear than a complex truth that doesn't.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Fraud is illegal. If you have proof of fraud you should inform the police so that they can prosecute.
Off you toddle.
This fact alone could well account for more than the difference between the leave and remain vote.
No, it could not.
People on holiday could plan ahead and register for a postal vote, so didn't lose the ability to vote.
People living abroad were able to vote.
People that had been living abroad for an extensive period and thus unable to vote could all have voted remain and still not boosted the numbers enough to win.
Maybe, next time, you will think before you type.
I didn't just think, I did the research too. Which is why I know you're wrong.
Let us add into UK law that we need to renew our membership of Europe by referendum. Let's have one tomorrow and then one every 25 years.
Wait, we had one in 2016. So surely you should be supporting one in 2041.
Unless you refuse to accept the result and want to keep re-running referendums until you win. But you already said you're pro-EU so I guess you do.
In 1975 the UK did not vote to remain in the EU. They voted to stay in the EEC, a common trading block.
Don't be obtuse. The EC was effectively the EU in everything but name. Just because the Maastricht Treaty wasn't signed until 1992 and the name EU wasn't formally adopted by then doesn't mean that the EEC wasn't in nearly every way what the EU is now, quite specifically ...
I think there would be strong support now to stay in a strong trading group with other European nations.
Don't be silly. The EEC wasn't just a trading group. It was a trading group with strict rules, higher courts, laws that govern trading members, membership fees, and (although in the 70s labour wasn't part of it) they comply with the 4 inseparable tenants of the EU. I don't know why you think there is any support for this in the UK. The only support you'll find is among remainders who are trying to soften the blow of leaving.
Unfortunately the EU doesn't want to offer that, instead demanding political control too.
The EU did nothing of the sort, and it wasn't the EU's decision. It's the decision of the EEC and it was quite specifically the non-EU members that said "hell no" to the UK joining. It's also not the EU which has political control over the EEC as much as the Scandinavian countries.
There has only ever been one referendum on the EU itself
Actually there was no referendum on the EU. It is painfully clear that in 2016 the referendum was on the choice of ???? and ???? and well let's just vote no because we're pissed at the government without any actual clue but at least we get to fund the NHS.
It's been all over the news n and off and you act like it never happened. No wonder you support Brexit: reality just doesn't fit your worldview.
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...
https://www.theguardian.com/po...
https://www.electoralcommissio...
Now I'm sure you'll either uiently slink away and pretend you never commented ot tell me why electon fraud is jsut fine really and we should honour the results of a tainted election.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Even then it should not "crash" ... a computer does not just crash because of overload, it simply gets slow in responding.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I think there would be strong support now to stay in a strong trading group with other European nations. Unfortunately the EU doesn't want to offer that, instead demanding political control too.
The EU has nothing to offer.
Your PM Mrs. May is making the offers.
So far she failed to make an agreeable offer.
FTFY
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I thought Scotland was conquered in some point in history, just like North Ireland, or for that matter: Wales. What has that to do with any constitution?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Breaking election finance rules is not fraud. Stop talking shit.
Yes it is. If the election was a binding referendum then by the UK rules it would have ot be rerun.
Now I'd like you to:
1. stop talking shit
2. Stop undermining democracy by following results of tainted elections.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Referendum is not the same as public opinion poll, anyone can do the latter, heck /. does that with theirs, currently asking "Do you enjoy 3D movies?". Referendums are very different animals with legal consequences just the same as elections.
The leader of the opposition says we're doing nothing. Well let me tell you that it's a red, white and blue nothing!
I can actually imagine the silly mare saying that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Then they'd get millions of complaints along the lines of "It's not working, I put my vote in and the picture didn't change".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Exactly so. They just didn't catch it before because they never load tested against that much traffic.
I've run in to this situation before... we had several pages on CRM packages that calculated "what do I do next" for different workers. They pulled fairly complicated queries across millions of records.... but they worked fine because we did a good job of optimizing everything.
And then....
Someone started a fad of hitting refresh a bunch of times to get a better assignment.
One person doing that still wasn't a big deal. But hundreds? It multiplied the load from one two requests per agent every five minutes to several per second. Oooops. Didn't plan on that.
Determining the scope of "what are users going to do" is surprisingly tricky. People do things that, from the point of a developer...... well, they just don't make sense.
Very rarely does anything on the server end crap out due to network bandwidth, unless a DDoS is involved. Bandwidth is cheap today. But, its VERY common for sites to crap out because they have a fucked-up SQL database that either pegs the CPU at 100%, or if they have that limited, that it simply can't answer the SQL requests before the HTTP connection times out.
Source: I professionally monitored web servers hosting collectively hundreds of thousands of sites.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Who said the computer crashed? What I read was the web site crashed. If your HTTPS timeout is 120 seconds, and its taking the server 150 seconds to generate the page, the connection times out and you get nothing.
Your analysis is flawed. Secretions are internal to the body, excretions are external.
If medicine were ever perfected, we'd all be the same.
"It's not working, I put my vote in then clicked on the link in the email and the picture still didn't change".
Same thing, modulo the lag.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Referendums are very different animals with legal consequences just the same as elections.
An opinion poll does not turn into a referendum, just by sticking the label "referendum" on it.
Most European countries, and that especially includes UK, has no referendums in the sense as you describe them.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Time to Brexit, fam. The vote's been had. Bye bye EU! Shouldn't have been such shit.
Exactly. That's why people want to leave in the first place.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Huh? What do you know, Brits really don't consider referendums this way. My mistake, different country different customs it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Scotland was joined by consent through royal marriage.
If you convinced the British people that it was otherwise, you'd have convinced them that the UK never existed and was an English colony.
You won't find a lot of support for that view outside of London; and you won't find government support for it even there.
Exactly how many times do people get to vote on this? There has to be some sort of end to it. The original vote was fraught with.. Fake News? and what about the next vote and the next vote? no matter who wins, the loser can cry foul. Nothing will ever get done if a vote can be constantly in flux. It is why the referendum was done, it ended the speculation. The decision was made, its done. Live with the consequences as nothing so far has been unexpected.
Voting matters and each Vote should count and be respected. Now, if you are out of the EU and finished Brexit, then you can have a Vote to go back into the EU since you already accomplished the purpose of the first vote.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!