So the revoke article 50 petition is now at 5.4mil and according to my casual

[WES]

calculations it is increasing about 600k per day although I expect that will pick up as took a look over the weekend when I would expect people are less likely to access the internet and vote.

So if it increases the rate slightly and is linear over the course of this week it should be pushing 10mil by the end of the week. :rubchin:

[Pat Vegas]

It's not a valid petition as it's full of holes.

[WES]

It's not a valid petition as it's full of holes.

Something being full of holes is pretty much par for the course on all things Brexit related, Pat. :shrug:

[PSRB]

calculations it is increasing about 600k per day although I expect that will pick up as took a look over the weekend when I would expect people are less likely to access the internet and vote.

So if it increases the rate slightly and is linear over the course of this week it should be pushing 10mil by the end of the week. :rubchin:

They had their chance at the the ACTUAL referendum. Police saying apparently that attendance at the weekend was more like 200k

[Billy Goat Sverige]

I’m coming around to the idea of another referendum just to see their reaction when leave wins again.

[Tony C]

I still don’t get the ‘People’s Referendum’ logic.

What happens if the remainers lose again?

Will they accept they accept the result or do we keep having referendums until they win or will will they escalate their protest to something more violent?

And they keep going an about the ‘slim’ margin of victory last time even thought there were between 2 to 3 million non British people who were alllowed to vote like my ex boss whose a die hard Kiwi and voted to stay (he’s since left his job and moved to the Netherlands). Would like to think a vote of this magnitude would be British only.

[Burney]

I still don’t get the ‘People’s Referendum’ logic.

What happens if the remainers lose again?

Will they accept they accept the result or do we keep having referendums until they win or will will they escalate their protest to something more violent?

And they keep going an about the ‘slim’ margin of victory last time even thought there were between 2 to 3 million non British people who were alllowed to vote like my ex boss whose a die hard Kiwi and voted to stay (he’s since left his job and moved to the Netherlands). Would like to think a vote of this magnitude would be British only.

It's not an idea that stands up to any intelligent scrutiny whatsoever. A vote was had, a conclusion was reached and everyone agreed it would be enacted. Not to enact it or to hold another vote because you didn't like the outcome of the first would simply be a gross and blatant betrayal of the democratic covenant. Everything else is just noise.

They wouldn't allow the possibility of not winning, which is why another vote could only be a stitch-up. They're already saying the only options could be May's deal or Remain (ie Remain vs Remain).

[7sisters]

They had their chance at the the ACTUAL referendum. Police saying apparently that attendance at the weekend was more like 200k

Impressive turnout, all the same. Central London hasn't witnessed that many white middle class people on it's streets since around 1974.

[Ash]

Impressive turnout, all the same. Central London hasn't witnessed that many white middle class people on it's streets since around 1974.

Two or three million people for the first protest against the Iraq war. Speaking of which, many of the people that lied about that have their pants on fire again right now....

[WES]

It's not an idea that stands up to any intelligent scrutiny whatsoever. A vote was had, a conclusion was reached and everyone agreed it would be enacted. Not to enact it or to hold another vote because you didn't like the outcome of the first would simply be a gross and blatant betrayal of the democratic covenant. Everything else is just noise.

They wouldn't allow the possibility of not winning, which is why another vote could only be a stitch-up. They're already saying the only options could be May's deal or Remain (ie Remain vs Remain).

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I heard on Radio 4 at the weekend that a poll showed that if the choice was between a no deal exit and Remain the public would vote strongly for Remain. If we were to reach that point (I don't think we will) there is an argument to be made that if those are the only two choices the government should go back to the public.

Personally, if those were the two choices I would almost prefer a no deal exit. Mostly because my view is that there is no human being involved in this debacle for whom I have less respect than someone who voted Leave but does not support a no deal exit. I can't imagine a more spineless, cowardly, pathetic excuse for a human being than one who insists on leaving the EU but only if they continue to experience the majority of the benefits of the EU.

C*nt is too mild a word for this sort of vermin.

[Burney]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I heard on Radio 4 at the weekend that a poll showed that if the choice was between a no deal exit and Remain the public would vote strongly for Remain. If we were to reach that point (I don't think we will) there is an argument to be made that if those are the only two choices the government should go back to the public.

Personally, if those were the two choices I would almost prefer a no deal exit. Mostly because my view is that there is no human being involved in this debacle for whom I have less respect than someone who voted Leave but does not support a no deal exit. I can't imagine a more spineless, cowardly, pathetic excuse for a human being than one who insists on leaving the EU but only if they continue to experience the majority of the benefits of the EU.

C*nt is too mild a word for this sort of vermin.

That makes no sense, I'm afraid. Why would remain still be an option having already been democratically rejected in 2016? The fact that we are where we are is a function of our executive and legislature's collective incompetence. Why should leave voters who expected competence be disenfranchised for that?

[IUFG]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I heard on Radio 4 at the weekend that a poll showed that if the choice was between a no deal exit and Remain the public would vote strongly for Remain. If we were to reach that point (I don't think we will) there is an argument to be made that if those are the only two choices the government should go back to the public.

Personally, if those were the two choices I would almost prefer a no deal exit. Mostly because my view is that there is no human being involved in this debacle for whom I have less respect than someone who voted Leave but does not support a no deal exit. I can't imagine a more spineless, cowardly, pathetic excuse for a human being than one who insists on leaving the EU but only if they continue to experience the majority of the benefits of the EU.

C*nt is too mild a word for this sort of vermin.

Well to turn this around in another referendum, the people being called racist, thick, 'gammons' and vermin, who voted to leave, would have to be won over by the people who are calling them racist, thick, 'gammons' and vermin.

Not the greatest of strategies imo

[Burney]

Well to turn this around in another referendum, the people being called racist, thick, 'gammons' and vermin, who voted to leave, would have to be won over by the people who are calling them racist, thick, 'gammons' and vermin.

Not the greatest of strategies imo

Yup. That's why they're looking to stitch up the vote as 'Remain vs Remain'.

[WES]

That makes no sense, I'm afraid. Why would remain still be an option having already been democratically rejected in 2016? The fact that we are where we are is a function of our executive and legislature's collective incompetence. Why should leave voters who expected competence be disenfranchised for that?

That assumes that Leave voters are willing to accept a no deal exit - the premise was that if they aren't and that is the only Leave option available etc etc

Not that it really matters of course because I can't see no deal happening. What I can see happening is parliament taking control of the process - somehow - and accepting a watered down version of Brexit that crosses almost all of May's red lines. It will be amusing to see what the ERG has to say at that point.

This really is very good fun, I don't think I've ever paid as much attention to politics. It's like a play that no one would write because no one would think it believable. :hehe:

[redgunamo]

Indeed. Although there has long been talk that they were actually right that time. Labouring the point was just considered not worth the effort, as the "goal" was achieved. Or as our learned Yankee friend might put it, there are some rabbit holes one does not want to go down :-\



Two or three million people for the first protest against the Iraq war. Speaking of which, many of the people that lied about that have their pants on fire again right now....

[Sir C]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I heard on Radio 4 at the weekend that a poll showed that if the choice was between a no deal exit and Remain the public would vote strongly for Remain. If we were to reach that point (I don't think we will) there is an argument to be made that if those are the only two choices the government should go back to the public.

Personally, if those were the two choices I would almost prefer a no deal exit. Mostly because my view is that there is no human being involved in this debacle for whom I have less respect than someone who voted Leave but does not support a no deal exit. I can't imagine a more spineless, cowardly, pathetic excuse for a human being than one who insists on leaving the EU but only if they continue to experience the majority of the benefits of the EU.

C*nt is too mild a word for this sort of vermin.

Can everyone please calm the fúck down? Bellowing cretinous gobshítery may be all the rage, but it doesn't help anyone and it's boring :-(

[WES]

Can everyone please calm the fúck down? Bellowing cretinous gobshítery may be all the rage, but it doesn't help anyone and it's boring :-(

You are aware this is AWIMB, are you Dutchie?

[PSRB]

I’m coming around to the idea of another referendum just to see their reaction when leave wins again.

That would of course be utterly hilarious

[PSRB]

Impressive turnout, all the same. Central London hasn't witnessed that many white middle class people on it's streets since around 1974.

Queen's Jubilee had more

[IUFG]

Queen's Jubilee had more

I found a silver jubilee coin in a drawer the other week.

It is only 'worth' a fiver.

It probably cost that in 1977.

[WES]

That would of course be utterly hilarious

Absolutely. In fact, I'm struggling to think of an outcome that won't result in hilarity at some level. At the same time, I'm not convinced that any outcome will be that different than any other. So we can watch people get incredibly upset for very little reason.

Great fun.

[Yesterday Once More]

This weekend really has seemed like the remainers' last stand.

The "eleventy million" estimated as being on the march on Saturday by its official auditor, Diane Abbott - including the five million "all genuine:-D" signatures on the petition - are pretty much giving up all pretentions of being champions of democracy. It's now all about getting Article 50 revoked, to squash Brexit at a stroke.

Not going to happen. Nor are these "indicative votes" going to be taken seriously. The options are now between the PM's deal, if she can somehow threaten, promise and plead with enough people to back it, or leaving on WTO.

[WES]

This weekend really has seemed like the remainers' last stand.

The "eleventy million" estimated as being on the march on Saturday by its official auditor, Diane Abbott - including the five million "all genuine:-D" signatures on the petition - are pretty much giving up all pretentions of being defenders of democracy. It's now all about getting Article 50 revoked, to squash Brexit at a stroke.

Not going to happen. Nor are these "indicative votes" going to be taken seriously. The options are now between the PM's deal, if she can somehow threaten, promise and plead with enough people to back it, or leaving on WTO.

I wouldn’t discount a really soft version of Brexit that is a technical exit only and satisfies virtually non of the ERG’s red lines - it’s probably the most popular option in parliament.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Can everyone please calm the fúck down? Bellowing cretinous gobshítery may be all the rage, but it doesn't help anyone and it's boring :-(

Except when your mate Berni does it

[Burney]

That assumes that Leave voters are willing to accept a no deal exit - the premise was that if they aren't and that is the only Leave option available etc etc

Not that it really matters of course because I can't see no deal happening. What I can see happening is parliament taking control of the process - somehow - and accepting a watered down version of Brexit that crosses almost all of May's red lines. It will be amusing to see what the ERG has to say at that point.

This really is very good fun, I don't think I've ever paid as much attention to politics. It's like a play that no one would write because no one would think it believable. :hehe:

Yes, but that premise is fundamentally unsound. :shrug:

I think the most depressing thing is that it's all so woefully short-sighted. Everyone is fighting to 'win' the battlefield and is giving absolutely no thought to what that battlefield will look like when the fighting eventually stops - or what they'll do with it. Remainers won't survive the backlash of failing to deliver Brexit, but don't want to acknowledge the fact, while many of those at the other extreme seem happier to be permanent rebels than compromise on anything.
Meanwhile, those who have proudly styled themselves centrists have revealed themselves to be self-serving shysters with no principles other than maintaining a cozy status quo and who would be as home on the left of the tory party as on the right of the Labour party.
The one upside is that it has revealed our current party and electoral system to be wholly unfit for the purpose of coping with the defining political issue of our time. The 'big tent' two-party system cannot survive this.

[Sir C]

Except when your mate Berni does it

Are you actually a girl?

[Burney]

I wouldn’t discount a really soft version of Brexit that is a technical exit only and satisfies virtually non of the ERG’s red lines - it’s probably the most popular option in parliament.

The problem with that, of course, is that Tory MPs across the country have been told categorically by their constituency parties that they will face electoral meltdown (mass-cancellation of membership, no volunteers, no canvassers, no nothing) should they facilitate such an outcome.

That doesn't mean they won't be stupid and arrogant enough to do it, but it will destroy them if they do.

Oddly enough, the longer this thing has gone on, the more I've come to admire the strategy of Labour. They've committed to nothing from which they cannot retreat and have given themselves plausible deniability on any and every outcome.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It's not an idea that stands up to any intelligent scrutiny whatsoever. A vote was had, a conclusion was reached and everyone agreed it would be enacted. Not to enact it or to hold another vote because you didn't like the outcome of the first would simply be a gross and blatant betrayal of the democratic covenant. Everything else is just noise.

They wouldn't allow the possibility of not winning, which is why another vote could only be a stitch-up. They're already saying the only options could be May's deal or Remain (ie Remain vs Remain).

Except:
1. No specific version of leave wasn't specified on the paper.

2. And of all the versions offered by the various leave campaigns, none offered WTO and none looked anything like May's bodge.

3. And the vote was interpretted by May's two unelected advisors in such a way that led to red line the majority don't support, some of which are completely incompatible anyway. There is no way she can leave the CU, avoid a hard border and keep the union.

4. Due to Gove knifing BoJo and Leadsome knifing herself, May didn't have a mandate from the Tory party for her version of Brexit.

5. When she tried to get one from the public, they told her to eff off and she lost her majority.

6. Thus, having no mandate from the referendum, party or general election for any specific form of Brexit, and having lost the two advisors who drew the red lines, she just to bullshît her way through, lying about the backdrops she'd signed up to to her cabinet, party, the HoC and the public. Hence the Chequers resignations.

7. She hasn't even sought, let alone built a consensus in her own cabinet, let alone her party, the Commons or the country as a whole. So we have a deal hated by all. {Had she actually levelled with the public about the compromises required and asked them which way to go, she might not be in this position now.}


8. So the only way of resolving this is to put the question back to the people.

9. In a democracy, people are allowed to change their minds. We had two elections in 1910, 1924 and 1974. 1950-51 and 1964-66, are also shorter periods than since the referendum.

10. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" The facts have changed so let people vote on remain vs no deal. The Leave promised in 2016 is no longer attainable.

11. Oh, and the VL campaign director said at the time he'd be happy for a confirmatory vote on the deal.

12. Does your reticence have anything to do with the fact that, barring two ties last summer, every single poll since early March last year - more than 12 months - has Remain ahead? So much for the people's will and all that.


Oh, and ftr, while I want a 2nd vote, I don't support the remain vs May's deal option. Most leavers want a no deal Brexit, so that should be on the paper.

In an ideal world, we could just do it with AV, but I worry about the idiots not understanding how to vote a 2nd pref. So we should do it like the French. 1 normal vote on the choice of 3 options. And if no option reaches 50%, then we have a run off two weeks later.

That way, May's deal goes in the first round, and then we can actually argue for 2 weeks if we want remain or no deal.

If that's what Parl wants then it is democratic, by the very definition of how our parliamentary democracy works.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I heard on Radio 4 at the weekend that a poll showed that if the choice was between a no deal exit and Remain the public would vote strongly for Remain. If we were to reach that point (I don't think we will) there is an argument to be made that if those are the only two choices the government should go back to the public.

Personally, if those were the two choices I would almost prefer a no deal exit. Mostly because my view is that there is no human being involved in this debacle for whom I have less respect than someone who voted Leave but does not support a no deal exit. I can't imagine a more spineless, cowardly, pathetic excuse for a human being than one who insists on leaving the EU but only if they continue to experience the majority of the benefits of the EU.

C*nt is too mild a word for this sort of vermin.

All the polling's here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Un ion_membership_referendum#Remain/Leave

Scroll down for the 3 way polling. {Or up for whether we were right or wrong to vote leave.}

[Ash]

Except:
1. No specific version of leave wasn't specified on the paper.


ISTR the leaflet sent to every household said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market, customs union and ECJ jurisdiction. It then said that the government "will implement your decision". That's quite specific.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

ISTR the leaflet sent to every household said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market, customs union and ECJ jurisdiction. It then said that the government "will implement your decision". That's quite specific.

But the leave campaigns didn't. Absolutely no-one was suggesting no deal at the time. Indeed the remain side were often having to argue against Norway.

No-one said WTO. No-one said May's deal which traps us in a limbo we can't leave and risks breaking the union.

However you want to phrase it, no-one campaign offered anything looking like either of those two options. As Matt Chorley said in the Times the other day, any ERGer proposing no deal in 2016 would have been let anywhere near a microphone.

No-one said anything about a hard border or breaking the union, either. But we can't leave the CU without doing one of those.

Let's vote again now we actually have a much better understanding of the facts.

[Ash]

But the leave campaigns didn't. Absolutely no-one was suggesting no deal at the time. Indeed the remain side were often having to argue against Norway.

No-one said WTO. No-one said May's deal which traps us in a limbo we can't leave and risks breaking the union.

However you want to phrase it, no-one campaign offered anything looking like either of those two options. As Matt Chorley said in the Times the other day, any ERGer proposing no deal in 2016 would have been let anywhere near a microphone.

No-one said anything about a hard border or breaking the union, either. But we can't leave the CU without doing one of those.

Let's vote again now we actually have a much better understanding of the facts.

Nice avoidance of my point, and top obfuscation to say "yeah but no-one knew we'd get to this scenario". Two years after an election, things may look different to what was talked about then, but no-one says "hey, let's go back and do the election again now we know what happens".

Remain promised that the sky would fall on our head as soon a Leave vote happened, but apart from a currency adjustment which works both ways (London's tourism has boomed), here we are with recent employment figures as high as ever. My boss bemoans the higher wages and the lower property prices and I say to him "are higher standards of living for lower income workers really such a terrible thing?"

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

and I say to him "are higher standards of living for lower income workers really such a terrible thing?"

And I expect he says "well yes it is, because they are thick cancer deserving ****s whom I am innately superior to" - at least that's what he thinks a.

[Chief Arrowhead]

And I expect he says "well yes it is, because they are thick cancer deserving ****s whom I am innately superior to" - at least that's what he thinks a.

You forgot to include, "who support Millwall", imo.