Did the little hypocritical tosser really say it was Russian bots? You almost have to admire his chutzpah. Still shows they are worried that they are trying to discredit it so hard
Russian bots aren’t sophisticated enough to spoof IP addresses (if that’s even how that is determined) but yet threw the 2016 referendum?
Tin. Foil. Hat.
It was partly tongue in cheek, but the concern with these petitions is a real one. It really isn’t difficult to pretend you are in the UK. I have no doubt the vast majority are real though.
The comments below it are amusing. Highly offended gammons in full throat. At least now we know what to get grabcock for Xmas.
From Gammon Order Dot Com
***
Krishnan Gurning-Leftie • 13 minutes ago it’s on...
Brexit motorway protest tonight on M42 J6 6pm onwards...
These traitors need showing...
Anyone else taking part tonight?
Harry Mudd They should be careful about things like this. We need the public fully onside.. Not pissing them off when they're trying to get home at the end of the week.
***
Anyone else heard about this cunning plan to garner public support by blocking the M42 on a Friday night?
I believe they did a 40mph on the M62 the other day.
I think they choose the road number based on the current attendance on Farage's march to freedom.
Which means absolutely nothing...there are things called VPNs you know.
Just to be clear I am not doubting there is a very significant response to this petition. Just pointing out it is incredibly insecure / open to abuse if a more sophisticated actor wanted to & that peoples evidence for / against some sort of conspiracy is mostly massively flawed.
Russian bots aren’t sophisticated enough to spoof IP addresses (if that’s even how that is determined) but yet threw the 2016 referendum?
Tin. Foil. Hat.
It was partly tongue in cheek, but the concern with these petitions is a real one. It really isn’t difficult to pretend you are in the UK. I have no doubt the vast majority are real though.
Fairy nuff. The endless war of attrition undermining every single fucking fact and fucking figure by the usual fucking bell-ends is really, really fucking wearing.
Russian bots aren’t sophisticated enough to spoof IP addresses (if that’s even how that is determined) but yet threw the 2016 referendum?
Tin. Foil. Hat.
It was partly tongue in cheek, but the concern with these petitions is a real one. It really isn’t difficult to pretend you are in the UK. I have no doubt the vast majority are real though.
Fairy nuff. The endless war of attrition undermining every single fucking fact and fucking figure by the usual fucking bell-ends is really, really fucking wearing.
Would it really matter? The PD is just a roadmap for what the discussions on the future relationship would be during the WA transitional period, which is to the end of 2020 with the possibility of extension, so plenty of time for the UK to decide what it wants from the future relationship.
I'm lost with all the terminology these days so what's the "PD"?
Political declaration - the bit that decides what sort of Brexit we'll actually have. The WA is basically the transition period (Where nothing changes except we leave the EU in name only) and the backstop.
I'm lost with all the terminology these days so what's the "PD"?
Political declaration - the bit that decides what sort of Brexit we'll actually have. The WA is basically the transition period (Where nothing changes except we leave the EU in name only) and the backstop.
You mean the thing that the EU can ignore the moment the WA is signed?
I'm lost with all the terminology these days so what's the "PD"?
Political declaration - the bit that decides what sort of Brexit we'll actually have. The WA is basically the transition period (Where nothing changes except we leave the EU in name only) and the backstop.
You mean the thing that the EU can ignore the moment the WA is signed?
Obviously it's a negotiation again with the executive, so yes unless we revoke or no-deal essentially the legally binding part of May's agreement will get through. MPs just need to decide which clothing it is dressed up in. The EU has thrown May under the bus in terms of authority whilst keeping her deal absolubtely alive by giving parliament the illusion of authority over the deal when in fact it won't be legally changing.
Given that this by election would take place in the early summer the local government elections will have an impact. As the Tories are likely to lose 2-300 seats to the Lib Dems this should help swing it their way and sound the death knell of the tiggers at the same time. I would, by the way, like the odds on all three main parties having new leaders by the end of the conference season...
Russian bots aren’t sophisticated enough to spoof IP addresses (if that’s even how that is determined) but yet threw the 2016 referendum?
Tin. Foil. Hat.
It was partly tongue in cheek, but the concern with these petitions is a real one. It really isn’t difficult to pretend you are in the UK. I have no doubt the vast majority are real though.
Fairy nuff. The endless war of attrition undermining every single fucking fact and fucking figure by the usual fucking bell-ends is really, really fucking wearing.
I’m a fucking bell-end? Nice.
Edit:
No. You are not. Mildly annoying on weekdays with a 't' in them.
Given that this by election would take place in the early summer the local government elections will have an impact. As the Tories are likely to lose 2-300 seats to the Lib Dems this should help swing it their way and sound the death knell of the tiggers at the same time. I would, by the way, like the odds on all three main parties having new leaders by the end of the conference season...
The MP fiddling £700, reminds me of that story of the city worker on mega bucks who fiddled his train ticket to save a couple of grand a year...what total idiots.
In that case I think it was the feeling that he was “cleverer” than everyone else in exploiting an angle that motivated him notcthr money
The MP fiddling £700, reminds me of that story of the city worker on mega bucks who fiddled his train ticket to save a couple of grand a year...what total idiots.
In that case I think it was the feeling that he was “cleverer” than everyone else in exploiting an angle that motivated him notcthr money
According to the polls you are talking about almost 60% of the Tory party. With numbers like that might it not be reasonable to think that it might be you and those of your mindset who are - to use your own words and certainly not mine - the 'infestation'?
The hardline brexiteers are UKIP in disguise and not the conservative party
But you are talking about more than half of your party membership.
Now on the detail of Brexit and the need for the Deal to pass I am with you all the way. But when you get to the point where almost 60% of your party wants No Deal and there has been no significant increase in party membership to indicate entryism you really do have to consider who it is who is the real voice of the Tory party. I wish it was you but the facts say otherwise.
Are you just taking about the fact that the country breakdown doesn't add up to the total number? The data's probably out-of-date. They've slowed the updates of the count right down, presumably to reduce the load, and the query that does the groupings would probably be slower than the count one.
Their statement is that counts are being updated every half hour, and it doesn't exactly take much resource to keep a text file up to date - they should have a half-decent cache setup.
We'll see.
But the problem with web sites being overloaded is not the counting and not any other programming issue. Any decent upto date desktop PC can cope with the small amount of data this petition is processing and the corresponding update of the html file. The problem is that the that internet users are collectively asking for more data than the server can provide.
It's a fair opinion that the government petitions department could havepaid more money for the possibility that at some point over 1 Million people want to sign a petition in 24 hours, but then again I'm sure they thought about the negative headlines about "wasting taxpayers money in times of austerity" when the Daily Mail found out
Problem: They could hold indicative vote by AV and yet still get into situation where winning option can't win a straight vote at the end.
So: They need to pass a motion BEFORE THEY START to approve proposition that AV winner will then be implemented.
But they could still vote implementation down on the grounds that 'they changed their minds'. And I'm sure you couldn't legally agree to implement something before you knew what it was.
According to the polls you are talking about almost 60% of the Tory party. With numbers like that might it not be reasonable to think that it might be you and those of your mindset who are - to use your own words and certainly not mine - the 'infestation'?
The hardline brexiteers are UKIP in disguise and not the conservative party
But you are talking about more than half of your party membership.
Now on the detail of Brexit and the need for the Deal to pass I am with you all the way. But when you get to the point where almost 60% of your party wants No Deal and there has been no significant increase in party membership to indicate entryism you really do have to consider who it is who is the real voice of the Tory party. I wish it was you but the facts say otherwise.
I don't know whether there is any hard data on this, but my gut instinct based upon my time as an activist is that there used to be a fairly balanced (or split if you prefer) view on Europe and other areas that I would call traditionally right wing, versus those of us of moderate views. Many moderates have left, or like me, remain members but are inactive leaving those left largely talking to their navels and getting more convinced of their own correctness. Many political activists, particularly the less bright, only mix with other political activists and their views are never properly challenged. The hardline activists appear to now have control of the party and they are selecting candidates in their own image.
The problem isn't really with the WA per se (if you aren't concerned by the end to freedom of movement, then it's actually a very good deal indeed; if you are, then less so), but what comes after the transitional arrangement, which is what it is*.
That, of course, depends upon what government we have for the next couple of years. There is now so little trust in the current administration (and Corbyn would be no better), that the unwillingness of MPs to vote for it is now perfectly understandable. And I say that as someone who was entirely prepared (though far from delighted) to countenance approval of the WA, earlier on in the process.
*Unless you're a paranoid ERGot, in which case you believe it's a permanent vassal state plot.
Given that this by election would take place in the early summer the local government elections will have an impact. As the Tories are likely to lose 2-300 seats to the Lib Dems this should help swing it their way and sound the death knell of the tiggers at the same time. I would, by the way, like the odds on all three main parties having new leaders by the end of the conference season...
Problem: They could hold indicative vote by AV and yet still get into situation where winning option can't win a straight vote at the end.
So: They need to pass a motion BEFORE THEY START to approve proposition that AV winner will then be implemented.
But they could still vote implementation down on the grounds that 'they changed their minds'. And I'm sure you couldn't legally agree to implement something before you knew what it was.
Agreed - it's difficult - a bit like implementing Brexit up to now!
The problem is that unless they try something, the indicative votes will be a waste of time - as winner can still be rejected.
So I think the best option would be to try to get MPs to "promise" to implement winner - if all Parliamentary big beasts (Party leaders etc) promised to do so in advance then hopefully that should be enough.
I think secret indicative votes are fine, provided that the winning option is expressly confirmed in an open vote in the usual way, so that MPs in favour and against can be held to account for their decision.
Agreed. And if there are to be 7 options I would suggest a league system. Each option has a straight binary match up against every other one, hence 6 matches each and 21 matches in total - perfect because that is how many days we have until 12/4 cliff edge day. So, one match is 'played' each day. 2 points to the winner (of the vote), 1 apiece in the unlikely but possible event of a tie.
So, for example, Match 1 is Norway vs MayDeal, Match 2 is REF2 vs Canada, Match 3 is Revoke vs JobsFirstBrexit, Match 4 is No Deal vs REF2 etc etc ... all the way through to the final match on 12/4 between (say) No Deal and Revoke.
The winner is then the option topping the league table, i.e. the one that has accrued the most points (from a maximum of 12) over the series of matches.
Beauty of this is that there can be no fluke winner. Just as the best team always wins the Premier League, so in this case the most popular Brexit option must prevail.
A further benefit is that there would be some spicy 'derby' action to enjoy - e.g. No Deal vs Canada and REF2 vs Revoke. The latter in particular would be a real 6 pointer. Well, not literally obviously, that would fatally taint the process, but you know what I mean.
Can they also hand out pottery shards to be used as ostraka ?
So, it's a secret vote. That should ensure nothing gets a majority as the hardline Brexiteers will only vote for no deal and the remainers will have every incentive to vote only for revocation with complete deniability. Only an open vote will result in a compromise solution.
It would be appalling if it’s a secret ballot. MPs have to be accountable to the public for the way they vote.
They will only be indicating preferences as to what they might support should such an option be presented. It will not be a vote. It is possible of course that the Speaker might declare it ultra vires if it is taking place on the floor of the house, as I think it would be quite unprecedented .
It should be a secret ballot at first, because the indicative vote is non-binding. Once you have those numbers you can put the most popular options to a binding parliamentary vote and, hopefully, kick on from there.
It should be a secret ballot throughout.
MPs are now changing their votes because of death threats.
Source: BBC R4.
Cicero put it correctly, in Lustrum, by Robert Harris.
If you can't stand the hard knocks of public life, return home and stick to breeding fish.
According to the polls you are talking about almost 60% of the Tory party. With numbers like that might it not be reasonable to think that it might be you and those of your mindset who are - to use your own words and certainly not mine - the 'infestation'?
The hardline brexiteers are UKIP in disguise and not the conservative party
But you are talking about more than half of your party membership.
Now on the detail of Brexit and the need for the Deal to pass I am with you all the way. But when you get to the point where almost 60% of your party wants No Deal and there has been no significant increase in party membership to indicate entryism you really do have to consider who it is who is the real voice of the Tory party. I wish it was you but the facts say otherwise.
I don't know whether there is any hard data on this, but my gut instinct based upon my time as an activist is that there used to be a fairly balanced (or split if you prefer) view on Europe and other areas that I would call traditionally right wing, versus those of us of moderate views. Many moderates have left, or like me, remain members but are inactive leaving those left largely talking to their navels and getting more convinced of their own correctness. Many political activists, particularly the less bright, only mix with other political activists and their views are never properly challenged. The hardline activists appear to now have control of the party and they are selecting candidates in their own image.
When you have polling suggesting that 70%+ of Conservative voters favour No Deal, then it's clear the members are not much out of line.
I think secret indicative votes are fine, provided that the winning option is expressly confirmed in an open vote in the usual way, so that MPs in favour and against can be held to account for their decision.
Agreed. And if there are to be 7 options I would suggest a league system. Each option has a straight binary match up against every other one, hence 6 matches each and 21 matches in total - perfect because that is how many days we have until 12/4 cliff edge day. So, one match is 'played' each day. 2 points to the winner (of the vote), 1 apiece in the unlikely but possible event of a tie.
So, for example, Match 1 is Norway vs MayDeal, Match 2 is REF2 vs Canada, Match 3 is Revoke vs JobsFirstBrexit, Match 4 is No Deal vs REF2 etc etc ... all the way through to the final match on 12/4 between (say) No Deal and Revoke.
The winner is then the option topping the league table, i.e. the one that has accrued the most points (from a maximum of 12) over the series of matches.
Beauty of this is that there can be no fluke winner. Just as the best team always wins the Premier League, so in this case the most popular Brexit option must prevail.
A further benefit is that there would be some spicy 'derby' action to enjoy - e.g. No Deal vs Canada and REF2 vs Revoke. The latter in particular would be a real 6 pointer. Well, not literally obviously, that would fatally taint the process, but you know what I mean.
You'd need sponsors. Brexit IV Semi-Final 1 supported by Popcorn-U-Like....
I think secret indicative votes are fine, provided that the winning option is expressly confirmed in an open vote in the usual way, so that MPs in favour and against can be held to account for their decision.
If MPs were willing to make a decision and be held accountable for it, we wouldn't be in this mess...
According to the polls you are talking about almost 60% of the Tory party. With numbers like that might it not be reasonable to think that it might be you and those of your mindset who are - to use your own words and certainly not mine - the 'infestation'?
The hardline brexiteers are UKIP in disguise and not the conservative party
But you are talking about more than half of your party membership.
Now on the detail of Brexit and the need for the Deal to pass I am with you all the way. But when you get to the point where almost 60% of your party wants No Deal and there has been no significant increase in party membership to indicate entryism you really do have to consider who it is who is the real voice of the Tory party. I wish it was you but the facts say otherwise.
I don't know whether there is any hard data on this, but my gut instinct based upon my time as an activist is that there used to be a fairly balanced (or split if you prefer) view on Europe and other areas that I would call traditionally right wing, versus those of us of moderate views. Many moderates have left, or like me, remain members but are inactive leaving those left largely talking to their navels and getting more convinced of their own correctness. Many political activists, particularly the less bright, only mix with other political activists and their views are never properly challenged. The hardline activists appear to now have control of the party and they are selecting candidates in their own image.
When you have polling suggesting that 70%+ of Conservative voters favour No Deal, then it's clear the members are not much out of line.
Collective insanity resulting from too much reading the Daily Mail or Express.
Can they also hand out pottery shards to be used as ostraka ?
So, it's a secret vote. That should ensure nothing gets a majority as the hardline Brexiteers will only vote for no deal and the remainers will have every incentive to vote only for revocation with complete deniability. Only an open vote will result in a compromise solution.
It would be appalling if it’s a secret ballot. MPs have to be accountable to the public for the way they vote.
They will only be indicating preferences as to what they might support should such an option be presented. It will not be a vote. It is possible of course that the Speaker might declare it ultra vires if it is taking place on the floor of the house, as I think it would be quite unprecedented .
It should be a secret ballot at first, because the indicative vote is non-binding. Once you have those numbers you can put the most popular options to a binding parliamentary vote and, hopefully, kick on from there.
It should be a secret ballot throughout.
MPs are now changing their votes because of death threats.
Source: BBC R4.
Cicero put it correctly, in Lustrum, by Robert Harris.
If you can't stand the hard knocks of public life, return home and stick to breeding fish.
Hard knocks is one thing, Sean, but getting topped? We've lost one already, and that's one too many.
Can they also hand out pottery shards to be used as ostraka ?
So, it's a secret vote. That should ensure nothing gets a majority as the hardline Brexiteers will only vote for no deal and the remainers will have every incentive to vote only for revocation with complete deniability. Only an open vote will result in a compromise solution.
It would be appalling if it’s a secret ballot. MPs have to be accountable to the public for the way they vote.
I agree with you.
Why? His point was flawed because the IV is non-binding. There are existing examples of secret ballots of MPs where there is a public interest that ARE binding. I have just given a prominent one upthread.
The example you gave about the leadership of the Tory Party is a completely different issue because that is an internal matter for the Tory Party and it’s constitution, not Parliament: they could change the electorate from MPs if they wanted and conduct that leadership contest whatever way they decide (indeed back in the day they basically just let the men in grey suits decide over lunch). You can legitimately criticise their voting system for all sorts of reasons but it is not an accurate comparison with what is being proposed here.
I hate to be a purist but I do think it is important that our MPs votes in Parliament are recorded. They are accountable to the public and the only way of making them accountable is allowing the public to assess their actions.
It's not a 'vote in parliament', it's a vote of MPs (who may or may not be in parliament when they strike their pencils against the ballot paper). You could just as well do a YouGov poll of all 650 MPs to get an indicative survey of their preferences and tolerances for and of various proposals.
Norway+, Canada+, Common Market 2.0, May's deal and Corbyn's Customs Unicorn all should in theory contain the same WA....
Exactamundo. That is what solves this puzzle. Pass the WA and leave on 22/5. Ice the PD and revisit after a GE where the Tories (under new leader) run on significant divergence and Labour run on close alignment. Result of that GE determines the path we take.
According to the polls you are talking about almost 60% of the Tory party. With numbers like that might it not be reasonable to think that it might be you and those of your mindset who are - to use your own words and certainly not mine - the 'infestation'?
The hardline brexiteers are UKIP in disguise and not the conservative party
But you are talking about more than half of your party membership.
Now on the detail of Brexit and the need for the Deal to pass I am with you all the way. But when you get to the point where almost 60% of your party wants No Deal and there has been no significant increase in party membership to indicate entryism you really do have to consider who it is who is the real voice of the Tory party. I wish it was you but the facts say otherwise.
I don't know whether there is any hard data on this, but my gut instinct based upon my time as an activist is that there used to be a fairly balanced (or split if you prefer) view on Europe and other areas that I would call traditionally right wing, versus those of us of moderate views. Many moderates have left, or like me, remain members but are inactive leaving those left largely talking to their navels and getting more convinced of their own correctness. Many political activists, particularly the less bright, only mix with other political activists and their views are never properly challenged. The hardline activists appear to now have control of the party and they are selecting candidates in their own image.
When you have polling suggesting that 70%+ of Conservative voters favour No Deal, then it's clear the members are not much out of line.
Collective insanity resulting from too much reading the Daily Mail or Express.
Can they also hand out pottery shards to be used as ostraka ?
So, it's a secret vote. That should ensure nothing gets a majority as the hardline Brexiteers will only vote for no deal and the remainers will have every incentive to vote only for revocation with complete deniability. Only an open vote will result in a compromise solution.
It would be appalling if it’s a secret ballot. MPs have to be accountable to the public for the way they vote.
They will only be indicating preferences as to what they might support should such an option be presented. It will not be a vote. It is possible of course that the Speaker might declare it ultra vires if it is taking place on the floor of the house, as I think it would be quite unprecedented .
It should be a secret ballot at first, because the indicative vote is non-binding. Once you have those numbers you can put the most popular options to a binding parliamentary vote and, hopefully, kick on from there.
It should be a secret ballot throughout.
MPs are now changing their votes because of death threats.
Source: BBC R4.
Cicero put it correctly, in Lustrum, by Robert Harris.
If you can't stand the hard knocks of public life, return home and stick to breeding fish.
Hard knocks is one thing, Sean, but getting topped? We've lost one already, and that's one too many.
Thirty years ago, MPs ran the risk of being murdered by the IRA, a much more formidable threat than any they face today.
Norway+, Canada+, Common Market 2.0, May's deal and Corbyn's Customs Unicorn all should in theory contain the same WA....
Exactamundo. That is what solves this puzzle. Pass the WA and leave on 22/5. Ice the PD and revisit after a GE where the Tories (under new leader) run on significant divergence and Labour run on close alignment. Result of that GE determines the path we take.
Could an amendment be tabled to the MV that means a GE is triggered if it is passed?
This is fascinating polling on four Brexit options.
No deal is clearly inferior to both Ref2 and Norway+, since more people dislike it and fewer like it than either of these other options.
May's deal is clearly inferior to Norway+, since more people dislike it and fewer like it (although Ref2 is more popular than May's deal, it is also more unpopular).
This suggests either Ref2 or Norway+ would be reasonable options, although Ref2 is more polarising with more likes and dislikes than the latter.
My personal preference is Ref2 but Norway+ is a good compromise, as the least unpopular and second most popular outcome.
It feels like Norway+ aka BINO will be where we end up. Kind of a pointless waste of three years, but hey ho, thanks Dave.
This is fascinating polling on four Brexit options.
No deal is clearly inferior to both Ref2 and Norway+, since more people dislike it and fewer like it than either of these other options.
May's deal is clearly inferior to Norway+, since more people dislike it and fewer like it (although Ref2 is more popular than May's deal, it is also more unpopular).
This suggests either Ref2 or Norway+ would be reasonable options, although Ref2 is more polarising with more likes and dislikes than the latter.
My personal preference is Ref2 but Norway+ is a good compromise, as the least unpopular and second most popular outcome.
It feels like Norway+ aka BINO will be where we end up. Kind of a pointless waste of three years, but hey ho, thanks Dave.
YouGov also add an "Acceptable" outcome which provides a substantial lead for "soft" Brexit, tiny lead for Remain, and level-pegging for May's deal.
This is fascinating polling on four Brexit options.
No deal is clearly inferior to both Ref2 and Norway+, since more people dislike it and fewer like it than either of these other options.
May's deal is clearly inferior to Norway+, since more people dislike it and fewer like it (although Ref2 is more popular than May's deal, it is also more unpopular).
This suggests either Ref2 or Norway+ would be reasonable options, although Ref2 is more polarising with more likes and dislikes than the latter.
My personal preference is Ref2 but Norway+ is a good compromise, as the least unpopular and second most popular outcome.
It feels like Norway+ aka BINO will be where we end up. Kind of a pointless waste of three years, but hey ho, thanks Dave.
The wasted three years is a sunk cost, and irrelevant to the decision now.
As I said first thing this morning, Norway will piss a lot of people off, but less so than the alternatives.
And is the only option which might conceivably mark a truce in the Brexiteer/Remainer war, which will otherwise continue unabated.
My reading of the relevant legislation and statutory instruments is that the European Parliament Elections Act 2002 is still partially in force.
This Act is specified in Schedule 9 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as an Act due to be repealed. Section 25 specifies that the repeal is only effected on a date that is specified by statutory instrument.
SI 2018/808 specified that section 1A and Schedule 1A of EPEA 2002 was repealed on 4 July 2018. This relates to redistribution of MEP seats.
The remaining Act is repealed on Exit Day (defined as 29 March 2019 at 11pm).
So if Exit Day is changed, for example for a long delay, the provisions of EPEA 2002 remain in force and there is no need for new legislation.
I see Billy Bragg prefers to ignore the ballot box in favour of the protest march. Daft sod.
Can't speak for Billy Bragg as always thought he was a plonker, but I am amused s to why those that are so keen on ballot boxes only seem to like the ones from 2016. Can I assume Mr Dancer that had Remain won by a small margin you would not have been endorsing marches and asking for a further referendum?? A lot has changed since 2016
I'm a bit confused. Up to yesterday the leaving date was written into the UK law as 29 March, or so I'd understood. Now the EU have decided to offer an extension (good) and the date written into UK law has been superceded by the EU's offer?
How did that happen? Or are there plans to change the law to the new date?
Mr. Foremain, had Remain won then, assuming there wasn't some new dramatic shift or treaty, I would've accepted it, certainly for the current period and probably for circa 15-20 years, depending how things went.
You write that 'those' (including me) keen on ballot boxes only cite 2016: that's because that's almost the only one anyone wants to overturn.
The only other potential example is a second Scottish referendum, and I oppose that too.
I never called for any General Election or referendum result to be overturned.
Why do you accept ballot box results for everything except this?
Russian bots aren’t sophisticated enough to spoof IP addresses (if that’s even how that is determined) but yet threw the 2016 referendum?
Tin. Foil. Hat.
It was partly tongue in cheek, but the concern with these petitions is a real one. It really isn’t difficult to pretend you are in the UK. I have no doubt the vast majority are real though.
The map is based on self-entered postcode. If there are a lot of bot sigs, they are doing a very good job of modelling a distribution of postcodes reflecting the Remain vote in 2016.
But we should recognise your greater expertise, posting here from thousands of miles away.
You'd need sponsors. Brexit IV Semi-Final 1 supported by Popcorn-U-Like....
:-)
And there would be plenty of interest, I would have thought.
However, almost as soon as I hit POST I realized a fatal flaw - the very serious risk of match fixing.
Final game, REF2 vs REVOKE, and REF2 needs the win to top the table, just pipping JobsFirstBrexit, whereas REVOKE is tailed off and out of the reckoning.
What's to stop REVOKE throwing it?
And if they do, presenting victory to REF2 on a platter, what will be the reaction of the supporters of JobsFirstBrexit? Will they riot?
My reading of the relevant legislation and statutory instruments is that the European Parliament Elections Act 2002 is still partially in force.
This Act is specified in Schedule 9 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as an Act due to be repealed. Section 25 specifies that the repeal is only effected on a date that is specified by statutory instrument.
SI 2018/808 specified that section 1A and Schedule 1A of EPEA 2002 was repealed on 4 July 2018. This relates to redistribution of MEP seats.
The remaining Act is repealed on Exit Day (defined as 29 March 2019 at 11pm).
So if Exit Day is changed, for example for a long delay, the provisions of EPEA 2002 remain in force and there is no need for new legislation.
Mr. Foremain, had Remain won then, assuming there wasn't some new dramatic shift or treaty, I would've accepted it, certainly for the current period and probably for circa 15-20 years, depending how things went.
You write that 'those' (including me) keen on ballot boxes only cite 2016: that's because that's almost the only one anyone wants to overturn.
The only other potential example is a second Scottish referendum, and I oppose that too.
I never called for any General Election or referendum result to be overturned.
Why do you accept ballot box results for everything except this?
I accept that Leave won the vote. I don't accept that Leave won the argument.
Comments
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1109091243819180032
I think they choose the road number based on the current attendance on Farage's march to freedom.
Just to be clear I am not doubting there is a very significant response to this petition. Just pointing out it is incredibly insecure / open to abuse if a more sophisticated actor wanted to & that peoples evidence for / against some sort of conspiracy is mostly massively flawed.
https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1109052933960806402
Edit:
Oh, wait...
https://twitter.com/samuelclayton/status/1108734341788635136?s=19
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1109092601624444928
MPs just need to decide which clothing it is dressed up in.
The EU has thrown May under the bus in terms of authority whilst keeping her deal absolubtely alive by giving parliament the illusion of authority over the deal when in fact it won't be legally changing.
Now on the detail of Brexit and the need for the Deal to pass I am with you all the way. But when you get to the point where almost 60% of your party wants No Deal and there has been no significant increase in party membership to indicate entryism you really do have to consider who it is who is the real voice of the Tory party. I wish it was you but the facts say otherwise.
It's a fair opinion that the government petitions department could havepaid more money for the possibility that at some point over 1 Million people want to sign a petition in 24 hours, but then again I'm sure they thought about the negative headlines about "wasting taxpayers money in times of austerity" when the Daily Mail found out
So: They need to pass a motion BEFORE THEY START to approve proposition that AV winner will then be implemented.
The problem isn't really with the WA per se (if you aren't concerned by the end to freedom of movement, then it's actually a very good deal indeed; if you are, then less so), but what comes after the transitional arrangement, which is what it is*.
That, of course, depends upon what government we have for the next couple of years. There is now so little trust in the current administration (and Corbyn would be no better), that the unwillingness of MPs to vote for it is now perfectly understandable.
And I say that as someone who was entirely prepared (though far from delighted) to countenance approval of the WA, earlier on in the process.
*Unless you're a paranoid ERGot, in which case you believe it's a permanent vassal state plot.
Slightly odd. Got signed out immediately after signing in. Clearly the EU/Putin want to silence me!
The problem is that unless they try something, the indicative votes will be a waste of time - as winner can still be rejected.
So I think the best option would be to try to get MPs to "promise" to implement winner - if all Parliamentary big beasts (Party leaders etc) promised to do so in advance then hopefully that should be enough.
So, for example, Match 1 is Norway vs MayDeal, Match 2 is REF2 vs Canada, Match 3 is Revoke vs JobsFirstBrexit, Match 4 is No Deal vs REF2 etc etc ... all the way through to the final match on 12/4 between (say) No Deal and Revoke.
The winner is then the option topping the league table, i.e. the one that has accrued the most points (from a maximum of 12) over the series of matches.
Beauty of this is that there can be no fluke winner. Just as the best team always wins the Premier League, so in this case the most popular Brexit option must prevail.
A further benefit is that there would be some spicy 'derby' action to enjoy - e.g. No Deal vs Canada and REF2 vs Revoke. The latter in particular would be a real 6 pointer. Well, not literally obviously, that would fatally taint the process, but you know what I mean.
Sad news.
"Mary Warnock embodied the best of Britain’s ruling class before Thatcher
Andrew Brown
Her ambition was harnessed to a kind of patriotism and an ideal of serving society that is much less widely believed in today"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/mary-warnock-britain-ruling-class-thatcher-patriotism-serving-society
If you can't stand the hard knocks of public life, return home and stick to breeding fish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFcEa05pRQM
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1109102718793195521
This is fascinating polling on four Brexit options.
No deal is clearly inferior to both Ref2 and Norway+, since more people dislike it and fewer like it than either of these other options.
May's deal is clearly inferior to Norway+, since more people dislike it and fewer like it (although Ref2 is more popular than May's deal, it is also more unpopular).
This suggests either Ref2 or Norway+ would be reasonable options, although Ref2 is more polarising with more likes and dislikes than the latter.
My personal preference is Ref2 but Norway+ is a good compromise, as the least unpopular and second most popular outcome.
It feels like Norway+ aka BINO will be where we end up. Kind of a pointless waste of three years, but hey ho, thanks Dave.
As I said first thing this morning, Norway will piss a lot of people off, but less so than the alternatives.
And is the only option which might conceivably mark a truce in the Brexiteer/Remainer war, which will otherwise continue unabated.
This Act is specified in Schedule 9 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as an Act due to be repealed. Section 25 specifies that the repeal is only effected on a date that is specified by statutory instrument.
SI 2018/808 specified that section 1A and Schedule 1A of EPEA 2002 was repealed on 4 July 2018. This relates to redistribution of MEP seats.
The remaining Act is repealed on Exit Day (defined as 29 March 2019 at 11pm).
So if Exit Day is changed, for example for a long delay, the provisions of EPEA 2002 remain in force and there is no need for new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/contents
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/808/contents/made
See https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/deu/
I'm a bit confused. Up to yesterday the leaving date was written into the UK law as 29 March, or so I'd understood. Now the EU have decided to offer an extension (good) and the date written into UK law has been superceded by the EU's offer?
How did that happen? Or are there plans to change the law to the new date?
Any help welcome. Thanks in anticipation.
You write that 'those' (including me) keen on ballot boxes only cite 2016: that's because that's almost the only one anyone wants to overturn.
The only other potential example is a second Scottish referendum, and I oppose that too.
I never called for any General Election or referendum result to be overturned.
Why do you accept ballot box results for everything except this?
I believe a new bill has to pass the Commons to amend the exit date.
But we should recognise your greater expertise, posting here from thousands of miles away.
And there would be plenty of interest, I would have thought.
However, almost as soon as I hit POST I realized a fatal flaw - the very serious risk of match fixing.
Final game, REF2 vs REVOKE, and REF2 needs the win to top the table, just pipping JobsFirstBrexit, whereas REVOKE is tailed off and out of the reckoning.
What's to stop REVOKE throwing it?
And if they do, presenting victory to REF2 on a platter, what will be the reaction of the supporters of JobsFirstBrexit? Will they riot?
Has the date of Exit Day been changed yet? Doesn't an SI need approval by Commons and Lords?