Revoke Article 50 petition 2

[MrPan]

Finished the last thread, here's a replacement...

We need to listen and pay attention to each other.

This! In bucketfuls!

A petition should not result in a sudden policy change but they should influence decisions and be listened to respectfully

Not when they are signed by less than 10% of the population and are open to abuse such as;

Foreigners signing
Under 18's signing
Same person signing with different emails
Leavers signing to distort the figures

The petition threads all seem to descend into Groundhog day.

Whilst there's a margin of error on all petitions - what % of signatures will be affected by error? Even if there is a 10% error margin that still leaves over 5 million people agreeing Article 50 should be revoked in the space of 10 days.

Each time the Revoke petition is condemned I will repeat:

•Revoke petition- 6 million signatures in 10 days.

•Leave petition - 600k signatures in 6 months.

As the consensus seems to be that petitions are only a small piece of the protesters jigsaw why are Leave posters so focussed on persistent criticism of it?

If Leavers continue to be convinced that the benefits of relinquishing EU membership are still demonstrable - why focus on picking out this petition for criticism? Why not focus on the positives of your standpoint rather than the negatives of the petition process?

The issues are similar as those behind a second referendum. If a politician or voter is so certain of the substantive merits of leaving the EU why be frightened of confirming that stance now more detail is known? Be proud of your standpoint!

If you deeply believe in anything you should be confident in your belief and not be scared of testing it.

The constant criticism of the Revoke petition does Leavers no credit.

May I ask Mayhem two questions (if like me they are awake too early!).

1. Do you have fears about current levels of support for Leave? A Yes or No answer will suffice.

1. Given your standpoint has won and is being (slowly) delivered do you think any compromise should have been offered to the 48%, the 16 million who voted differently? A Yes or No answer will again suffice.

1. Bearing in mind the great British sense of fair play - should anything have been done to be gracious and magnanimous towards the 'losing team' ? If so, what steps should have been taken to get us on board? ( Longer answer needed.)

Three (not two) questions in my post above!

On a separate note this is hopefully something both leave and remain voters can sign.

Although it's another petition, this one is about a full public Inquiry into the conduct of the referendum.

As there have been concerns about improprieties in both the referendum and petitions -we should all sort this out for the future.

By investigating, at least its one step towards conducting things in a more orderly way going forwards?

I know petitions have limited impact but what is there to lose?

https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/66479668/verify?token=bQk0tsGaWBIA8mp0ijNN_

1. Do you have fears about current levels of support for Leave? A Yes or No answer will suffice

No

1. Given your standpoint has won and is being (slowly) delivered do you think any compromise should have been offered to the 48%, the 16 million who voted differently? A Yes or No answer will again suffice.

No.

1. Bearing in mind the great British sense of fair play - should anything have been done to be gracious and magnanimous towards the 'losing team' ? If so, what steps should have been taken to get us on board? ( Longer answer needed.)

Not possible to please everyone at the same time. Anyone who tries will end up pleasing nobody.

If 52% vote for change then change it needs to be.

Thank you for answering. It is very refreshing to have some one on the other 'side' who answers questions. It helps me understand the petition.

It sounds as if you do think Remainers should have a voice- even though it shouldn't be listened to.

If there are no fears about current levels of support for Leave why bother to repeatedly criticise the Revoke petition at all. Surely in a free society the minority are allowed the outlet of a small protest.

The protest is fairly ineffectual as it has been debated in a side chamber (at the same time as the Leave petitions with 90% less votes). Signing petitions is a legitimate vehicle for the minority- it even falls short of civil disobedience.

Helps me understand the negativity towards the petition.

Foreigners signing
Under 18's signing
Same person signing with different emails
Leavers signing to distort the figures

These points have already been addressed but here goes, again.

An MP represents all his constituents not just the electorate. People from other countries and children have a right to be heard as well. Abuses can occur but steps are taken to ensure they aren't.

A petition has no legal standing it reflects public opinion. It does not change policy it is a voice expressing an opinion.

No one is saying it should equate to a change in policy, but when a significant minority speak doesn't their voice deserved to be listen to an not dismissed?

A worrying number of posters are obsessed with majority wins, no matter how small the majority. This quickly deteriorates into the tyranny of the majority or mob rule.

All nuance is lost in these debates we are becoming tribes.

If 52% vote for change then change it needs to be.

Just wanted to say I completely agree with this. Agreement with a Leaver! it's just a question of what change though isn't it. I will always believe that a significant percentage of people voted for a change that is different to the one they are being given.

For me the needed changes are reducing the necessity for food banks, a thriving NHS, research leading Universities and world leading well funded state education. Plus elderly social care.

(And before anyone says it -these things are entirely U.K. controlled - and the O.7% GDP spent on EU membership doesn't supply the 50-60% GDP needed for these items.)

Given the increasing evidence that the Referendum itself had foreign interference, illegal spending and data manipulation on social media, should we also ignore the Referendum?

It’s been said before that, it being an advisory referendum, it was subject to less checks than it would otherwise have been.

Doesn’t that make the result - and the constant pressure for Leave from foreign backers - highly suspect?

The latest revelations are that the Daily Mail have a vested interest in promoting Leave and an Ex-BBC hard-Leaver is influencing the Prime Minister. Lynton Crosby (Australian) has been linked to financing hard Brexit FB ads.

So what makes the Leave campaign and their suspect Referendum result any better than a Government petition?

Kids signing is why nobody trusts the petition

Sweeping generalisations are why nobody takes any notice of what you say

Interesting discussion! I think I agree with dontmakemeshushyou that those pressuring for an alteration to policy are much more likely to sign petitions than those that are happy or want to "encourage" a policy. Though in that case, I suppose it could be said that the "no deal" /WTO petition is also trying to promote a shift in policy, as that is definitely not the preferred move of government or parliament at the moment (albeit it is still the default). But as has been said many times, "leave" was and is taken to mean many things by different people, so there is not going to be a majority happy with whatever version of "leave" is eventually decided upon. So people signing different "leave" petitions for a particular version of "leave" will never gather the numbers of people signing, effectively a "remain" petition. Which means one thing, and always has meant one thing. Though as we all know, the wording of the referendum was so vague, that "leaving" in any form does technically give leavers what they voted for- even if they grumble about it being "brino".

I've been following another debate on something totally unrelated to brexit, but based round a group trying to get a change to government policy. Not relevant what it is, but it's another "controversial" topic - albeit much of the population arent that interested. The same points apply to the petition signing though... it is much easier to get signatures against this policy than in favour... Likely because most people in favour trust the government to carry on doing what they are doing/ do what is best for the country (ha!) - or they don't know enough about the details to come up with a better "policy" than the one already in place. The arguments are similar too, depressingly. All the same stuff about each side cherry picking stats and evidence, and people opposing the evidence being "thick" and "not listening to experts", whereas those supporting the policy are derided as "being employed by people to say that" or "only supporting it for the financial benefit".

Frankly the level of debate in the UK generally needs a good kick up the bum, and to be taken aside and told to listen respectfully and come to a compromise... No, not everyone will be happy. But surely totally ignoring the will of nearly half the population just because they are on the "losing side" is just as undemocratic as revoking, or going for a people's vote or whatever.

Anyway, Andrea Leadsom started the whole petition/ referendum confusion with her comment that she would listen to it when it got 17.4 signatures. Surely her bar should have been higher if it was being signed by "foreigners" and "cats". 😂🐱

Surely in a free society the minority are allowed the outlet of a small protest

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but even assuming that each of the signatures on the petition are legitimate it is still only 6 million from a total voting population of 46 million. About 1 person in 8.

it's just a question of what change though isn't it

Ballot paper had two choices. Leave or Remain.

True that there is only one way to remain as no changes are required. Many different ways to leave, but not allowed to be included on the ballot paper as it would be considered biased and attempting to scare people into choosing remain.

Plus it would be difficult, if not impossible, to agree upon what all the different leave options could be. Might have ended up with a ballot paper that was more than one piece of paper which again would not be allowed as the pages may become separated during the counting of votes?

So what makes the Leave campaign and their suspect Referendum result any better than a Government petition

Votes in referendum were physical votes by a total of 33.5 million people that had to make the effort to go to the polling station and are only given one ballot paper. Online petition had 6 million person which is a lot less than 33.5 million votes cast physically even if they are all legitimate.

Alternative argument is that of the 45 million eligible voters only 6 million signed the revoke petition whereas the other 39 million did not. So can it be concluded that 39 million do not want to revoke?

Numbers can always be twisted to suit a persons argument, but I have not seen any proof that 52 is a smaller number that 48.

But surely totally ignoring the will of nearly half the population just because they are on the "losing side" is just as undemocratic as revoking, or going for a people's vote or whatever

As it was a two horse race I disagree. Had remain won by one vote I would support the result even though I voted leave.

Might have ended up with a ballot paper that was more than one piece of paper which again would not be allowed as the pages may become separated during the counting of votes?

I very much doubt that. My ballot paper can contain 12 candidates on a single sheet. How many versions of Leave do you think we would be offered?

My ballot paper can contain 12 candidates on a single sheet. How many versions of Leave do you think we would be offered?

Don't know, but I am sure there are more than 12 versions of leave. Maybe dozen's or even hundreds. This is why there would never be consensus on what questions to allow if a second referendum was to happen that was meant to cover all options.

If 52% vote for change then change it needs to be.
I disagree. Factors not pertaining to the actual question can swing a majority that small. That's why proper, law making referendums tend to need a super majority.

Don't know, but I am sure there are more than 12 versions of leave. Maybe dozen's or even hundreds.
Or maybe 17million?

As it was a two horse race I disagree. Had remain won by one vote I would support the result even though I voted leave.

That's an admirable admission mayhem! Though I honestly wouldn't truly expect such a close vote to just be ignored by parliament/ government or indeed the electorate. Yes, we would remain, and lots of people would have breathed a sigh of relief, but I would expect there to be serious thoughts about why the result was so close, and what could be changed about our relationship with the EU, or how people view that relationship. And I wouldn't expect the "leave" campaign as a whole to just say, "oh, OK, that's that then...".

I live in Scotland, and that REALLY hasn't happened here after the independence referendum... And that was much more definite for No than one vote (or even 52%). But equally, as a result, more powers were granted to Scotland as a result of the vote and so on. (Though I'm sure those in favour of independence would dispute that and say its not enough...). I don't see why the same wouldnt have happened had remain won. So either way we'd have been destined for many years of division in the country. Which is why referenda are such a bloody silly idea imo!

Which is why referenda are such a bloody silly idea imo

So why is whenever there is an SNP or Scottish MP representative on Question Time they always preach that Scotland will not be taken out of the EU against their will?

So why is whenever there is an SNP or Scottish MP representative on Question Time they always preach that Scotland will not be taken out of the EU against their will?

That's true of the SNP, but not so much the Labour, tory and lib dem Scottish MPs (though they are generally remain-y, apart from some of the tories) . However, every council area in Scotland did have a majority in favour of remain, and the remain vote over all Scotland was about 62% I think... so there is a noticeable difference between Scotland and the UK as a whole. However, as Scotland is part of the UK it wasn't a "Scottish" decision, and the SNP are unsurprisingly wanting to capitalise on that! It's no surprise that a party whose sole aim is independence is going to make that argument... despite many independence supporters thinking that brexit is going to be the catalyst that does tip the balance in Scotland in favour of independence, from an economic/general chaos point of view rather than necessarily a democratic one.

Of course 38% of Scottish votes were to leave, which shouldn't be ignored, just as much as the remain votes shouldn't be ignored.

Ultimately I don't consider the SNP to be a pro-European party as much as a pro-independence party saying whatever they can to make themselves appear "different" to sell their preferred option of independence. My feeling is that if the position had been reversed, the SNP would argue against the tyranny of the EU and Scotland would be better off out of it, "as the will of the Scottish people" ... (Caveat: Many in the SNP are passionately pro Europe, but I don't think it trumps independence for them overall... they were perfectly willing to become an independent country leaving the EU by default in 2014... albeit they would probably then have applied to rejoin).

Alternative argument is that of the 45 million eligible voters only 6 million signed the revoke petition whereas the other 39 million did not. So can it be concluded that 39 million do not want to revoke?

That would be a very ill-informed and ignorant conclusion to draw, though. Unless every one of the 45 million eligible voters had received an official invitation to sign the petition in whichever way was most appropriate for them (in person, by post, by proxy, etc) and had been informed that a simple majority preference would become government policy, it's meaningless.

Unless every one of the 45 million eligible voters had received an official invitation to sign the petition

Thought it was online and anonymous?

Thought it was online and anonymous?

Yes, this petition is online. No, it isn't necessarily anonymous - simply that names are not published online.

Of course neither of those things would stop people being invited to sign - why do you think they would? Voting in UK elections is by secret ballot but all eligible voters are invited to vote by dint of receiving a poll card.

If you wish to make a direct comparison between the number of people voting in elections/referenda and the number signing online petitions, then the conditions whereby people are invited to participate must be equal. Since in this case they aren't (it's a petition, not a vote - think we've been here before ), then any suggestion that they are (such as Mayhem's above) is lazy, ignorant, and ill-informed.