OT: How to game a petition part II

There clearly is additional security given the 2016 gaming and it is hardly surprising that they don?t spell out exactly what they do. It would in fact be stupid to spell out exactly what they do.

Really?

So in fact you can't back that up at all.

It's a government website - I would not make any assumptions!

Oh pull teh other one, its got be;lls on

Oh and the whole country apparently wants no deal

Except London

The Telegraph has been pushing Brexit since day one.

Your whining gets more tiresome and desperate each day.

You keep repeating your wild and farcical claims as to why those who voted leave did so, you are the worst kind of bigot.

As for being ?worldly ignorant?, your knowledge is limited to your own little world which doesn?t seem to extend beyond being a keyboard warrior, there is no evidence of serious qualifications etc.

Yep.

Obviously no one can when it makes no sense to spell out what extra security they have added.

Yes, you are that stupid.

In other words you havent a shred of evidence at all.

Other than faith in the government and its IT ability. Bless! .

True, but completely irrelevant, since the poll referred to was a YouGov one, and is probably far more respresentative that a petition is...

Obviously no one can when it makes no sense to spell out what extra security they have added.

Don?t have anything like that.

It's odd that 48:52 with a majority of 1,300,000 is "too close" for remainers to accept, yet most of the indicative votes spriging from Oliver Letwin's amendment are much closer than that percentage-wise.

If John McDonnell hadn't had to go for an MRI scan and the tied vote actually managed to get a "yes" by a majority of 1, no doubt remainers would have declared that victory ...

The whole petition scheme is a sop to the idea that ?they? take any notice of such campaigns. As recent events have shown, MPs do exactly what they think is in their interests, not want is best for the country or their constituents or what their constituents want.

But it is obvious you have no idea what 'Remainers' might think so 'no', they wouldn't (either).

Democracy for the people has to reasonably represent the consequences for the people.

What has happened with the EU referendum is allow people who are in the main at best politically ignorant and at worst (some are) racist, vent their bigotry or toss a coin and choose a side and then like when supporting a football team, defend their decision till death (even when it's plainly clear it was a bad decision).

Easy solution. Publish what we now know and ask the people again but require a supermajority. If something is really wanted (after all this BS for 3 years), then it will happen and 'the people' will see it happening.

Anyone stating 'they knew what they voted for' are only stating what they *thought / hoped* they were voting for.

If someone you don't trust offers to do something for you are you saying you then put your life in their hands? Madness.

Ere, I've got a dead cert for the Grand National winner ... re mortgage your house and let me put the money on for you ...

Cheers, T i m

Directed at T i m who I have otherwise blocked:

Show me a world in which the future is certain...

Back that assertion up then...

Oh, you can't - that's convenient.

So this remains an assertion, with no evidence to back it up.

Bye - you're blocked...

Outside the M25 but interesting that the St. Albans MP is pro Brexit but her electorate remain!

IN short, they didnt know what they were voting for, because no way is the 40 years of the common market, the EEC and then the EU any sort of reliable guide to where the EU is going

What T i m and other remainers do not seem to have considered is that very many of their objections against Brexit could with equal veracity be levelled at the original referendum to join the EEC, as it was then. For example, where were the 'beyond reasonable doubt' guarantees that he seem to demand that the future would be better? Why does he accept that referendum result when most voters didn't vote for it? Why does he want a 'people's vote' on Brexit when we have only just had, in terms of our length of membership of the EU, a 'second referendum'?

I still remember a pro-EEC pamphlet that had a highly-distorted diagram showing projected UK economic growth, which formed my basis for voting against joining the EEC on the grounds we'd been lied to.

I have the copy of the original memo saying how they needed to lie about loss of sovereiegnty in order to get people to support entry.

Well this is bollocks right there. There hasn't been a "status quo" for

And that will be its downfall. Even the US, with its single currency, single language, less centralised political structures than the EU wants to head towards, and single legal system, had a civil war. I see no reason for the EU to avoid a worse fate.