Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 249 posts

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#181

Post by chrisseaton »

ranko wrote: post #97
Zenst wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the UK, indeed the largest voter turnout of any election/referendum in the UK was...the EU referendum. Making it the largest vote for a decision in the entire history of the UK. So best described currently as `interesting times`.

I keep hearing this claim, but I don't think it's true. "The highest turnout recorded at a UK general election over the last 100 years was in 1950, 83.9%.", according to https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Sum...

Are you arguing relatively while others argue absolutely?

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#182

Post by nickcotter »

Simulacra wrote: post #149

If I recall correctly, is not the invoking of Article 50 non-revocable?

It's perfectly revocable, until 11pm 29th March.

Opinion is divided as to whether it requires Parliament or if the Government can do it without further ado.

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#183

Post by gmueckl »

stordoff wrote: post #122
gmueckl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not easily. There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU. So if Britain wants to do it all again, they need to clear that bar.

> There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU Citation needed. I have read the primary ruling on this[1], and I don't recall anything of the sort. As the Court notes: > Although, during the drafting of [Article 50 TEU], amendments had been proposed [...] to avoid the risk of abuse during the withdrawal procedure…

The situation is more convoluted. You are partially correct. The key sentence is this:

" In the second place, the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."

This means that any withdrawal from Atricle 50 can only be proper if this is the true end of the procedure. Otherwise, it would not be "unconditional".

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#184

Post by lm28469 »

lazyjones wrote: post #143
lm28469 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already know half the country wants to leave and half wants to stay I get it's a democracy yada yada, but how are people expected to make such a decision ? It has so many consequences on short and long term, even experts in the field struggle(d) to predict. We're not talking about the color of a national football team jersey or a 1% increase on alcohol tax here. The vote wasn't about staying or leaving EU, it wa…

> You always get the worst of people when you target their irrational fears You get the worst anti-democratic statements from people who believe their own voting to be based on rational thought and everyone else's on irrational fears.

> worst anti-democratic statements

Direct democracy isn't the only form of democracy.

We're all irrational and biased, that's inherent to being human. Some people are more informed than other and there are processes to mitigate biases (direct democracy isn't one of them).

The problem comes from people who have no business in the vote, no knowledge of the issues, are not even aware of what biases are, and drink the propaganda kool aid.

Brexit was mostly about:

- "we spend to much money on EU"

- "too many migrants"

Well first off London only strives because of international financial businesses, closing the borders and making it harder for people to migrate is a death sentence [0]. Since the vote Brexit cost the UK much more than what they contribute to the EU [1], they export/import ~50% of their good to/from Europe [2]

Time will tell, what I'm convinced of is that Brexit was sold on lies. It might turns out good for them, but if it does it won't be because of good planning and well thought decisions, it'll be a combination of luck and really good damage control.

[0] https://www.ft.com/content/371c63ba-4b08-11e9-8b7f-d49067e0f...

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46338585

[2] https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#185

Post by nickcotter »

franky47 wrote: post #6

I made a progress bar with React to compare it to the NoDeal petition, for when the JSON endpoints come back up: https://brexit-petitions-count.now.sh/

Cool, hopefully this isn't adding to the load! Can we have a graph too please?

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#186

Post by gmueckl »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #61
gmueckl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not easily. There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU. So if Britain wants to do it all again, they need to clear that bar.

> There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU So Britain would try to invoke Article 50, the EU would say “no,” and then...? Civil war? Hard Brexit?

They would have to remain until they can negotiate a change of the Treaty that would allow them to exit.

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#187

Post by pjc50 »

arethuza wrote: post #172
slavoingilizov wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, the citizens of the UK and former British Empire have never managed to pull off a revolution. I don't know if complacency is ingrained in the culture (plenty of evidence for the opposite), but the French started beheading kings when they were not happy. The UK still supports a figurehead monarch. No evidence of correlation or causation, but just saying.

What about the English Civil war which ended up with Charles I being executed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England Also the later, and peaceful, Glorious Revolution?

I don't think either of those count as popular revolutions; more the layer below the monarchy deciding to switch out the monarch for a more compliant one. Parliamentary, rather than popular, sovereignty. (This is partly why I'm fed up with all this pretending that "will of the people" was a thing in English politics - it wasn't until 2015. Different in Scotland with the Claim of Right.)

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#188

Post by meheleventyone »

microcolonel wrote: post #169
osrec wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be surprised by the outcome. The real question is, do the Tory party want to commit political suicide by administering a no deal brexit, and risk never getting re-elected until the subsequent turmoil subsides? I think not. Farage and the rest are no where to be seen (he still collects his salary from the EU apparently though!). The upshot of all this mess will probably be as unlikely as the referendum…

> commit political suicide by administering a no deal Brexit I don't know how this would be political suicide, it is currently the most popular option in polling, and it's not considered to have any greater economic costs than the other options (including reversing the referendum decision entirely!).

Except that your statement on economic costs is baloney.

For example: https://www.ft.com/content/4849bf68-1b13-11e9-9e64-d150b3105...

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#189

Post by stordoff »

gmueckl wrote: post #183
stordoff wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU Citation needed. I have read the primary ruling on this[1], and I don't recall anything of the sort. As the Court notes: > Although, during the drafting of [Article 50 TEU], amendments had been proposed [...] to avoid the risk of abuse during the withdrawal procedure…

The situation is more convoluted. You are partially correct. The key sentence is this: " In the second place, the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are un…

This is not my reading at all. It brings _the_ withdrawal procedure to an end - the procedure under Article 50 is terminated. It does not preclude starting another. Indeed, it would be contradictory - the purpose of the notice is to confirm membership is "under terms that are unchanged" -- if the State loses its right to invoke Article 50, the terms _have_ changed.

Re: UK Parliament petitions site crashes under traffic for petition to cancel Brexit

#190

Post by gmueckl »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #117
gmueckl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not easily. There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU. So if Britain wants to do it all again, they need to clear that bar.

I'm not sure there's any "court ruling" of that sort. The only applicable case would be Wightman, which just confirms that revocation must be and “unequivocal and unconditional decision” on accordance with a country's “own national constitutional requirements”. You may be thinking of the Advocate General's initial opinion, which accepted that unilateral revocation would be possible only if it did not involve an "abus…

Please see the quote in my other response. In a way, the criteria are much harder: the withdrawal must the end of the endeavor to leave the EU. That is, if Britain withdraws, then only if it is the end of Brexit. They could not that with the intent to continue exit negotiations.
Post reply on HN