back to article Botnet-powered ballot stuffing suspected in 2nd referendum petition

A petition for a second EU referendum in the UK has been hit by suspicions of computer automated ballot stuffing, possibly by politically motivated hackers. 77K fraudulent signatures have been removed from a petition calling for a second vote on the UK’s relationship with the European Union. The so-far identified fraudulent …

  1. StephenD

    Did the genuine signatories actually read it?

    It calls for a majority of 60% for either Leave *or* Remain, and a turnout of 75%. Failing any of those would result in another referendum.

    Quite apart from the ridiculous idea that the rules should be amended after the event (even if a 60% threshold for major constitutional change might have been justifiable beforehand), then what the change would bring would be a neverending series of referendums, probably each with a result between 60:40 and 40:60, and certainly each with a turnout lower than the previous one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Probably don't care

      as long as there is another vote or this result gets ignored.

      Ok, so I have signed it. For me the decision was just plain wrong. When Farage came out and admitted that the XXX Million we could stop sending to the EU and spend it on the NHS was wrong then the whole thing should have been annulled on the spot. That (And other) statementes will have persuaded many to vote leave. How many BREXIT supporters believed that (and other) lies.

      If we do leave then I'm off. Luckily, I have dual nationality. I know that I won't be alone in leaving what will be a sinking country heading for certain depression.

      1. Electron Shepherd

        Re: Probably don't care

        "That (And other) statements will have persuaded many to vote leave. How many BREXIT supporters believed that (and other) lies.

        If we do leave then I'm off."

        No doubt you'll go to that country where politicians always tell the truth, and always follow through with manifesto pledges.

        That would be where, exactly?

        1. itzman

          Re: Probably don't care

          No doubt you'll go to that country where politicians always tell the truth, and always follow through with manifesto pledges.

          That would be where, exactly?

          Zimbabwe. It never pretended to be anything other than naked greed, homophobia, political expedience, self interest and racism.

          He said he would take all the land from white farmers and give it to black men, and that is exactly what he did.

          "Democracy is one man, one vote, and I am that man"

      2. James Howat

        Re: Probably don't care

        Farage wasn't part of the Leave campaign and will have no part in implementing the measure - he was free to say or ignore anything he liked in order to get the result he wanted.

        1. Tom 7

          Re: Probably don't care

          @James Howat - and the real leave campaign were perfectly happy to stand with him next to the bus with the £350million claim on it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Probably don't care

            And such mendaciousness can in fact be verified on the now amended (scrubbed really) front page of voteleavetakecontrol.org

            The WayBack Machine is your friend, and can show that the daily 350M to the NHS fib (instead of to the EU) was right on front page, possibly could be seen as the main intended statement there.

        2. TheOtherHobbes

          Re: Probably don't care

          I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that Farage was never part of the Leave campaign.

          Although to be fair, no one on the Leave campaign seems to remember promising anything at all to voters now. So it's probably just well as they refuse to put forward any plans for the future, because they'd never be able to remember them for more than an hour or two.

          Farage also said that a 52:48 split would be "unfinished business by a long way."

          Of course he's already forgotten he said this. But a lot of people with better memories haven't.

          1. Wandering Reader

            Re: Probably don't care

            The SNP didn't give up after losing the Scottish Independence referendum. Why should Farage and UKIP have given up if they had lost the Brexit referendum.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Probably don't care

        at the time of this comment, the OP has 8 upvotes and 8 downvotes. This could go either way!

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Probably don't care

        as long as there is another vote or this result gets ignored.

        Ah, democracy. Pain in the ass, isn't it?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Probably don't care

          Well if being mis-sold insurance (PPI) establishes the principal that we shouldn't be held to something if we were lied to about the deal then we can be democratic and have a second referendum but this time based on the facts.

          Or perhaps we could argue that there should be a cooling off period so now we've had a chance to think about ti we realise we've been a bit stupid.

          At the end of the day the idea that this is democratic is a bit of a joke, mind you our whole political system isn't really democratic.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Probably don't care

            We were mis-sold on the EU and have had zero input to anything since getting in. I see that your definition of democracy appears to be that 50.1% is fine as long as they do what I want.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Probably don't care

              HAHAHAHAHAHA "zero input to anything"

              Good one! Though thinking you probably believe in it strongly, that's depressing. Well, good luck, and please, do get the fuck out now, why are your Leavers leaders suddenly shuffling their feet?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Probably don't care

              Sadly, that's just more evidence of being mis-sold, you've been sold a pack of lies by the 'leave' campaigns, you only have to wander around the country to see thata large number of votes for leave were motivated by xenophobia, the number of signs out there with 'Halt EU Immigration' and other such phrases, claims which have since been proven to be unachievable, make me feel very queasy as to the road the country may go down, not least because of the number of absolute morons who either protest voted or voted leave for issues that have absolutely nothing to do with Europe (one muppet voted leave because the local council closed public toilets FFS) .

              I'm born and bred English but I have been giving some serious thought about uprooting my family and emigrating if we do go down the neo-fascist route.

              Fortunately it seems the main protagonists of the leave campaign are now trying to distance themselves from actually leaving Europe, sadly the seem to have done severe damage to the country already.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Probably don't care

        And all the lies and scare tactics used to try to force a remain vote ? The original refendum was for a "Common Market", not for the pathway to full integration now being followed.

        By all means prefer to be a sheep and do what you're told with no input to who rules and how. But some people prefer having responsibility for their own future.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      It was proposed before the referendum, and it was originally proposed by someone who wanted to leave, hence neverending referendums/a.

      1. Natalie Gritpants

        useful jargon

        It's called a neverendum. The Irish only escaped theirs by voting the way the government wanted them to.

      2. inmypjs Silver badge

        "It was proposed before the referendum,"

        Yes and I read somewhere that prior the referendum result it had gained a whole 21 signatures.

    3. steogede

      The English isn't great, but as I read it, it is calling for a majority of 60% OR at turnout of 75%

      When you look at it like that, 50.0001% of 75% isn't that different to 51.9% of 72.2%

  2. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge
    Joke

    some anarchists

    Hackers these days .... Trying to manipulate a petition in order to RESTORE the status quo.

    What happened to "smash the state!" , " revolution! ", " redistribute the wealth!" etc

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: some anarchists

      Only if it can be done from the Cafe over a fairtrade soy latte...

    2. itzman
      Holmes

      Re: some anarchists

      What happened to "smash the state!" , " revolution! ", " redistribute the wealth!" etc

      That was fine until the EU started funding them.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Highly likely that one or more individuals think that stuffing the petition is

    1) a way to get their anger at the result out of their system

    2) a true representation of the opinion of those who want UK to remain in EU - because actually asking friends to sign it would be too much like hard work

    3) a jolly wheeze because it beats working/studying/contributing to society

    4) a necessary act to bring down the whole corrupt system of government

    6) etc

    On the plus side, likely the attention will mean improved systems to look for strange patterns symptomatic of possible fiddling

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I only signed it because it was created by a brexiter worried they were losing the vote!

      The only petition worth signing would be for immediate exit, to minimise the ongoing damage and prevent anyone manipulating the electorate more than necessary. We're watching you Boris.

      1. What_Does_Not_Kill_You_Makes_You_Stronger

        It was created by someone who supported leaving !!!

        It was in case of the vote going in the Remain direction by a small margin.

        It has been highjacked by Remain voters who don't understand the concept of a referendum if it gives the 'wrong' (Leave) answer. :)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          To be fair, neither did the Brexiter author who thought maybe he could overturn a Remain vote if the dishonest racist campaign wasn't quite enough to swing the vote the way he wanted

  4. David Webb

    The debate

    The debate will go something like this

    "petition ask to do this"

    "can't legally be done"

    "okay, next".

    I voted remain, the older folks were more likely to vote leave. So we left...

    Stock markets in turmoil - pensions who invest, worth less

    Interest rates maybe dropping to 0% - savings get less interest.

    Two things which directly affect older people the most.... bet they are happy they voted leave now that their wallet is going to be hit hard.

    1. Chemist

      Re: The debate

      "I voted remain, the older folks were more likely to vote leave. So we left..."

      A little more complicated than that I suggest l

      Fewer older voters were for Remain

      Urban dwellers more likely to vote Remain

      The higher the education level the more likely Remain

      The younger the voter the more likely Remain except they were less likely to vote.

      (BTW I'm 65, live in the country in the North yet I don't know anyone in my circle of friends and family who voted Leave)

      1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: The debate

        .. or rather, who admitted voting to leave....

        1. Chemist

          Re: The debate

          " or rather, who admitted voting to leave...."

          Ah, well I discussed it with many/most of them on several occasions - they'd have to have been pretty devious - what would they gain ?. Their reasons for remain were broadly the same as mine. Most had a good laugh too at "two bananas Boris" and Michael "we don't need experts" Gove . (Hope he never needs emergency surgery)

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: The debate

      Interest rates maybe dropping to 0% - savings get less interest.

      Like Germany you mean, where interest rates are negative? You actually have to pay the government to take your savings.

      1. David Webb

        Re: The debate

        @Phil O'Sophical - aiui, negative interest rates only apply to banks themselves (not savers), so the banks will not save their money with the central bank as they lose money (from negative interest rates) which prompts them to lend money out.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: The debate

      "the older folks were more likely to vote leave"

      Evidence?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The debate

        http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/post-brexit-poll-shows-gulf-between-young-and-old-voters-1.2701611

        1. SundogUK Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: The debate

          So, another poll which we should accept as being correct because all the other polls on brexit have been spectacularly accurate...

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The debate

      Or maybe the fact that in the main people of a greater maturity who voted for both sides realised that in order to vote in the referendum it takes more than registering to vote online.

      You need to leave your mum and dads house and go to the polling station and mark your x in the box.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/media/Kevin-the-Teenager.jpg

      36% of 18 - 24 year olds registered to vote actually turned up to vote

      But hey let's not let the facts get in the way of some more navel gazing eh?

      1. strum

        Re: The debate

        >36% of 18 - 24 year olds registered to vote actually turned up to vote

        That's remarkably high. I'm pretty sure my generation (baby boomer) didn't vote that often, at that age.

    5. JohnMurray

      Re: The debate

      They bought an annuity. Fixed income. The problems are going to be faced by those buying pensions now. Baby-Boomers: Always handing their troubles to the upcoming generation!!

  5. Pen-y-gors

    Bit late but..,.

    Okay, the actual petition has a definite whiff of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted or, to use the rather more evocative Welsh phrase "Codi'r pais ar ol pisio" (Lifting one's skirt after pissing)

    But having said that, the basic idea of having a threshold of votes/majority for any referendum on constitutional change is a very good (essential?) idea. Obviously not to trigger never-ending referenda, but a simple requirement for 60% support on a 75% turnout (or 55% of the electorate or whatever, but something clear) for any decision to change the status quo. They had that in the first devolution referenda back in the 70s. Why on earth didn't that idiot Cameron include a similar requirement this time?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bit late but..,.

      "Why on earth didn't that idiot Cameron include a similar requirement this time?"

      Because Leave would complain that "it wasn't fair", "establishment against them", "look at us, we're hard done by", "government doesn't trust the people" and anything else to get sympathy.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bit late but..,.

      Why on earth didn't that idiot Cameron include a similar requirement this time?

      None of the referendums to go into the EU (in those countries that granted them at all) had that sort of proviso, so he probably assumed it would be hard to justify it for an exit.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Bit late but..,.

      "But having said that, the basic idea of having a threshold of votes/majority for any referendum on constitutional change is a very good (essential?) idea."

      True. I'll settle for essential.

      "Obviously not to trigger never-ending referenda,"

      Obvious to you and to me but there seem to be a number here who haven't grasped that the word "second" indicates that no more than two are being proposed.

      "Why on earth didn't that idiot Cameron include a similar requirement this time?"

      Dunno but possibly either he didn't expect leave to win or, more likely, because it didn't include a binding clause.

      One option is for the HoC to debate the petition and come to the conclusion that although the principle behind the proposal is sound there's no need for a second referendum because, as the referendum doesn't bind the government or country to a simple majority, the government can apply the criteria to the existing vote, i.e. the majority wasn't big enough to change the status quo.

    4. aks

      Re: Bit late but..,.

      To reverse a referendum to join the EEC, or to reverse the conversion from EEC to EU, or to reverse the referendum on the EU Constitution (re-badged as the Lisbon Treaty) that never happened?

  6. Kaltern

    http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brexit-2nd-referendum-petition-a-4-chan-prank-bbc-report-it-as-real/

  7. Eclectic Man Silver badge

    I blame the comedians

    What we need right now, is some good old 'statesmanship', from frankly, ANYBODY.

    There will not be a second referendum, because the politicians cannot face another two months like that again (and neither can I). The real problem is that nobody had any sort of plan for the 'Leave' result. Not event the 'Brexiters'.

    35 or so years of denigrating the EU by comedians, politicians, and business people has paid off. Tragically the areas where the leave vote was strongest are the ones which most benefitted from EU regional development grants. We all remember the foolish reports of EU regulations (straight bananas, standard cucumbers, quiet lawnmowers etc.) but who can name the good things done by the EU? (The Eden Project, working time directive, 20 days paid holiday a year for employees etc.)

    Now a London centric British elite will have the freedom to ignore the rest of the country and invest everything in London. Supposedly national institutions are already almost exclusively in London. The Sainsbury wing of the National Gallery, the British Museum extenuation, the Tate Modern extension, all in London. The photographic archive of the Royal Photographic Society, which used to be in Bradford now moving to the V&A in London, as decided upon by the (exclusively London based) V&A trustees.

    1. WaveyDavey

      Re: I blame the comedians

      Museums: there's an exception to London-centric - the Royal Armories moved up to Leeds, and it's *bloody* good. I remember seeing Brian Sewell (obnoxious condescending twunt) apoplectic with indignat rage that it was goinf to "the provinces". Filthy commoners.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I blame the comedians

        "I remember seeing Brian Sewell (obnoxious condescending twunt) apoplectic with indignat rage that it was goinf to "the provinces". Filthy commoners."

        I remember seeing Brian Sewell picking his nose on 'Have I Got News For You"!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I blame the comedians

      The real problem is that nobody had any sort of plan for the 'Leave' result. Not event the 'Brexiters'.

      Well, not apart from "The Leave Alliance"

      http://www.eureferendum.com/flexcit.aspx (careful, it's 429 pages long)

      or "Vote Leave"

      http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june

      but facts are no fun in this sort of debate, are they?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I blame the comedians

        Since Vote Leave kept lying about the 350 millions - and its still on their website - why would you trust anything else they said.

        There's also the matter of this http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/new_eu_border_proposals_make_us_less_safe

        which invokes the spectre of Syria and Iraq to foster the 'fear of the other'

      2. aks

        Re: I blame the comedians

        Stuart Rose was supposed to lead the Remain campaign with Boris Johnson leading the Leave one.

        The government was supposed to stand aloof and make relevant plans for whichever side won the argument at the ballot box.

        Instead of that, the entire government hierarchy took over the Remain campaign and made no plans for a contrary result.

        Now that the UK is leaving, the alternatives to being a member of the EU are being belatedly investigated. There should have been at least some plans ready, in case the EU imploded for other causes.

  8. codegazer

    Referendum - stupid idea

    We elect members of parliament for a reason: to make our laws and to have a government decide what is best for the country. It is an abrogation of government responsibility to hand over a decision to the population many of whom have little or no knowledge to make an informed decision.

    When voting for an MP, it is for the things the MP stands for and campaigns for on our behalf.

    The issues around the EU are complex and many factored.

    It takes people with experience, knowledge and good judgement to analyse issues.

    Many of the people interviewed about why they voted Leave said ridiculous things which had nothing to do with the EU. One woman in Wales was complaining about not having public toilets and blaming the EU. Sorry love, it is your local council's responsibility not the EU. Many others spoke of their regret and wishing they could vote for Remain instead. Many wanted to "keep immigrants out" ignoring the fact that many highly skilled people from EU countries work saving lives in our NHS while others pick our crops and others pack our foods for our supermarkets, build our homes and fix our plumbing.

    Too many people were lied to regarding putting £350 million/week into the NHS, stopping immigration, and "taking back control" which really means nothing with Sterling plunging, £350 billion wiped off the stock exchange (about 15 years worth of contribution to the EU), and companies moving staff out of London to Paris/Dublin/Frankfurt/Hamburg.

    The lying Brexit politicians should be investigated for defrauding UK citizens and damaging our economy.

    IMHO, we need a general election where parties can stand for or against and the new government can decide.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Referendum - stupid idea

      The 350 million figure was a lie in itself.

      Like saying you pay 200 pound a week on shopping because that's what the shelf prices add up to when actually you've got a staff discount card that gives you 25% off at the till.

      1. death&taxes

        Re: Referendum - stupid idea

        Yes, it's exactly like that.

      2. Just Enough

        Re: Referendum - stupid idea

        "Like saying you pay 200 pound a week on shopping.."

        It was even worse than that. Even if we were to believe that the £350 million was a true figure, the suggestion that we'd get all that back to spend on the NHS is a blatant fiction. Those who spun this story knew that this money isn't additional free cash. It would be needed to pay for all the projects in the UK currently funded by the EU, that suddenly have their funding withdrawn. Do we simply stop doing all them?

        1. Cynic_999

          Re: Referendum - stupid idea

          Over the weekend I was chatting about Brexit to a couple I know who are in their mid-20's (both employed with a 1 year-old child and a mortgage), who were very happy that they had "won" as they had both voted to leave. Then they asked me what will happen now. I asked them what they had believed would happen when they voted. They both replied that they had had no idea whatsoever, and didn't really even understand what the "EU" was. So I asked them why they had voted to leave. They told me it was because all their Facebook friends had said they were going to vote to leave, and they did not want to be different.

          They have both also signed the petition. No doubt because Facebook.

          1. What_Does_Not_Kill_You_Makes_You_Stronger

            Re: Referendum - stupid idea

            Nice story to perpetuate the 'Only the Educated can vote on this' angle.

            Many educated people voted to Leave because they believed that the EU was on its way to collapsing anyway, the short-term pain was worth it for the longer term gain, and the 'Change from within' myth was as stupid as the '£350 Million' myth.

            Not to mention that the 'Only the educated can vote' angle is arrogant, condescending and grossly insulting to people who were legally exercising their right to vote.

            For many years I have had to accept Governments that I did not vote for, of all political colours, yet I respected the voice of the people and the winners of the elections under our voting system.

            If the result does not please you change the voting system legally through the correct processes and not by fiddling the system by abusing the rules.

            1. itzman
              Coat

              Re: Referendum - stupid idea

              'Only the Educated can vote on this'

              That's from the same people who regularly scream, 'elitists' at anyone who says that when its not what they want to hear...

              Anyway I have it on impeccable authority that the code that is subverting this is known as :

              'THE VIOLENT ELIZABETH BOT';

              1. What_Does_Not_Kill_You_Makes_You_Stronger

                Re: Referendum - stupid idea

                itzman,

                To continue the theme of making assumptions about others.

                You obviously believe that you are entitled to decide for others as you know what is right for them.

                (Otherwise known as 'I lost the vote BUT I am intrinsically better than you and should win by right'.)

                Note to self: Must lookup the meaning of the word Elite/Elitists as something is ringing a bell !!!

                To clarify, I have never screamed at anyone because I heard something i did not like.

                Unfortunately, I am not to sure this applies to you judging by the tone of your comment.

                [Good isn't it making assumptions on little/no knowledge of others. !!!]

            2. strum

              Re: Referendum - stupid idea

              >If the result does not please you change the voting system legally through the correct processes

              What processes would those be? Just asking.

        2. Adrian 4

          Re: Referendum - stupid idea

          Yes, we do. Because the EU's funding them because they're needed, and it can, and the government doesn't want to. We don't gain sovereignty, because our own government doesn't give us it anyway.

        3. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Referendum - stupid idea

          "that suddenly *and in many cases ALREADY* have their funding withdrawn"

          There, fixed that for you.

      3. Adrian 4

        Re: Referendum - stupid idea

        I think the 350 million (or was it billion ?) figure is the difference between contributions and subsidies. But anyone who believed that difference was going to go into the NHS should be automatically prevented from voting. Any money saved (and there won't be much) will go to the government of the day's usual favourite causes.

    2. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Referendum - stupid idea

      The reason we needed a referendum is that only one party of loonies actually had "leave the EU" on their manifesto. They didn't get more votes only because the blue liar party promised a referendum to defuse the issue at the General Election.

      Otherwise, ALL other parties (red liar, yellow liar, etc) are Euro-Enthusiast.

    3. GhilleDhu

      Re: Referendum - stupid idea

      Someone has already suggested prosecuting Nigel Farage for Fraud -

      https://www.change.org/p/the-metropolitan-police-prosecute-nigel-farage-under-the-fraud-act-2006

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Referendum - stupid idea

      "It is an abrogation of government responsibility to hand over a decision to the population many of whom have little or no knowledge to make an informed decision."

      They made an informed decision. Your side had BOTH parties informing/scaring them endlessly. You still lost.

      "Too many people were lied to regarding putting £350 million/week into the NHS"

      UK's expected to pay about 10.8 billion *net* into the EU, i.e. about 200 million a week. Gross payments are 17.8 billion (= 350 million/week) inline with Farage's comments and after the rebates we contribute around 250 million. It shows the net flow of money and illustrates the unpleasant truth you don't want to face: We pay a shitload simply to be in the EU that represents a net overhead on trade export with the EU. While other countries receive that as a subsidy representing a trading advantage to those countries.

      http://www.statista.com/statistics/316964/net-contributions-to-eu-budget-by-united-kingdom-uk-to-eu-european-union/

      "The lying Brexit politicians should be investigated for defrauding UK citizens and damaging our economy."

      GCHQ have some answering to do regarding their surveillance of Brexit supporters now that we know that's the majority of Britain. Which pro-EU secretary of state gave the go-head to spy on opposing politicians during a referendum? Theresa May? Cameron? Hague? Who?

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Referendum - stupid idea

        "We pay a shitload simply to be in the EU that represents a net overhead on trade export with the EU"

        And that shitload of money primarily goes to ensure that european countries settle their differences without resorting to trade or hot wars.

        And that the EU is self-sufficient in food.

        The UK could have stayed out of the EU, but it would have gone even further up shit creek than it already had at the time it joined. "Made in Britain" was a warning label indicating badly designed, unserviceable devices shoddily assembled by a resentful workforce (ie, "avoid like the plague") and businesses (or govt departments) in former commonwealth countries only bought the stuff if a gun was held to their collective heads.

        As an example of how much of warning label: When New Zealand gave Japanese cars the same import tarriff as British and Australian ones in 1971, UK cars went from ~40% of the market to under 3% in 12 months. The stench was so bad that when GM tried to revive the Vauxhall brand in the late 1990s, noone would buy the cars until the badges were replaced with Opel ones.

        Even that "great british institution" of rolls royce wasn't immune. My local mechanic services a couple of 1973 rollers and he regards them as badly made pieces of shit.

      2. strum

        Re: Referendum - stupid idea

        >We pay a shitload simply to be in the EU

        And we will now pay a shitload of money to the EU, in order to be able to trade with them (and we won't got much back).

    5. Concerned Bystander

      Re: Referendum - stupid idea

      "It takes people with experience, knowledge and good judgement to analyse issues."

      Unfortunately, we have politicians instead, as most of the people who fit your description are working in the (rather more lucrative) private sector.

  9. wolfetone Silver badge

    To be honest it's all a futile exercise.

    The MP's will vote against it, because they have to do what's right for the country and their conscience. Not what the people want. Because in fairness, if the MP's did what the people want, they'd have moved the UK to Spain because everyone was sick of the weather.

  10. Bernard M. Orwell

    "Any petition with more than 100K votes is considered for debate in parliament, irrespective of its merits either way."

    not *precisely* true, I fear. The actual legislation says: "Petitions which reach 100,000 signatures are almost always debated. But we may decide not to put a petition forward for debate if the issue has already been debated recently or there’s a debate scheduled for the near future."

    I also believe (though can't immediately source) that there is a clause allowing petitioner debates to be set aside if there is insufficient time/persons available for the select committee.

    In other words, they have get out clauses ready to roll.

    [Sauce: https://petition.parliament.uk/help]

    1. SundogUK Silver badge

      "if the issue has already been debated recently"

      Like, we had a referendum or something like that...

  11. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
    Flame

    (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

    It was a bloody stupid idea to hold a referendum when the electorate were split 50-50 and it could have gone either way. A vote today would likely give a different result and possibly do so for every vote held subsequently.

    This isn't the way to decide on the most fundamental matters which affect not just Brits but Europe and the wider world. It was always clear that half would not be happy no matter which way the vote went. All it has done is polarise people and create division.

    In some cases such can be the trigger for civil war. I hope we will be lucky and escape that. Will only have to suffer the break up of Britain, the collapse of the EU, and decades of global instability.

    I am not happy with what has been done. And it seems many of those who brought us this result are no longer happy either. I believe we should have another referendum or we are in danger of following a path we don't want to follow any more.

    1. Chemist

      Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

      "I believe we should have another referendum "

      My guess is that after extensive negotiations we will end up with a worst deal than we have now, the Brexiteers will have to man up and either recommend continuing with membership or having a referendum or general election on the issue.

      1. Cynic_999

        Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

        Whilst in the plane, the passenger was unhappy because his route was being dictated by the unelected pilot. Instead of attempting to find out the reasons why the pilot was taking the plane in a direction that did not appear to be ideal for the passenger, the passenger decided to jump out in the belief that he could then go whichever way he wanted. After jumping out however, the passenger was most surprised to learn that his route was now being dictated by an equally unelected law of gravity, which appeared to be taking him in an even less optimum direction than the one the pilot had chosen ...

        1. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

          Do fuck off.

          We decided the pilot was a commie wanker, threw him out and took over the plane ourselves.

      2. itzman
        Trollface

        Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

        My guess is that after extensive negotiations we will end up with a worst deal than we have now

        Of course we will. the price of 350m a whatever and unlimited Latvians serving you Starbucks overpriced pathetic excuse for coffee, was for free trade.

        Since we decided in our xenophobic racist way that the game wasn't worth the candle, and the EU brought us nothing else of benefit at all, that's the EUs only bargaining chip.

        So we trade under WTO rules same as the rest of the world.

        Its no big deal

        The fall in the pound already means our exports are better placed than before, and if german cars go up 10%, well buy a Jaguar instead.

        "Good car to drive, after a war"

        And if the mortgage on your Provençal property just got massive well my heart bleeds for you, you selfish unpatriotic bastards, You could have invested that in a British company,

        And if the French repossess it, well there you go, That's the sort of reason we left the EU innit?

        Its full of racist xenophobic frogs and krauts after all.

        .

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

          Well I suppose we still make cars in the UK.

          Mind you with parts bought from Robert Bosch GmbH...

        2. strum

          Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

          >So we trade under WTO rules same as the rest of the world.

          Totally unrealistic. You can't replace 45% of your export market in 5 minutes (or 5 years, maybe 50 years). You need to build sales networks, distribution channels, personal trust relationships and lots more.

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

        "My guess is that after extensive negotiations we will end up with a worst deal than we have now,"

        The Greek Scenario.

        And you're correct.

        To stay in the EU, the UK is going to have to give up most (if not all) of the concessions it previously had.

        And that's not going to stop the banks moving. They've already started the machinery for doing so.

        1. MrTuK

          Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

          "And that's not going to stop the banks moving. They've already started the machinery for doing so." - well any business they do here in the UK they will pay the TAX on, with no dodgy tax havens like in Denmark etc to hide under as we will be outside the EU so you will pay UK tax without discounts same will go for Starbucks etc

          Everybody seems to think that its the poor person's fault at the bottom of the Chicken feed ladder and

          maybe you are right, maybe they can't afford to get on the damn ladder !

          Oh bully for you that you will have to get a visa to goto France or Spain for holiday, well same goes for you, some people can't even afford to goto Bognor Regis for Holiday so stop complaining.

          Better to get the pain now because when the EU goes down the toilet maybe you will be thanking Brexit voters or maybe you will just be saying "Yeah, I thought Brexit was such a good idea thats why I voted Leave EU"

          All these damn remain losers that demand a 2nd referendum - WTF, do you get a new Election if your Team doesn't win - NO, so why should you get another referendum because it didn't turn out the way you wanted ?

          And just because there are Xenophobic idiots out there with there racist's attitude - so what - Hang em by the lamp posts thats what I say and see how quickly they love thy neighbour after that, damn racist bastards I hate it that the leave campaign was run like that !

          There are actually some people who understood why they actually voted the way they did, what pain would possibly be in for the country and knows that the pain we go through will make us stronger !

          If Scotland wants to leave UK for the EU, make em pay for a new Northern Border Wall first !

          Any EU country that wants to turn this EU exit into a bad divorce then fine, but be careful what you wish for !

          Wow - that was a rant !

          Now have a nice day :)

      4. SundogUK Silver badge

        Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

        Economically, we will almost certainly end up worse off than we are currently. Good thing we didn't vote leave for economic reasons.

    2. inmypjs Silver badge

      Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

      "A vote today would likely give a different result and possibly do so for every vote held subsequently."

      How the f**k do you know? Gawd am I sick of the remainers still trying to justify their loss by claiming the beleavers are regretting the mistake they made or are stupid or racist.

      Reality is the remain side had the huge advantage of status quo, lack of (short term) risk, almost all politicians, large businesses, even sodding Obama telling telling people to remain and still they lost.

      I think there was rather more strength behind the leave vote than the small winning margin indicates.

    3. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: (1) Jump out of plane. (2) Check for parachute.

      Wah!!! I lost, so I want to change the rules...

      Piss off.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

    The thing about adding arbitrary minimums is they have unintended consequences.

    Would Scotland like it if the UK decided that there needed to be a minimum electoral turnout of 75% and at least 60% in favour of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom so they can stay in the EU? - *forgetting that Scotland will need to quit EU along with the UK to then re-join the EU as a new member state*

    Referendums like General Elections are based on a simple majority. The recent Austrian election was based on a small handful of votes, like it or not, this referendum had a majority of over 1.2 million votes...

    The hand has been dealt, lets now get on with it and make the best of it.

    1. Kubla Cant

      Re: The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

      Definitely not. The 60%/75% rule only applies to referenda that return the wrong result.

      1. Serif

        Re: The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

        Just what I was thinking. So how about we have a second referendum (to overturn the current result) with the 60%/75% rule in place so things are nice and fair? No? Thought not.

        If the result of the referendum is ignored then can you imagine how many votes that's going to send in the direction of UKIP next election.

    2. Adrian 4

      Re: The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

      "Referendums like General Elections are based on a simple majority."

      No, they're not. They favour established parties and require not a simple majority (more than half the electorate vote for an MP) but merely that one candidate gets more votes than any other single candidate. If they actually required a majority, I doubt we would get any MPs elected at all.

      1. itzman
        Mushroom

        Re: The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

        If they actually required a majority, I doubt we would get any MPs elected at all.

        Pure Genius!

        I think you should get a Nobel Peece prize for that.

        After all how many wars are NOT started by politicians?

        WE have been getting this wrong. To ensure peace in Europe, we dont need to get rid of the nation state, but the politicians!

        Stands to reeson dunnit?

        And lets face it, the bigger the nation state, the bigger a war you can have! Look at Iraq. One Hell of a fine big Halliburton shaped war! Plenty of money to be made supplying the army with the tools of the trade..

        World peace achieved by abolishing the USA and the EU and all politicians!

        you know it makes sense.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

        "If they actually required a majority, I doubt we would get any MPs elected at all."

        You would. The MMP model works fairly well at ensuring concensus politics is the order of the day.

        The reality is that The Conservatives and Labour have been swapping places in the driving seat with both getting 33-35% of the total vote each (ie, around 2/3 of the voters NOT voting for whoever "wins")

        In that sense you can say the referendum is much fairer than a general election. I voted remain, but we're stuck with the result and the fallout from it - which will be harsh no matter whether the UK remains or exits the EU (If it exits, it gets shafted. If it remains, it loses all special concessions)

        I suggest that people start patching the canoe, locate a paddle, turn back downstream and get a decent navigator. It's one thing to keep digging when you're in a hole and another when it's the hull of the boat and shit creek is 40 fathoms deep.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

      In the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, the Government chose to ignore the result since it was only a 51.62% win on a turnout of 64% ..... a strikingly similar % of the actual Brexit vote split if not quite so good turnout.

    4. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

      This.

    5. strum

      Re: The next question is whether the UK should add this min limit for next Scottish IndyRef?

      >Referendums like General Elections are based on a simple majority.

      Nope. The first Scottish devolution referendum required a 40% (of electorate) minimum. So, a majority vote in favour was cancelled out by the rules.

      The Brexit vote would not have passed such a threshold.

      I'm old enough to remember when most of the world was ruled by dictatorships, of one sort or another. Most of them held regular referendums to give their putrid regimes legitimacy. The first rule of referendums - don't call one unless you can be sure of the result.

  13. Wo

    I added my name to the petition in the hopes that future referendum(s?) will include such a sensible clause. I'm aware it is far too late for this one, but this is a good way to show that most people agree that this is a practical approach for the future. But it should always be a one time referendum. If the results are inconclusive then the politicians should resolve it as per normal issues.

    I also think that this issue should never have been put to referendum in the first place.

    I am a British citizen, but do not live in the UK.

    (I hope my name is not removed)

    1. itzman
      Holmes

      RE: For next time

      Of course, once exited that will effectively prevent us from ever going back in, since the petitions calls for a referendum that is about as much uses as write only memory

      After all, if 66% of 72% is achievable and on the cards, you dont need a bloody referendum in the first place

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Agree totally, exactly same situation for me. In need of dumping UK citizenship now most likely in favour of local EU or some other EU nation citizenship. I would go Russian but the population here wouldn't like it and I would permanently need visas the same as being British will do now. And no, I don't make stacks of money, I have an EU wife and child.

      1. itzman
        Facepalm

        What?

        I have an EU wife and child.

        That sucks. Its that a treatable condition.?..I had a ghastly wife, but she was human.

    3. MrTuK

      I agree with you but only if voting was mandatory with a min of £1000 fine if you don't vote !

      So with 30% of voters not voting that will pay for new hospitals etc 15m x £1000 = £15Bn

      Although I won't put my email etc to the petition just incase some idiot in Parliament thinks I'm voting to remain !

  14. Howard Hanek
    Childcatcher

    A Modest Proposal

    It's "......lets eat the children" time again in Great Britain. Let's replace all laws and elections with a system that gauges emotional metrics to be under the supervision and control of Liberals and Leftists. That should solve ALL our problems.

    1. itzman
      Boffin

      Re: A Modest Proposal

      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a bloody instructional manual.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A Modest Proposal

      Britain doesn't have the American political buzzword "liberals", wrong country and wrong dialect. And lumping those in with the vague term "leftists" doesn't make you sound particularly British either.

      It makes you sound like Pat Buchanan or Ann Coulter.

      Britain does have Lord David Steel originally from the "Liberal" party though - perhaps rather more Conservative than you were thinking? Brits have heard of neo-liberal economics and neo-cons though?

  15. Aodhhan

    It's not democracy when...

    ...people who aren't elected make the decisions.

    ...people who make decisions don't listen to those who live in the respective location, country, etc.

    ...there isn't a large vote on a decision, which includes representatives who look at how it affects people in a certain area.

    ...leadership over-plays hype and uses fear to overcome popular ideals of the people.

    Once the general population loses voice on any decision affecting the nation at large. You've lost democracy. I say democracy is worth any pain you may endure so long as the people maintain a voice.

    A few ignorant leadership members in Brussels wants to make decisions about a country without providing any extra resources or money to deal and support their decision. So now a tax has to be levied to support it. Taxation without representation.

    I say, KUDOS to those who voted to get away from EU. It takes bravery to face the fear which has been shouted and threatened upon the people. It takes intelligence to see thru the BS.

    1. tfewster
      Facepalm

      Re: It's not democracy when...

      Yeah, how dare Cameron, May, Farage and Johnson do stuff that screws over the North West! They weren't elected, they were appointed by the elite!

      Oh, did you mean the EU President - elected by the 28 heads of state? Or the MEPs, a proportionate number of who come from the UK? The EU in general, who are above petty regional politics and work for the greater good? Using a truly democratic system instead of the ingrained class-systems of some of their member states?

      True, it takes a bit of knowledge to debunk the BS.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's not democracy when...

      You have to trust the people because otherwise you have an elite sticking guns in people's faces, and STASI spooks spying on their internet to spot dissent.

      That's why spooks are always prevented from spying on their own country in free democratic countries.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's not democracy when...

        Heh, you think so.

    3. strum

      Re: It's not democracy when...

      >...people who aren't elected make the decisions.

      You do realise that Strasbourg is significantly more democratic than Westminster?

      1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Re: It's not democracy when...

        I really like the democratic bit where the EU Commission writes laws and decides whether or not to include amendments proposed by elected MEPs.

        True democracy involves no demos. We must learn from our late EU rulers.

        1. strum

          Re: It's not democracy when...

          >I really like the democratic bit where the EU Commission writes laws and decides whether or not to include amendments proposed by elected MEPs.

          Yes. So unlike our dear Civil Service, who would never do such a thing.

          1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

            Re: Re: It's not democracy when...

            If you don't know how Parliament works, it's best to look it up before committing yourself to further snipey asides that reveal your ignorance.

            1. tfewster
              Coat

              @gazthejourno Re: It's not democracy when...

              Two excellent bits of advice there. Please try following them yourself. And if you can't - please sign in as yourself rather than as an El Reg representative.

              --------------->

        2. graeme leggett Silver badge

          Re: It's not democracy when...

          For some legislation this appears to be true, much like statutory instruments in the UK, it bypasses the ordinary MEPs.

          Though it requires the council ( a body of elected heads of state and heads of elected governments) to vote on it - which is also democratically representative though a bit more removed from the electors.

          All other EU law has to be approved by the elected European parliament

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Legislative_procedure

  16. smartypants

    Hard to work out what is worse

    Is it the hacking of a petition whose worst outcome is a load of MPs having a debate, or is it the duping of an entire population into an act which unravels 40 years of cooperation with our friends across the channel - something that cannot be undone, and is will plunge us into recession?

    Oh hang on, no. It's easy.

    "Let's give our NHS the 350 million the EU takes each week" - "vote leave, take control"

    http://www.wired.co.uk/article/vote-leave-wipes-website-after-brexit

    And hate crime on the rise. Who would have thunk it.

    1. itzman
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Hard to work out what is worse

      And hate crime on the rise. Who would have thunk it.

      "IN my heart are two wolves, one is dark and the other is light,and they are always at war"

      "But which one will win Oh great Shaman?"

      "Whichever one I feed..."

      Irrespective of who started it, this has been a campaign of utter violent hatred. Mostly from the 'remain' camp. who have been absolutely unrelenting in their attack on the morals, motives and intelligence of anyone who voiced concern about the EU.

      Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.

      Those the sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

      Any pleas for an actual reasonable rational approach or even a clear simple description of how the EU actually works have been met with scorn, derision sound bytes and obfuscation. In truth one suspects that no one actually KNOWS how the EU works, and the most telling comment I have had amounted to 'its all very complicated, too much for your pretty little head which is why we need experts like me to tell you how to vote'. Yeah, and you wont come in my mouth either, and you will still love me in the morning, and the cheque will be in the post too.

      Quis custodies custodiet

      et

      Cui Bono?

      As an engineer something that is so complicated that it cant be described, cant be analysed and is unreliable and unpredictable and not fit for purpose.

      So I voted to leave it. This is no way to run a continent, and its failed to deal with a debt crisis, a migrant crisis, and its failed to deal with a plebiscite by making it perfectly clear why it was a better solution than brexit.

      Perhaps it is, but project fear and relentless ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority and countless straw men just piss me right off. I wanted information, what I got was agitprop.

      And I am afraid the only statement that seemed to be reasonably true was from the Leave campaign that said 'if you want information all you will get is agitprop'.

      And now the final indignity, that after we have had the bloody thing, serried ranks of people who seem to have even less conscience than they have honour, are trying to either reverse the result, or ensure that it is a total failure, simply so that they can say 'I told you so'.

      If that is the quality of people who support the EU., I dont care if I lose my entire life savings. I would rather be a pauper outside of such a corrupt and dark club, than be a member.

      Feed the dark wolf if you must, and let him win, but you will live to regret it.

      1. strum

        Re: Hard to work out what is worse

        >"Whichever one I feed..."

        Overwhelmingly, the Leave campaign have stoked fear of immigration - and it is that which is showing England's dark side.

        The Leave campaign also consistently lied about how the EU worked, pretending that EU had no democratic controls at all, that the 'unelected' Commission ran everything.

        No. Don't try to blame xenophobia on those trying to work with our fellow humans. Blame those demonising some of them.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nothing about this was right

    The reason the referendum was staged was wrong (internal wrangling)

    The timing was wrong (internal wrangling)

    The question was wrong (internal wrangling)

    The qualifying age was wrong (internal wrangling)

    The (mis)information given by both sides was wrong (internal wrangling)

    Parliament should have been made to debate this issue over and over until they came to a sensible recommendation to put to the voters, that is what we pay them for. Then their decision should have been expressed in as clear a way as possible, then put to a referendum without the carp expressed by the self interested moneyed organisations on each side. If their recommendation was rejected, either take stock of what the electorate have told them and amend the proposal or call an election where a new parliament can put forward a proposal. These roughly 50:50 decisions are no good for either side, look at Scotland or look at Farage's statement that a 48:52 split vote would not be sufficient for him to stop calling for an exit.

  18. Infernoz Bronze badge
    Holmes

    Bots could be blocked by a unique checked page token, possibly from variable sources.

    If the returned token doesn't match what is expected, the request fails. If too many fails, escalating IP address bans and IP address range bans too.

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Bots could be blocked by a unique checked page token, possibly from variable sources.

      Petitions pages already require email confirmation.

      banning based on "too many requests from an IP" take no account of ISP proxies (of which there are many in the UK)

      Captur pages can be subverted.

      1. MrTuK

        Re: Bots could be blocked by a unique checked page token, possibly from variable sources.

        With a Domain name so can Email addresses !

        I have a rule that all emails are forwarded to where ever I want - irrespective of the email address it is sent to and so I have unlimited email addresses !

        To be honest this should have had NI number verification so the NI could only be used once and would have to match up with the name and address supplied !

        Because all other methods can be circumnavigated !!

  19. Atilla_the_bun

    The UK laws are bound by the principle of 'parliamentary sovereignty', where elected officials can change the laws and vote of 'stuff' that contradict previous parliaments, not referenda (yes, I prefer the Latin plural).

    Those elected officials will have to vote on this decision (unless I am very much wrong) and IMHO the former prime minister should have forced his own party to trigger a general election on this issue as soon as the results were in on Thursday. Then the electoral process, which elects officials in the way it does, will elect MPs who decide the future according to the laws of the land driven, not what looks like an unruly mob. Just my 10p worth.

    1. Teiwaz

      Another Election?

      "IMHO the former prime minister should have forced his own party to trigger a general election on this issue as soon as the results were in on Thursday. "

      Damn right, the referendum showed that the electorate and the party in the majority are not on the same wavelength at all, to continue without a clear mandate with a substitute PM for the whole rest of the term is unreasonable.

    2. SundogUK Silver badge

      "...an unruly mob"

      The people of the the United Kingdom, you mean?

    3. strum

      >yes, I prefer the Latin plural

      There is no Latin plural. 'Referendum' means 'that which is to be referred'. It has no plural.

      The English word 'Referendum', however, may have an English plural (or you can pretend to be a classicist and make yourself look stupid).

      1. Vic

        There is no Latin plural. 'Referendum' means 'that which is to be referred'. It has no plural.

        Errr - are you sure?

        It's been a few years since I studied Latin, and I have had a few beers tonight, but I can see no reason to discount a plural gerund in this case, even if the gerund is often used in a non-countable context.

        If you can correct me, I'd be happy to learn something new...

        Vic.

  20. Tony W

    Is there a technical issue here?

    There are plenty of places to argue about the referendum and its result. I've done my share but I'm not going to do it here. I'd just like to know how petition signatures are checked for validity. Are names and postcodes checked against the electoral register?

    1. itzman
      Big Brother

      Re: Is there a technical issue here?

      Its pretty easy to check for valid postcodes and even addresses - after all this is information in the public domain, but I am less clear that there is central electoral roll, or if the software exists to consult it in the time available since the issue arose.

      Therefore I surmise that '65,000 fraudulent entries have been detected' means little more than what it say. There may be 3 million, but we have only identified 65,000 to date'

      And I cannot believe that this is even receiving serious consideration. Project fear seems to have struck home completely but only in about one third of the population.

      WE are leaving the EU. Like most political decisions that make a difference it's a step into the unknown. Life is not all gay marriages and foxhunting. I dont recall us having a referendum on going to war in Iraq. Project fear worked then on a cowed house of commons. The people were not consulted.

      AS with any such a decision, you make it to the best of your ability with the information you have, and if that information is not supplied then the decision will be made in relative ignorance. However having made it, you must move on and make the best of it.

      The unbelievable whining and spilt milk toys out of pram and sheer vindictive nastiness being levelled by the people who 'lost' is something more disgusting and contemptible than anything Mr Farage or Mr Johnson might have said.

      Politics has reached a new low. And the only thing to be amused by, is the sight of the two main political parties tearing themselves apart and the European Union casting around for scapegoats, and blaming each other, whilst being agreed that punitive terms of a totally irrational nature be applied to Britain for daring to desire self determination.

      If nothing else we have learnt just how rotten and corrupt the political system is, with the veil of virtue signalling moral high ground being ripped from the emperors naked torso, and the ugly sight of naked self interest ambition and greed being revealed in all its sordid mediocrity.

      "Trust us, we are the experts?"

      Expert Godfathers, possibly.

  21. ah3881

    THIS IS FALSE!

    There are 69 votes from the Vatican as of this afternoon, this is a false claim to discredit a legitimate pledge, and furthermore-the votings dropped to almost nill during EU night, then peaked again during the day.

  22. TeeCee Gold badge
    Mushroom

    Get knotted.

    We do real democracy in this country, not Eurodemocracy (tm).

    We live with the result, we do not keep holding votes until the proles vote the "right" way, as defined by bien pensant soft-left arseholes.

    I have to say that "We don't like the majority view, let's not only have another vote but also change the rules to ensure it goes our way" is a new low for Those Who Know Best.

    1. strum

      Re: Get knotted.

      >We do real democracy in this country, not Eurodemocracy (tm).

      More's the pity. Strasbourg is more democratic than Westminster.

      1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Re: Get knotted.

        No it isn't, and you look very silly working your way through the comments sections to repeat this silly untruth.

        Or do you think a system of government where just one of the three houses is elected, and where that elected house has all of the power and influence of our own House of Lords, is democratic?

        If so, I'm sure you're a great believer in the Pope as a symbol of democratically elected leadership.

        1. strum

          Re: Get knotted.

          >Or do you think a system of government where just one of the three houses is elected, and where that elected house has all of the power and influence of our own House of Lords, is democratic?

          I take it you mean the House of Commons (largely appointed by party apparatchiks), the House of Lords (largely containing party apparatchiks) and the Crown - not elected or appointed by anyone.

          Compare this with the Council of (elected) Ministers, the European Parliament (elected by Proportional Representation) and the Commisssion - with Commissioners appointed by national governments.

          I know which one I regard as more democratic.

    2. codegazer

      Re: Get knotted.

      @TeeCee can you explain for all our benefit how the UK House of [unelected] Lords is democratic?

  23. CCCP

    Be careful the company you keep

    A lady in our village protested on FB "Voting leave doesn't make me a racist".

    The reply was "No, but all the racists voted leave."

    1. Wandering Reader

      Re: Be careful the company you keep

      Well yes, because that reply was made by someone who thought that the political and financial elites that supported the Remain campaign are virtuous in all respects.

  24. Mr Dogshit

    So what?

    1. It's not my fault the stupid website doesn't even have a Captcha

    2. Millions of people are exceeding pissed off that we're all going to face decades of pain just because some people believed the lies spun by Farage, Gove and that other arse and voted Leave like the dumb sheep they are

    1. MrTuK

      Re: So what?

      Wow, please can I see into your crystal ball of unfathomable knowledge to know that it will be decades of pain, because you are so obviously so knowledgeable ?

      Yes there will be pain, just as Ireland has had when it joined the Euro and everyone complained that prices almost doubled over night !

      The pound has gone down from $1.50 to $1.33 and E1.31 to E1.20 since the referendum so approx 10% so far, maybe it will go down even further or maybe it will start to rise, but to have the audacity to say decades - are you just saying this to hopefully scare people into wanting another referendum to undo what was done or are you just trying to make people feel bad and sad like you obviously do.

      Currencies change all the time up and down when it goes up you can purchase more with the money you can lay your hands on because imported products should drop in price or when it goes down you can purchase less, but conversely when the £ is worth less then we can sell our products easier abroad so for whats bad for one is good for another and vice verse !

      The voting has been done, live with it - move on,

      Just remember the Politicians are always laughing no matter what results happen as they still get paid and a damn good wage for all the lies and fear they spread !

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like