The Student Room Group

One million marched, and 4.5million signatures...

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Medrat
What happened today? Serious question. If you referencing the march, the it's just a march. Nothing more. If you are referencing a petition, then it's just an online petition. Not verifiable in the same way as legitimate voting. Nothing has actually happened. People reading too much into things - and look what happened last time people over-assumed (Brexit, Trump),.


What happened is the process of the last few weeks. We will not crash out of the EU (and it is clear that if push comes to shove there would be a Parliamentary majority for revoking Article 50 if there needed to be to achieve that).. The EU will not give us even the pretence of a harder Brexit than May's Deal (that is May's failure. The EU has spent 60 years providing political cover for domestic political reasons. May may be the first to get no help). The public have given up on Brexit (that is evident by the public reaction to the political stunts:- the march, Farage's crusade, the Go Slow, the Remain Petition, May's Appeal to the Nation of the last few days)
Original post by Couragenh

Did/ is Theresa May negotiating in good or bad faith? Would the outcome of Brexit negotiations been different if Gove or BoJo had been the Prime Minister?

Those questions are too simplistic.

If you are saying vis-a-vis the British public is May trying to reach the outcome she claims to be? The answer is "yes". She is not trying to sabotage her own Deal.

If you are saying, is she being honest with Remainers, Leavers and the EU? The answer is "no". She is promising whatever will get her through the next 24 hours and is then welching on those promises in favour of her Deal.

If Gove or Bojo had been PM, would the Government still be in office?
Original post by Andrew97
Is there a prospect of that happening?


No. But people need to learn that just standing around being polite is not enough. You have to have to be able to exert political and economic leverage if you want to force those with power to do something.
(edited 5 years ago)
That's a brilliant comment.
Are you serious? Why such a large amount?
Original post by moggis
The houses in my street have gone down in value by between £40,000 to £60,000.

Not good news for oldies ,better news for younger people.
People who voted leave I feel largely (n.b NOT all) did so on the basis of misinformation and project fear. Personally leaving the EU is ludicrous but whilst I do believe there are no winners in this brexit situation and to leave the EU is a bad idea I too don't see the significance of the petition and/or march. I feel there was a large turnout because it appears to be the unlikely scenario currently. It can't be compared to if remain 'won' because the process simply wouldn't have dragged on. But comparing it to say the idea of right to vote or LGBT+ rights or right to equal pay etc etc you get the idea (contentious topics too but for the sake of argument assume they are all equal). If we were to organise a march next week for each of these rights there would be a far fewer turnout in the current state compared to if those rights were threatened to be removed for example?
I think it's all about perspective, maybe a naive misinterpretation but heyho we'll have to wait to see the outcome of this and pray :smile:
Original post by Couragenh
the so-called undemocratic EU institutions are frustrating the intentions of UK leaving (eg, No Common market without Free Movement).

No common market membership without free movement -- yes that's correct - no country in the world has such an arrangement, and in the reality which exists outside of Boris Johnson's fantasy land, no such arrangement ever has been possible, nor likely any time soon. That's just one among many false-claims made by the Leave campaign in 2016.

I am actually at a loss as to why anybody actually believed the Boris Johnson lies like this in the first place, given it was bleatingly obvious at the time that the EU has never had any reason nor incentive whatsoever to offer such a special-treatment deal to the UK - and certainly not while also allowing the UK to stop paying money into its budget and setting all of its own rules, etc. There was just never any way for the UK to keep its Common market membership without free movement; such an outcome was always off-the-table even before the Referedum because that kind of deal just isn't in any of the interests of the other EU27 countries.

The EU were (and still are) very open and receptive of giving the UK a kind of Canada-style agreement which would provide some sort of access (albeit far less privileged than the UK's current terms) to the single market without membership, but the UK refused because it violated one of Theresa May's many impossible/contradictory Red Lines that she decided to lay out in order to appease the extreme hard-right-wing of her own backbenchers.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by winterscoming
The EU were (and still are) very open and receptive of giving the UK a kind of Canada-style agreement which would provide some sort of access (albeit far less privileged than the UK's current terms) to the single market without membership, but the UK refused because it violated one of Theresa May's many impossible/contradictory Red Lines that she decided to lay out in order to appease the extreme hard-right-wing of her own backbenchers.


What was the deals terms and why did they refuse it?
Original post by TheStupidMoon
What was the deals terms and why did they refuse it?

What deal are you talking about?
Original post by winterscoming
No common market membership without free movement -- yes that's correct - no country in the world has such an arrangement, and in the reality which exists outside of Boris Johnson's fantasy land, no such arrangement ever has been possible, nor likely any time soon. That's just one among many false-claims made by the Leave campaign in 2016.

I am actually at a loss as to why anybody actually believed the Boris Johnson lies like this in the first place, given it was bleatingly obvious at the time that the EU has never had any reason nor incentive whatsoever to offer such a special-treatment deal to the UK - and certainly not while also allowing the UK to stop paying money into its budget and setting all of its own rules, etc. There was just never any way for the UK to keep its Common market membership without free movement; such an outcome was always off-the-table even before the Referedum because that kind of deal just isn't in any of the interests of the other EU27 countries.

The EU were (and still are) very open and receptive of giving the UK a kind of Canada-style agreement which would provide some sort of access (albeit far less privileged than the UK's current terms) to the single market without membership, but the UK refused because it violated one of Theresa May's many impossible/contradictory Red Lines that she decided to lay out in order to appease the extreme hard-right-wing of her own backbenchers.


Most of the ERG members I've heard speaking about it prefer the Canada+ option.

https://dma.org.uk/article/a-canada-brexit-deal-what-would-it-mean
1 + 4.5 < 17.5


Did remainers go to school?
Reply 31
I think all of this stuff has been a complete waste of time.

A Government that doesn't implement the will of the people expressed in a referendum is playing with fire. Equally, a "second referendum" on whatever form that takes is precisely the sort of behaviour British people have complained about in the EU for generations: vote as many times as it takes to get the "right" result.

So while the People's Vote people have been trying to block Brexit or, rather, pretend it's realistic that it won't happen, we have been driven further into hard Brexit territory. When the Prime Minister set out her red lines in the Lancaster House speech, there was barely a credible opposition to it: the opposition, in the form of Jeremy Corbyn, were utterly useless.

Where were the voices pointing out that a huge number of Leavers had pointed to the examples of Norway and Switzerland? Or that they had overly said leaving the single market was ridiculous? Or that a pretty narrow victory for Leave calls for a bit of reaching out to the wider nation? There was no-one credibly pushing for a sensible Brexit. I can understand why: sensible, moderate options don't build passion and the disconnected elements of the electorate barely notice. But it really ought to have been someone's duty.

Now, no matter what, we have the hard Brexit mob seizing the narrative, suggesting that an EFTA-type arrangement would be a betrayal and that we would be "rule-takers". Then the PM's deal starts looking like the soft option because we have given these swivel-eyed ********s a clear run to do and say what they like, only being contradicted by an equally depressing set of pie-in-the-sky People's Vote prats.

I'm annoyed.
Just watched the footage and that is never 1m people, the organisers were very liberal with their guestimate.
Original post by ColinDent
Just watched the footage and that is never 1m people, the organisers were very liberal with their guestimate.


Most organisers' estimates of attendance at any uncounted event are too high, so the odds stack that way.

Most really big demos end in one of the royal parks. Nothing else is big enough. Hyde Park has held over a million

Parliament Square like Trafalgar Square is licensed for 20000. Trafalgar Square is thought to physically hold about 60000, so if you say the same number for Parliament Square, where were the other 940,000?
A part of me thinks that these protests will actually lead to us being more likely to leave..

If your a brexit no, whose been turning down mays deal.. seeing these protests and the rising tide of remaining, is only going to motivate you to give in and take what ever exit you can, rather then holding out and watching the country shift further towards remain
The petition is jumping a couple hundred signatures every minute.
Original post by tazarooni89
Because firstly, the 17.4 million who voted Leave did so almost three years ago. It is far from clear that all of them still want to Leave


And, of course, you recognise the opposing side as well: Over ten million fewer people signed the petition to stop Brexit than voted against Brexit in the first place.

It is far from clear that all of them still want to Remain.
Reply 37
Original post by (づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ
The petition is jumping a couple hundred signatures every minute.


You don't say...Sounds like the whole world has a perspective on Brexit.
Original post by Couragenh
So one million marched and 4.5million people signed the petition in the course of a few days...That's a huge number. But, why should we take that number seriously, but not the 17.4 million who voted Leave in a single day?


How can we be sure on the accuracy of the counts? Are all 4.5 million signatures from British nationals exercising their rights? Are the “1 million” marchers British nationals? I know Belgians and Danish people at my uni, who joined the March and shared photos on Instagram.

The number that we can accurately believe in is the 17.4 million people who voted to leave.

I think many people are tired of the rubbish. Those, who felt that they had the chance to make a real democratic decision, have now realised that the whole thing was a sham. Brexiteers, who I have spoken with, cannot be bothered anymore. If another referendum comes up, they would most likely vote to leave again.

I think this shows how many lies we have been told by the people we voted for. An elderly gentleman once told me that the Government does not care about the people. I thought he was insane, but I guess he was right.
(edited 5 years ago)
Well, unless you get 17 million signatures... it does not matter.

Quick Reply

Latest