7mo ago

Petition Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible

petition.parliament.uk Petition: Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible

I believe joining the EU would boost the economy, increase global influence, improve collaboration and provide stability & freedom. I believe that Brexit hasn't brought any tangible benefit and there is no future prospect of any, that the UK has changed its mind and that this should be recognised.

Europe @feddit.org

UK Parliament will debate a petition to join the EU on 24 March 2025

petition.parliament.uk /petitions/700005

283 25

Europe @feddit.org

Petition to "Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible" hit 100k signatures

petition.parliament.uk /petitions/700005

147 18

UK Politics @feddit.uk

20k Signatures until MPs are forced to debate it parliament

Petition: Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible

petition.parliament.uk /petitions/700005

90 23

You're viewing a single thread.

32 comments

TBH I hope the EU rejects them if they do apply.
- As a British citizen, I hope that they are accepted, without any of the special concessions Thatcher handbagged out of Delors, and with the proviso that they adopt the Euro and enter the Schengen zone.
- Why? Half the country voted to remain. It's not our fault the other half are fucking morons. Make us adopt you euro, I don't give a fuck
  
  Half the country voted to remain.
  Firstly, not everyone in the country votes. The turnout for the EU referendum was only 72.2%.
  Secondly, of the non-spoiled ballots, only 48.1% were in favour of remaining. Which is not only much less than half the country but a good 1.9% away from the minimum 50% required for your statement not to be bollocks.
  
  Woww 48.1 truly is sooo far away from 50% and not at all within a margin of error.
  You know what they meant, don't be pedantic.
  
  a margin of error
  What do you mean?
  You know what they meant
  Yes and I responded appropriately.
  
  Not the op you responded to.
  But
  First 72% is actually a huge turnout compared to pretty much any vote in the last 50 years.
  The 28% that did not vote cannot be used to argue either side of the vote. As such they must be assumed to divide as the vote was.
  Same with 1.9 % spoiled ballots. As we do not have any legal none of the above option. You have absolutely no way to decide that 1.9 % between those who support or don't. So again statistically they have to be divided as those who successfully voted are.
  This is exactly why we do not count non voters or spoiled votes when deciding on an election. If 1.9% was significantly higher then other election or 72% significantly lower. Maybe some data might make sense. But the result would still be the same without further info. You would still have no ability to use them as a rejection or support for the vote.
  
  72% is actually a huge turnout compared to pretty much any vote in the last 50 years
  That doesn't contradict anything I said.
  As such they must be assumed to divide as the vote was.
  This is a non sequitur.
  Regardless, OP was talking about votes explicitly.
  
  Bollocks is it non sequitur.
  Non voters cannot be counted as objectors or supporters. Other then to assume the same divide as voters. Maling every comment you made statistically irrelevant to the result you are doubting.
  If you fail to understand statistics please avoid discussions that are entirly about statistics.
  
  Non voters cannot be counted as objectors or supporters.
  We don't have to count them as anything.
- Why? It's a win/win for all the same reasons the UK should have never left.
- The EU definitely wouldn't let us back in, it was hard enough for us to get in the first time.

32 comments