Marching for People’s Vote on Saturday could change history

by Luke Lythgoe | 16.10.2018

This Saturday will see the biggest People’s Vote March yet. Thousands of people will be assembling from 12 noon along Park Lane in London, ready to march on Parliament Square to demand the final say on the Brexit deal. This is our chance to change history. Here are five reasons to turn up.

Everything’s to play for

Brexit is by no means a done deal. Theresa May is struggling to get her Cabinet to agree to a deal she had been close to clinching with the EU. The chances of getting it past opposing factions of MPs is even less likely. But the country faces chaos if we crash out of the EU with no deal at all.

There’s an alternative: letting the people decide whether they want this Brexit mess after all.

  Join us at the  

  March 23rd | Noon | Park Lane, London  

MPs must be convinced people want a People’s Vote

It will be MPs who decide whether there should be a People’s Vote. Making a bloody big noise on the streets is a good way to get their attention.

Momentum keeps building

Over 100,000 turned out for the first People’s Vote March in June. Since then support for the campaign has ballooned. Polling shows significant backing for a People’s Vote across the country, with particularly strong support from young people, women and Labour supporters.

The entire Brexit debate has shifted. The media is talking about a People’s Vote as a real possibility. May herself namechecked the campaign in her Tory party conference speech – a sure sign the government is rattled.

People from all walks of life will be there

Young people will be front and centre. But this march is for all age groups, from toddlers to World War II veterans. Several groups will have their own sections: Women for a People’s Vote, LGBT+ for a People’s Vote, NHS Against Brexit. Celebrity backers have reached into their pockets to fund coaches to bring people from across the country. Why not make a banner to let people know how far you’ve travelled or why you’re marching for a People’s Vote?

This is too important to stay at home

Brexit will hurt our country for generations to come. What’s more, democracy is not one vote, one time. When the situation changes, people have the right to change their minds. So gather your family and friends, and demand a People’s Vote this Saturday.

Edited by Hugo Dixon

22 Responses to “Marching for People’s Vote on Saturday could change history”

  • Bully for the march – three coachloads signed up from Oxford. But the people must be able to vote remain and not just a paralysing soft brexit.

  • Those of us who cannot for some reason join the March in London should show their support by writing to their MPs pointing out the democratic virtues of the vote when the deal is agreed

  • You should ALL have the democratic vote taken away from you….we voted OUT and out it should be ! The reason the majority of young people who are wanting to stay in the EU is because they are a generation who have been educated by the Fabian system in our schools and universities…and the LGBT is just another of their ‘front’ manipulated groups created by the New World Order elite (George Soros to name one) to get out on the streets to make up numbers to fight for their NWO agenda ! WAKE THE F–K UP ! We need to UNITE against those who DIVIDE us so that they can stay in power!

  • Any speeches, banners and placards must not miss the crucial point ‘option to remain’. It is absolutely vital this point stands out and the message to the government is clear, we are not protesting for a vote on the bases of just ‘deal or no deal’.. People’s vote with ‘option to remain’ please make it known.

  • Tony,
    Correct, taking the vote away from a certain section of people does sound a bit fascist but so too is it when denying a full and fair democratic decision by trying to change the result. Also the idea that the result was achieved by lies and deception is utter rubbish. In fact most of the deception was from the remainers side with their biblical prophecies of doom come a leave vote. People were able to weigh up the arguments through endless a debate and come to an informed decision.

  • Seriously Christine,
    Is that satire?

    First off, a “People’s Vote” is just a way to readdress the idea of whether Brexit was a good idea or not.
    If you still think it is, then vote Leave (again). But the British public should be allowed to change their minds (or not) given the information revealed since the original vote.

    As arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage said: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.”
    We’re just agreeing with his premise, but on the opposite side of the debate. 😛

    Secondly, I’ve never understood the argument against a unified global government.
    I mean we already exist in a globalised world, with shady multinational corporate entities not paying their taxes and moving jobs to foreign lands so they can pay their workers a pittance.
    And then you’ve got environmental issues like human-accelerated climate change.

    So yes, we need global governance (or at least global co-operation) to solve those problems.
    I mean, provided we elect the correct people, and not just corporate shills. But that’s another argument.

    (And the EU ain’t even pan-European. Yet. One can dream.)

    And sure, that shouldn’t be done at the cost of local communities. And yes, local problems can’t be fixed with one-size-fits-all policies.
    But that doesn’t mean we should just ignore the larger-scale problems altogether.

    The only people dividing us are people like you.

    (Whether I’m young or not, I’ll leave up to you. FYI, I’ll be 34 next month. So probably not.)

  • Peter,
    At some point, hopefully soon, you will come to see that not everyone approached the Referendum with your perspective, and with hindsight feel that they were lied to. Prophecies of doom attributed to Remain are exaggerated, because they were dependent on the immediate triggering of Article 50, which was a ploy by David Cameron whereas in fact it was delayed. Forgive me, but I have yet to see anything good come from the Brexit vote. The recent rise in race hate crime is being attributed in part to the Brexit vote, because the more extreme individuals now think they have licence. The pressure to reconsider the vote is gaining popularity as a result of the failure of the Brexiteers to create anything like a positive future for the UK. We now know there will not be £350 million pounds a week extra to the NHS. A cross party committee is in the process of examining the claims of Leave and it looks like not a single one of them will be achieved. As John Major stated in his excellent article, The Brexit promises were of no substance, but just politics.
    You might like to argue that £350 million claim had no effect on the way you voted. That might be true for you and ‘X’ others, but isn’t true for 17.4 Million people. I would not claim for 1 second to speak for all Remain voters and you should accept you cannot speak for all Leave voters. Many know they were lied to.

  • On a planet with finite resources, Capitalism requiring infinite economic growth, an ever increasing population of wage slaves and mindless consumers is UNSUSTAINABLE. The EU is an enthusiastic and ideological agent of global capitalism and as such, ( regardless of whether it is economically, politically, socially or culturally desirable) is itself, clearly UNSUSTAINABLE. A second EU referendum to obtain a different outcome will critically undermine the democratic process and have dire unintended political and social consequences for the UK. If a second referendum on EU membership goes ahead it will signal an end to the process of democracy. A terrifying prospect indeed. Be very careful what you wish for!

  • Jim,
    Clearly you cannot be a fan of the ‘Global Britain’ vision embraced by the Government then. Do you think Liam Fox and Jacob Rees Mogg are not capitalists? I see far more evidence that the EU is prepared to adapt and act reasonably than the proponents of Brexit. You just underline the problem with Brexit as it cannot please everybody. With regard to democracy, many leave voters want the right to change their minds. I think they have a right to because I believe in democracy.

  • Tony,
    I really believe you and the other EU zealots on this forum are deluding yourselves.
    I have not noticed any real change in attitudes from the people I speak to apart from annoyance and anger that our departure has not yet been sorted.
    I have also noticed virtually no change in the way people go about their lives and certainly no real antipathy towards foreigners (and I live in a very working class area). A second vote will not help! Regardless of the result it will just inflame entrenched positions.

  • We voted leave, no bloody second vote we have a democratic country the people have voted that’s the people’s vote. Who the hell is going to pay for the second vote, not the government. But us the tax payers this all could cost us at least £10 million anybody out there of you remainers want to dip your hands into your pockets and pay for it, I guess not so just crawl back into your little holes and get a life we’ve VOTED end of

  • Peter,
    I don’t consider myself a Zealot. I don’t think the EU is perfect and agree it should be willing to change.
    However, I think its right that people should have been given a vote on the basis of an honest view of what our EU membership means. People didn’t get that from the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. They are still not getting it. Theresa May is in the ridiculous position of wanting all the benefits of EU membership because she knows how damaging it will be without them, whilst not wanting to accept any responsibilities. That’s not only my view, that’s how it looks to most outside observers. You could say “So what?” ,but presumably you can see these are the people we hope to strike new trade deals with in the future.
    I don’t doubt the people you talk to share your views, but the danger is that you think you speak on behalf of the whole group of leave voters. You don’t.
    The only way to see who is deluded would be to have a further vote. Society has already been damaged by Brexit. An honest dialogue and further Referendum without phoney information might be a step to heal the divide. Pushing ahead with bodged Brexit certainly won’t. The working class people, who you live amongst will be the hardest hit by the consequences of Brexit. It will increase the price they pay for their goods, and inevitably cost jobs as Manufacturers decide to move to mainland Europe owing to the increase hassle in their Supply chains. The HM treasury reckons that even the most optimistic view of Brexit would leave our economy 2% smaller than if we remained in the EU. That might not sound much but it would covert to several £1000 per year per person. In comparison someone earning £30000 per annum is currently contributing about £30 a year to the EU budget. This is just one the impacts of Brexit that the Government don’t want people to understand.

    Finally just to remind you of what Brexiteers claimed before the Referendum:

    Achieve the “exact same benefits” as we get from EU membership
    Be fully negotiated by March 2019
    Produce a dividend from Europe worth £350m per week for our NHS
    Result in new trade deals from day one after leaving
    Deliver more jobs and higher wages across the UK
    Mean no payments for access to the Single Market
    Ensure an end to free movement in March 2019
    Fully protect the integrity of the UK
    End austerity

    By any fair reading we are headed for something very different.

  • The purpose of this is not really to have a second referendum but to stop Brexit as the headline at the top of the page proclaims. The call for a “people’s vote” then is merely a means to an end rather than a genuine attempt to establish or confirm the will of the electorate. Which begs the question what if Leave win again? Will The Pro EU campaign then think of another way of stopping Brexit once democracy has been shown not to suit their purpose?

    And what if Remain were to win this time? Would that trigger a third referendum (a tie breaker) or would a 1-1 draw be enough to keep us in a political union that we never voted to join in the first place? And would the pro Brexit side be able to challenge the result (as Remain are now doing)? Would we be able to have a third vote after a similar amount of time?

    Or is it all a case of one rule for them, another rule for us?

  • @Tony

    UK contributions to the EU budget are 1% of the country’s GDP, not of one’s salary.
    and with the rebate, it’s actually even less.
    for example, the UK government’s budget is circa 600 billion pounds, but receipts from tax income are less than 30%.
    on a GDP of around 2000 billions pounds, the UK should send technically 20 billions as contributions, but pays only around 12-13 billions once the rebate has been calculated. and once payment by Brussels for European programs are factored in (regional development, support for farmers and fishermen, education and research …), it’s really more like a net 6-7 billions that are transferred over.

    6-7 billion pounds net a year out of a GDP of 2000+ billions. more like 0.3%-0.4%.
    in salary terms, that means a contribution a bit less than 0.05% per salary on average.
    in your case, someone earning 30k a year, would pay the UK government and national insurance around 6k, of which 15 quids would be send to the EU to help promote economic development in (mostly) Central and Eastern Europe, and economic and political stability in the countries neighbouring Europe (north Africa, Levant and Eurasia/Caucasia).

    that’s peanuts when compared to say, how much the UK has spent for military expenditures on the Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria operations since 2003 (and with no return but a worsening but a degradation of both international security and UK military preparedness)

  • here is an article from 2013 that tries to estimate the cost of those military operations at around 33bn pounds (and that was 5 years ago)


    but understand that it is a very conservative estimate that mostly only look at the immediate costs of deploying troops, not of the need to replace materiel because of usure or how to retain qualified personnel (recruitment targets have been consistently missed for the past decade), much less of the lost economic output that all that money could have contributed if spent as proper investment in the country and abroad (the reasons why some people estimate the cost to the US of the Iraq invasion to be over a trillion dollars)

  • Tim,
    I can’t speak for everyone, but my opinion is if there was a further referendum Leave with ‘No deal’ would have to be an option. If a clear majority wanted that option after a fairly run campaign as I see it there would be no legitimacy to debate it further. I actually think the 2016 referendum was a poor way to decide our future as it reduced a complex issue to a binary choice. As a result some voted for Brexit because they wanted to protest against the Governments austerity measures. In many other ways the government used our EU membership as a scapegoat for all the nations ills. My hope has been that somewhere along the line someone would have had the humility to admit that they had been responsible for a large amount of slight of hand with data to deceive the public. To date right from the Prime Minister down there has been an unwillingness to do this. I guess their political careers are more important to them than the future wellbeing of the country. As a nation we have come to accept the dishonesty of Politicians as being the norm. Why?
    With or without Brexit we will have to face the facts that we have the power to go a long way to correct the issues that cause the most hurt to our nation without looking for someone else to blame.

  • Getting a Peoples Vote also depends on having the chance to make amendments to the Brexit Bill, and this week Dominic Raab tried to make this harder by forcing just 2 options, i.e. the Government’s Take It or Leave It No Deal options. By denying the chance of amendments e.g. to allow a Peoples Vote, it would be anything but a “meaningful vote” which is what Parliament has been promised. This was a pretty devious and underhand manoeuvre by Raab (no surprises there). The Pro-EU Tory rebels led by Dominic Grieve had a motion for this which unfortunately they backed down from at the last second, on the basis of promises made by the Government that a meaningful vote would be forthcoming.
    Looks as though Grieve and Co. expected too much in the way of integrity and honesty from the Government, who just appear to be exploiting the situation with another of their dirty tricks. just the latest example of them trying to by-pass the will of Parliament.

  • All people change their minds at times about various issues, if they don’t it is a sign that they are not growing.
    Why is changing ones mind a problem? When new information appears people re assess and they would be crazy not to.
    The original vote was not well organised and it is unusual that ‘Leave’ was’ considered to be a victory since it did not receive 60% of the vote. Furthermore, those who actually voted leave comprise 37% of the complete electorate only, therefore, 63% either voted remain or neglected to vote. Hardly a victory.
    Remain should be an option people have as there are many voters who have changed their minds and others who would ensure they voted given a second chance.
    Parliament changes its mind at times why should the people not be afforded this privilege?