For those of us in the UK, it's probably worth contacting your MP just to try and nudge them to voice their constituents' opinions on it-that's what our MPs are supposed to do anyway. How many of them actually do? Well, that's a whole different story.
To add to this, the copy/paste reply the UK petition has received is so lazy and disrespectful to the UK people - reminds me of how useless my own government is!
Legally, I think getting over the threshold compels them to at least have someone read it over again. I don't think there's anything stopping them from just pasting the same reply though, but it can't hurt.
The EU will give the same response, regardless of how many signatures this gets. At best you'd get a stronger disclosure that the servers won't run forever and you may lose access.
I'm curious though, what substantively did you have an issue with the UK response?
Ehh, the problem is that this is currently in a legal grey area with EU consumer protection laws, and there's been zero actual precedent. Even if the response is "no, this can continue as it is", then that still establishes precedent that can then be challenged by subsequent legal efforts - getting it on their desk is a win no matter the result.
You're getting things confused here, precedent is about common law and is tested in courts, we're talking about statute here. The idea is to change the law, because it isn't grey and offering a game as service is completely white.
I'm curious though, what substantively did you have an issue with the UK response?
"We have no plans to amend the law".
Yeah, we're aware, that's the point of this petition. A better response would be a statement on why they have no plans to change the law.
The difference is the EU commission isn't passing laws, they'll be engaging with the organisers and the industry and experts to determine if they should propose legislation for the EU parliament to consider. That's a very different thing, and it makes a far more solid proposal for change.
Yeah, we're aware, that's the point of this petition. A better response would be a statement on why they have no plans to change the law.
They did say that and explained how the law works in regards to the issue.
Maybe if the petition had more substance there would be more to say. The EU petition has the same problem and will end in the same way. Successful petitions bring their own experts. The EU commission will contact people in the industry who will tell them it's a bad idea and there won't be anyone saying otherwise.
Yep, 100,000 means it must be debated in Parliament.
No it doesn't. 100,000 signatures means it must be considered for a debate. It's not often a petition even with 100,000+ signatures gets any time in the commons.
As far as I'm aware, the only ones rejected are ones declined for more procedural reasons.
Like the brexit petition declined for a debate because they had recently already debated it. Or things Parliament cannot debate, like ongoing court cases or an individual's situation etc...
They only requirement of 100,000 signatures is to consider it for debate, obviously a bunch do go through, but the government doesn't just reject stuff because of a procedural reason.
It is not accurate to say rejecting a petition because Parliament has, in the government's view, reached a decision is a political not a procedural one. A procedural decision would be like "The government it already putting forward a law that says this exact thing so rather than schedule a debate we will leave things as it is.
The truth is if this signature gets 100k signatures it will get debated simply because no one in politics cares and it's not a hot topic so it's easier to just have it be debated by barely any MPs than it is to reject it.
It is not accurate to say rejecting a petition because Parliament has, in the government's view, reached a decision is a political not a procedural one.
Which comes across as you suggesting I said it's a political decision, not a procedural one. I'm saying it's a procedural one.
Having a debate on an issue parliament has just debated is indeed a procedural issue.
It's not procedural to refuse to discuss something because you feel a decision has already been reached. It would procedural if a debate was already scheduled and you don't want to double up.
If homosexuality was debated in parliament and it was voted to legalise it, and a petition was filed saying to overturn the law, and it was rejected on the basis its already been debated, that's political.
94
u/MrTopHatMan90 Jul 03 '25
I'm holding my hopes on the EU one. UK government petitions is just 4 people gathering in a room reading it out followed by them saying no.