British Government loses Article 50 court fight • Hacker News Board

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#151

Post by notahacker » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:52 AM UTC

bb101 wrote: post #123

Many people voted pro-Brexit in the referendum due to the increasing disparity and alienation between the ruling/political class and the rest of the country. By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen. That's a sound result for the politicians and chiefs of industry based in London, but what will it mean for the wider UK? Both the courts and parliamen…

> this is akin to Trump receiving a 52% majority by US voters (yes, 52% is still a majority, no matter how thin), and then the Electoral College deciding to vote amongst themselves instead about who becomes President: of course it would be Clinton

It's more like Americans voting in a referendum that a trade agreement with Canada should be scrapped in favour of something new, and then the Supreme Court ruling that the date of departure and negotiation objectives are set by Congress debating and voting and not by the House Majority Leader exercising prerogative powers.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#152

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:52 AM UTC

mavhc wrote: post #93

koolba wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such. It's a majority though. If they wanted to have a higher threshold for the vote (say 60%) they should have done as much when writing the referendum.

Only 27% of UK people voted to leave, out of all of them.

And only 26% voted to remain, out of all of them...

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#153

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:53 AM UTC

anon1385 wrote: post #114

avar wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The referendum to enter the EU had a 64% turnout with 67.23% voting yes & 32.77% voting no. So that's around 43% that voted to enter[1]. Regardless, I think this entire line of reasoning makes no sense. You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. That's just how democracies work, if you don't care enough to vote you don't get a say, that doesn't m…

Well, the UK has run referendums that way in the past. Most famously the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. Yes got 51.62% but did not win because there was a requirement for 40% of the electorate to vote Yes for it to pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum...

Yup. One of the reasons why referenda are such a bad idea in the UK is that every single one has been run with different rules, usually for the purpose of putting a thumb on the scale. The Brexit referendum excluded resident EU nationals - who are allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#154

Post by matteuan » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:55 AM UTC

slmyers wrote: post #55

elcct wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But whatever they call it, it is majority indeed and that's the democracy - you either accept that majority wins or well... don't know

I'm not sure if you can describe modern democracies as a will of the majority -- marijuana legalization, civil rights movements, anti war sentiments as examples.

I would say moderate oligarchies. 'Oligarchy' sounds negative, but it is not always bad.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#155

Post by matthewking » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:55 AM UTC

KaiserPro wrote: post #134

alphadevx wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has increased since the vote as the lies of the remain campaign proved not to be true. Just curious as an outsider, what lies are those?

The main rallying cry was: o there are no down sides to leaving o Leaving would give us 350 million pounds extra a week to improve healthcare o We would have a strong currency o The world would fall over it's self to give "free trade deals" to the UK o UK tourists would be able to go to the EU without a visa o No businesses would leave the UK to avoid trade tarrifs/customs hops o The UK wouldn't loose service "passpo…

These are all lies told by the leave campaign, not the remain campaign?

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#156

Post by dasboth » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:56 AM UTC

osullivj wrote: post #127

hexiedexie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6% of leave voters regret their choice according to an academic study published about a month ago, enough to swing the vote the other way.... And as the effects of a potential Brexit continue to bite, this percentage will only increase http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/brexit-bri...

There are also remain voters who wish they'd voted leave.

Source?

Edit: The study linked above [0] showed the following for voter regret (specifically "do you have doubts about the way you voted?"):

Remain

Yes / No / Don't Know

98% / 1% / 1%

Leave

Yes / No / Don't Know

90% / 6% / 4%

[0]: http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/brexit-bri...

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#157

Post by _delirium » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:57 AM UTC

zigzigzag wrote: post #138

_delirium wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a reasonable number of MPs who support compromise on free movement, i.e. leave the EU but reach an agreement with the EU similar to the ones that non-EU members Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have signed. That's one of the "soft Brexit" options. It's not guaranteed that the EU would accept this proposal, but it's something the British government could choose to seek. Whether this is consistent with the re…

There are no soft brexit options. Anyone who thinks this hasn't been paying attention and isn't aware of the facts (ironic, considering how often such people accuse others of not knowing the facts). No such offers are on the table anymore, not even to Switzerland, which has been told by the EU that there will never be any more negotiations unless they agree to replacing their current arrangements with a new one that'…

Isn't the current Swiss controversy just a simple case of Switzerland abrogating the treaty? Switzerland and the EU member states signed a treaty agreeing that Switzerland would be given access to the common market, on the same footing as if it were an EU member, in return for following the EU's common product labeling/regulation, and allowing free movement of labor between all signatories of the treaty. Then, recently, the Swiss voted in a referendum to curtail the free movement of labor. That's their right to do, but it means they're no longer honoring the treaty, so naturally they can't expect the other side to continue honoring it either.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#158

Post by zigzigzag » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:57 AM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #129

zigzigzag wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, yes. That's sort of like saying the British army ultimately answers to the Queen so the Queen could run the country as a dictatorship if she wanted to. It's not an argument rooted in the real world though. Queenie would be gone tomorrow if she tried that. The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. Most voted out and of those who voted remain, about half were motivated by simple fear of…

> The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. That's a wild overstatement - 52% of the people who voted (which was about 40% of the eligible voters) voted to leave the EU, sure, but that's not nearly "the vast majority of British voters" by a long margin. > Farage will return to UKIP and UKIP will absolutely slaughter the other parties I would put money on this never happening.

You didn't read my statement. Of those who voted, 52% obviously didn't like the EU. Of those who voted remain, about 45-50% have told pollsters they did so purely out of fear of economic consequences.

That is not "liking" the EU anymore than paying the Mafia to make them go away instead of fighting them makes you a fan of the Mafia. If the EU had committed before the referendum to striking a good trade deal with an out UK, continuing cooperation in areas where it was possible etc, then most likely leave would have won by around 80%. Which is why the EU didn't do that.

The polls are quite clear on this point. The EU has very little real support in Britain, defined as people who actually like the idea and want it to be extended further. It seems only about 20-25% of the population can be called real federalists. But basically all the EU leaders are.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#159

Post by tehwalrus » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:57 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #153

anon1385 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the UK has run referendums that way in the past. Most famously the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. Yes got 51.62% but did not win because there was a requirement for 40% of the electorate to vote Yes for it to pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum...

Yup. One of the reasons why referenda are such a bad idea in the UK is that every single one has been run with different rules, usually for the purpose of putting a thumb on the scale. The Brexit referendum excluded resident EU nationals - who are allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections.

Are they? I thought they could only vote in local authority and European elections.

Parliamentary is only British and commonwealth citizens.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#160

Post by cletus » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 11:58 AM UTC

David Cameron is really the architect of this clusterfuck. The referendum legislation should've made it clear what needed to happen.

May's position is that the PM can wake up one day and decide to irrevocably and unilaterally leave the EU. That's a ridiculous position. You can argue there was a referendum but it was non-binding.

MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland will oppose leaving as their constituents vote overwhelmingly to remain so much so that many in Scotland want to revisit the question of independence.

The leave vote was a proxy for two issues: first and foremost was immigration. The second is control of territorial waters and the resulting overfishing.

On immigration, there is no access to the single market without freedom of EU has made that clear. That will mean paying into the EU coffers too but without any voting rights. So the alternatives are both terrible (for the U.K.).

The U.K. while in the EU can and has extracted concessions on the threat of leaving. This is the best position for them. After pulling the trigger the UK has far less leverage. The EU does want access to the U.K. market but I think the U.K. needs the EU more than the EU needs the U.K.

Hopefully this decision is upheld but even the delay is good. Maybe cooler heads will prevail. An uninformed 52% fueled by a Leave campaign making a bunch of promises they cannot keep and had no intention of delivering upon (since they expected to lose) is hardly a clear mandate.