Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British Government loses Article 50 court fight

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 316 posts

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#261

Post by ldjb »

throwaway-hn123 wrote: post #251
ldjb wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how I'm moving the goalposts. All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected. General election results must also be respected, but they revolve around a number of issues, so are not a good indicator of voters' opinion of membership of the EU. Besides, the Conservatives were elected into government with a manifesto promising an in-out referendum. The government has delivered on that prom…

> All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected. It is being respected. This might be news to you, but we don't live in a fascist dictatorship where dissent is forbidden. So, in your view, not a single thing any government has done (with the exception of joining the Common Market) has been agreed to by the population. Interesting.

Things such as the NHS, the minimum wage and same-sex marriage are things governments have achieved with overwhelming support from the people. But it's true that the people didn't have a direct say on these things. I don't see it as a problem though because, unlike the EU, the majority of people are perfectly happy with these things.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#262

Post by Mithaldu »

cyphar wrote: post #165
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…

> You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. Not in Australia. Here we have compulsory voting, and referendums have to have a double majority in order to pass (so there's no question about whether the majority of the people actually wanted the change). So multiplying by voter turnout would not meaningfully change the results (voter turnout is >95…

How are voters compelled in practice?

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#263

Post by lmm »

joosters wrote: post #161
lmm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of Conservative MPs and Conservative voters opposed Brexit. A general election would force the Conservatives to adopt a manifesto position on Brexit and be held accountable for the consequences of that position. It may not be a victory against Brexit, but it's a victory for democracy.

Since when have party manifestos been used to hold political parties to account?

It's up to voters to do that. I've certainly had conversations with other voters on the extent to which a party delivered on its previous manifesto.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#264

Post by arethuza »

joosters wrote: post #258
arethuza wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I recall the only time manifestos come in play in the political process is during the passage of a bill through the House of Lords - they "will not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention Note that this appears to be a "constitutional convention" rather than a hard and fast bit of law.

That's interesting, I had never heard of the convention before, thanks for mentioning it. However, it is specifically about the house of lords not blocking government manifesto promises. I was more thinking about the opposite, i.e. a government not going ahead with their manifesto promises.

Do you really think any politician would introduce legislation requiring manifesto promises to be implemented? :-)

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#265

Post by DocTomoe »

michaelt wrote: post #31
nicolapede wrote: post #15

I think it was quite arrogant from Theresa May to decide not to involve the Parliament in the first place. People did not give a blanket mandate to her for implementing whatever she thinks Brexit means.

The article says parliament will get a vote on whether to invoke Article 50. As I understand things, there was a vote on leaving the EU, and the UK voted to leave. And as I understand things, there's only one way to leave the EU, and that's by invoking Article 50. Seems to me that means there was a referendum on whether to invoke Article 50, and people voted to invoke it. Why should MPs get to block the referendum re…

> As I understand things, there was a vote on leaving the EU

You understand incorrectly. A referendum has no legal binding in the UK, it is essentially the government asking the population what to do - it might decide to ignore the results altogether.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#266

Post by blue1 »

gsnedders wrote: post #206
agd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's still likely that they will vote to invoke Article 50, but the leeway they have is with amendments. E.g. Is there enough support for an amendment requiring the UK to stay in the customs union? Possibly.

Staying in the EUCU requires consent of the Council of Europe—Parliament can put in primary legislation that they wish to remain in the EUCU, but they have no power to enact it. You cannot make Article 50 conditional, as once the notification is sent you cannot unsend it—you are stuck with whatever is agreed between the state and the Council of Europe (or nothing, if no agreement is made within two years, or longer w…

The European Council. The CoE is another body, not part of the EU.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#267

Post by [deleted] »

gsnedders wrote: post #206
agd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's still likely that they will vote to invoke Article 50, but the leeway they have is with amendments. E.g. Is there enough support for an amendment requiring the UK to stay in the customs union? Possibly.

Staying in the EUCU requires consent of the Council of Europe—Parliament can put in primary legislation that they wish to remain in the EUCU, but they have no power to enact it. You cannot make Article 50 conditional, as once the notification is sent you cannot unsend it—you are stuck with whatever is agreed between the state and the Council of Europe (or nothing, if no agreement is made within two years, or longer w…

[deleted]

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#268

Post by Veen »

zigzigzag wrote: post #234
Veen wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves Of course I believe that. Everyone who isn't a rabid libertarian or anarchist believes that, whichever side of political spectrum they come from. I imagine you believe it too to some degree. In representative democracies we don't rule ourselves, we choose the people who will rule us, which isn't the same thing at all. There's a lot of valid argum…

That's ridiculous. Just look at Switzerland. Dozens of referendums a year, pretty much the opposite of anarcho-libertarianism. The richest and most successful countries also the ones that tend to use referendums a lot, have lots of checks and balances and don't simply "choose rulers" to the extent practically possible.

They don't rule themselves either. They're ruled by the decisions of the majority.

Direct democracy has its place, but that place isn't the UK, which is a parliamentary democracy. It's an arrogation of parliament's responsibility to make decisions based on referenda.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#269

Post by sasvari »

zigzigzag wrote: post #125
sasvari wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK Would you care to elaborate?

If the EU was in any way serious about continuing to collaborate with the UK after the vote, they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification, as the guy who wrote Article 50 has said it was deliberately designed to never be used. It's not a workable mechanism for leaving. In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened and refusing to talk about anything at all until notification, thus doing their utmost…

I find it kind of amusing that for some/a lot of commentators (from the UK) it is ok for UK politicians to only try to get the best deal possible for the UK, whereas when EU officials and/or representatives from the other EU27 state that they will do the same for the EU/their country/interests, it is considered screwing over the UK. This argument can easily be turned around from the point of view from people living in the rest of the EU, just as a hint.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#270

Post by sasvari »

DocTomoe wrote: post #128
sasvari wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK Would you care to elaborate?

Well, for one, the EU has (understandably) choosen very anti-Brexit negotiators, hinting at hard and unfruitful negotiations. I guess the UK would have loved if the EU sent Faragne...

Do you mean the current UK government did not put anti-EU negotiators in charge of handling this issue?
Post reply on HN