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

281–290 of 316 posts

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#281

Post by KaiserPro »

radarsat1 wrote: post #219
KaiserPro wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There hasn't been enough time yet (and brexit hasn't even actually happened yet) to prove or reject a single one of those points.

Yup, on most points you are indeed correct.

However the 350million is almost certainly not going to happen. Mainly because even if we managed to not pay a single pound more to the EU (thats a big if) that budget would be needed for farming subsidies, science, grants and weird legislature functions currently provided by the EU

I'd also wager that globalisation is not going to be rolled back, especially looking at the three pricks "running" the negotiations

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#282

Post by _delirium »

tom_mellior wrote: post #275
vixen99 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly - so we should disregard the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up in 1975 to what was then the embryo EU - though only those experienced in deciphering subtexts in official documents really understood at that time that federation was the real goal not merely the establishment of a free trade area.

> the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up You seem to be trying a reductio ad absurdum argument here and failing. The UK joined the EEC in 1973, without a referendum but based on an act of Parliament. In 1975 they held an explicitly non-binding referendum that supported staying in the EEC. In other words, that referendum voted to maintain the status…

The court also relied somewhat heavily on a more specific feature of UK constitutional principles: that if Parliament has granted a right to British citizens, only Parliament itself may revoke it. The European Communities Act 1972, the court held here, has the effect of granting certain individual rights to British citizens (such as a right of appeal to various EU courts). As these were granted by an Act of Parliament, they can only be revoked by another Act of Parliament, not by a decree of the Government. Therefore the European Communities Act 1972 must be properly repealed by Parliament, not de-facto rendered inoperative by action of the Government.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#283

Post by jamie_ca »

midgetjones wrote: post #38
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MP's are in a hard place because of this. The majority of them are pro-remain, having concluded that brexit is damaging and dangerous and cannot result in a better deal. ... but they will be whipped into line by government (Tory) and party leadership (Labour) insisting that they follow the settled will of the clear majority of the people ... but the will of the people is neither settled nor a clear majority.

I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.

Agree. With a 72% voter turnout, it's better described as a 38-34 result. (based on 52.7 and 47.3 from bloomberg)

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#284

Post by ricksplat »

ricksplat wrote: post #237
gsnedders wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no real way to define what "Leave" means: clearly it means ceasing to be a member of the European Union, and the only means provided for that is Article 50, but beyond that the UK does not have the power to decide unilaterally what "Leave" means (as it requires coming to an agreement with the Council of Europe), and therefore any referendum in the UK could not decide what "Leave" means.

Begging the question: What exactly does "ceasing to be a member of the European Union" mean? What I mean is, there was a whole sales pitch during the campaign about what it might mean (e.g. more money for the NHS) which we all found out subsequently to be tosh. Now we have: "Free trade but not free travel" or something to that effect. Never was such detail ever discussed prior to the referendum.

Downvoted clearly because somebody thinks I misused btq. Read again parent poster clearly assumes the premise.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#285

Post by framp »

zigzigzag wrote: post #85
zimpenfish wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and the referendum was purely advisory which means they can do whatever they wish.

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…

I think you're example is misleading.

The Queen becoming a dictator is completely different from the Parliament doing what it should do.

To keep it simple: This is a democracy, which means every citizen is giving away his/her power to a selected few.

The Parliament - the people you voted, more or less directly - has to act.

An ADVISORY referendum is going to be used as an ADVICE. The Parliament has to act - considering the people's will AND what makes sense for the country.

This mechanism is in place to protect you from direct democracy - which doesn't make sense because: A. People are easily manipulated - especially in a world where TV and internet make spreading information really easy B. People can choose to vote randomly, erratically C. People can have a different level of understanding on delicate matters - depending on their education and background

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#286

Post by framp »

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…

Because it's an advisory referendum. Also, UK is not a direct democracy.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#287

Post by clort »

vermontdevil wrote: post #196
midgetjones wrote: post #38

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.

Decisions like this should require a 2/3 yes vote. Raise the bar higher if something this big would have a long lasting impact.

In 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' if I recall correctly, it was suggested that if 1/3 of the population really wanted a law then it should probably be enacted. Conversely if 1/3 of the population really didn't like one then it should be repealed. I always thought Heinlein liked the thought of a state of anarchy though and I haven't tried to work out if he would induce one by his suggestions..

[] its been nearly 40 years since I read it

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#288

Post by makomk »

ricksplat wrote: post #227
jleask wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the meaning of "Leave" was left so vague was with hindsight reckless. It allowed the leave campaign to bring together all the various differing factions as they could all believe it meant what they wanted it to mean. I can only assume the government was so confident it would win that it went for an option that gave the best soundbite and best opportunity to shut up the euro skeptics in the Conservative party.

Have a look at this https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-refe... It makes for fascinating reading. It covers the data science angle of how the "Leave" campaign operated. Basically yeah, they just figured out iteratively what a possible "Leave" constituency might want to hear and just fed it to them. Details shmetails. By far the most illuminating piece I've read on the phenomenon and I think it goe…

That's the usual modern approach to campaigning, and the one Clinton has been taking. Trump is of course too ill-disciplined and unreliable to manage this kind of clever political triangulation; he just seems to make stuff up. May the best liar win!

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#289

Post by ricksplat »

makomk wrote: post #288
ricksplat wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look at this https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-refe... It makes for fascinating reading. It covers the data science angle of how the "Leave" campaign operated. Basically yeah, they just figured out iteratively what a possible "Leave" constituency might want to hear and just fed it to them. Details shmetails. By far the most illuminating piece I've read on the phenomenon and I think it goe…

That's the usual modern approach to campaigning, and the one Clinton has been taking. Trump is of course too ill-disciplined and unreliable to manage this kind of clever political triangulation; he just seems to make stuff up. May the best liar win!

The beauty of trump is he has no encumbrances. He can literally say whatever he wants with no consequences. When his analysts tell him "this will really get the yokels going" he can just go ahead and say it. He doesn't have to worry about any spinning plates in the background.

But that's all he is. Just words and bluster. Hillary like her or loath her has substance.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#290

Post by akytt »

vixen99 wrote: post #220
mavhc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The 17 million votes for Leave was the largest vote ever cast in Britain for anything at all in the entire history of the UK. Blair swept to power in 1997 with 13 million votes. The Conservatives got fourteen million in 1992. With 16 million voting for Remain, putting it to the courts was a recipe for confrontation. Nothing has ignited the British people as much as this issue. Big trouble ahead.

There's a view that Trump is but a big "fk you" towards the liberal elite that has drifted too far from the blue-collar folks they have failed to support in dire times. The UK situation would seem to be similar. Thus the key question is "did the elite get the message and can/will they do anything about it?" If yes, the society will go back to normal. If no, the rift widens further as the society is divided into radical camps. Which, by the way, would suit the neo-russian message of "the west is doomed, we are the saviour" message very well.
Post reply on HN