British Government loses Article 50 court fight • Hacker News Board

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#291

Post by leonk » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

ldjb wrote: post #256

leonk wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say this is more of a strategy than a plan. It's all pretty vague. It was the tories who called the referendum, and the tories who are currently dealing with Brexit. It's not Labour's job to come up with a plan (which would not get used anyway). All Labour have been trying to do is get details of the Tory (currently non-existent) plan, in order to be able to start a discussion on it. http://www.independent.co.uk/…

Labour, as the official opposition, are supposed to represent an alternative government. I think it's perfectly right to expect them to set out what they want from Brexit. However, they won't even answer any of the 170 questions they asked the government. I don't want the Conservative government to have a monopoly over deciding how Brexit is implemented. But if other parties want to have a say, then they do need to s…

I do understand what you're saying, but I would say labour are representing an alternative government. One that would not have got us into the mess that we are currently in. One that would attempt to bridge the gap between the different groups across the uk (the gap that has been highlighted by the brexit vote).

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#292

Post by M2Ys4U » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

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…

The court has said that the government can't constitutionally send a notification under Article 50 without Parliament passing new legislation.

It's not about voting, it's about the law on the statute books.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#293

Post by M2Ys4U » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

return0 wrote: post #126

astannard wrote: post #2

This put a big smile on my face. I do wonder how many people have had a change of heart after the facts came out.

Isn't the general stance still pro-brexit? If anything, this period has made brexit more acceptable to the eyes of everyone (it used to be taboo).

An opinion poll released today showed a (small) majority in favour of remaining in the EU.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#294

Post by M2Ys4U » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #238

Meanwhile for the young tech immigrant in the UK: "Well, time to move to another European country... oh wait, they're all economically f * and have no jobs for me. Well, gonna stay in the UK for a bit longer, see how it goes."

The UK is pretty much slap-bang in the middle of the table when it comes to EU economies. The idea that the UK is an economic powerhouse within the Union is mostly a myth.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#295

Post by M2Ys4U » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

KaiserPro wrote: post #281

radarsat1 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That figure was a complete and total lie, it's beyond certain that money isn't real.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#296

Post by M2Ys4U » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:17 PM UTC

antocv wrote: post #254

thesimon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even when not respecting a democratic vote The "Brexit" vote was nothing more than an opinion poll. There is no direct democracy in the UK.

Indeed. al Assads next interview "Sure, I did not win the vote, but this is not a direct democracy, the presidential ballot is mere a poll". Direct democracy for export to some (exclude Saudi), power for others. All this Brexit event just highlights the hypocrisy when calling Russian political system names and criticizing it for lack of democracy and other positive terms-on-paper.

Explicitly advisory referendums are different to elections.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#297

Post by cyphar » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

Mithaldu wrote: post #262

cyphar wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You get a fine if you're on the electoral roll but were not counted as "having voted". Since we have a private ballot system, you can write whatever you want on your ballot (so you can "abstain" by writing "fuck you all" on your ballot and it'll be considered an invalid vote). You don't get fined for placing an invalid vote, you just get fined if you don't show up (and didn't vote by post and so on).

We have many different ways of voting, so it's designed to be as easy as possible for people to vote (in contrast to what I've heard from Americans). The fines are not that bad for first-time offenders but they're large enough that it discourages people from not voting (the fine gets larger for subsequent offenders).

The rules for voting in elections and referendums are also the same (so the same fines apply).

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#298

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

DominikR wrote: post #228

tobltobs wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of "legalese bs" happens all the time in Switzerland and you won't find a lot of people believing Switzerland is on a brink of a violent government overthrow. Referendums are usually a mandate to the parliament to implement something.If the referendum idea turns out to be impossible (like eating and having your cake) then the parliament will dismiss or water down this mandate.

There is nothing impossible about leaving the EU. It's not like the Referendum demanded the UK to colonise Pluto. And its the government itself that initiated this on its terms so it should follow through on it. Not a fringe party but the ruling government parties.

> There is nothing impossible about leaving the EU.

There's nothing impossible about jumping off a cliff either, it's just inadvisable.

But of course, and more to the point of what the grandparent post was saying, if the promise was that you will happily land on a soft bed of £350 million in delicately crumpled £10 notes, then meeting that promise may be impossible.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#299

Post by zigzigzag » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

emp_zealoth wrote: post #257

zigzigzag wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response is typical of why the EU will eventually collapse in a messy way that will likely make all of Europe poorer. It is simply re-running the story of the USSR in a less extreme way. EU supporters even think of themselves as being "anti-fascist", language identical to what the Bolesheviks used in the 30's and 40's. I absolutely understand that the EU can simply "refuse to play" and that's what I expect them…

UK is bringing this on itself. I'm sorry, time to wake up from fantasyland of sovereignity. Decisions have consequences and it was rather obvious that the incentives become rather misaligned when UK decides to tell EU to go fuck itself. UK did enough damage already, the latest and most glorious example is blocking finance reform so you could protect your criminal banker city (which, ironically will probably pack up a…

That's the criminal banker city the French and Germans are so keen to forcibly relocate? Jeesh, you guys.

Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight

#300

Post by zigzigzag » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 10:03 PM UTC

sasvari wrote: post #269

zigzigzag wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is no assumption on the part of the British that a good deal for the UK is in any way worse for the rest of the EU than what they have now. Why would it be? I'm sure the UK would be quite happy with a reciprocal arrangement - UK imposes immigration quotas on Europeans and the same is true in reverse, but trade continues and other forms of cooperation continue as well. That would be best for all sides.

It's the EU that sees the world as a zero sum game: that for the EU to "win" out of this the UK must "lose". As Hollande has so memorably summed up.