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

Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#11

Post by elastic_church »

cletus wrote: post #10
fastball wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what happens when you let your city become an investment vehicle.

The problem with London is not property investment per se. It's that property is essentially used for money laundering [1]. If you're a US tax resident or citizen then you're used to filling out onerous reporting documents (FBAR and possibly 8938 as well) on foreign assets. Real estate holdings has zero reporting requirements. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/london-prope...

Same in the US. The real estate industry lobbied for an exemption from AML/KYC reporting requirements.

If you don't need a mortgage, then you show up with a cashier's check or briefcase full of cash, sign papers in the name of an LLC or Limited Company and now you have a house in the anonymous shell companies' name and clean money.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#12

Post by Symmetry »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #6

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed to be representing the electorate, shouldn't it have been pretty straightforward that the corresponding bill would pass largely unchallenged? If it had failed, how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions?

In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget.

Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the electorate that votes based on "Has my life gotten better or worse since the last election" is much larger than the difference between the two sides so to get reelected MPs should vote as they think will most benefit the country.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#13

Post by throwaway91111 »

Symmetry wrote: post #12
tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #6

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed to be representing the electorate, shouldn't it have been pretty straightforward that the corresponding bill would pass largely unchallenged? If it had failed, how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions?

In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget. Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the e…

Arguably, it's better to elect flawed but representative people. How else are people to learn?

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#14

Post by GeneralMayhem »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #6

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed to be representing the electorate, shouldn't it have been pretty straightforward that the corresponding bill would pass largely unchallenged? If it had failed, how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions?

The most important reason to organize your government as a republic instead of a direct democracy is that voters can't always be trusted (a) to put the best interests of the nation as a whole ahead of their own, or (b) to even know what their best interests are. "That was clearly a really self-destructive/evil/illegal/otherwise terrible idea once we spent more time thinking about it" is a perfectly fine justification in an ideal world. In reality, of course, it would probably be very difficult to explain satisfactorily to the electorate, especially the stereotypical Brexit/Trump "low-information" voter.

One potential way to counteract this is through collusion by the MPs. If, for instance, all of Parliament were agreed that Article 50 was a terrible idea, but didn't want anyone to lose their seat over it, they could organize their votes such that they can all get out relatively unscathed. The ones from left-wing districts are probably okay either way, and then the conservatives just have to pick the handful that have the safest seats to be the nays that push it over the edge.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#15

Post by GeneralMayhem »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #13
Symmetry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget. Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the e…

Arguably, it's better to elect flawed but representative people. How else are people to learn?

People will refuse to learn either way. Better to have someone intelligent at the top protecting them from their own ignorance, short-sightedness, and pettiness than to continue to inflict those traits on everyone by having representatives be glorified remote-control pens.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#16

Post by manicdee »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #13
Symmetry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget. Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the e…

Arguably, it's better to elect flawed but representative people. How else are people to learn?

Learn what? That the slip from representative democracy to genocide-crazy fascism is one election cycle?

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#17

Post by candiodari »

Symmetry wrote: post #12
tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #6

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed to be representing the electorate, shouldn't it have been pretty straightforward that the corresponding bill would pass largely unchallenged? If it had failed, how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions?

In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget. Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the e…

So what you're saying is:

1) obviously the UK was in the EU for the past years

2) people voted against this for 2 reasons. One, they're against the EU. Two, they're not happy with how their own lives changed under 1.

3) We should ignore the second argument and go against the will of the people because ... we're smarter and think that argument is wrong ? Because their lives got worse for other reasons, not this policy ?

I disagree. When push comes to shove the government is responsible for outcomes. If your policies can't produce good outcomes for everyone, they don't deserve to exist.

And frankly, the way the EU is being run, I would vote to leave as well. Not because I'm rightist, quite the opposite. Because I'm an actual leftist:

a) the EU is an extreme right government for an electorate that is decidedly NOT extreme-right (tax income, public losses, private profits, too big to fail, DRASTIC action against asset/wealth taxes, ...)

We need a leftist government.

b) the population is right : globalization is definitely one of the factors that made them worse off.

c) the EU's monetary policy is a fantasy. The EU wants to devalue it's currency over time by giving money to the banks and taking it away from governments. This is not what their rhetoric says, but they've been doing it for 15 years now, I find myself unwilling to accept the rhetoric. The EU is built on an economic policy of asset inflation and this is clearly non-negotiable (poor Greeks).

I want out.

d) So far, by staying out of the Euro, the UK has staved off the biggest dangers of the EU monetary policy, but this can't last.

And frankly, I suspect this is at least partially what happened in the US. Trump, the republican candidate, certainly appeared to be to the left, economically, of the democrat candidate at a time when lots of people got systematically worse off. Meanwhile Hillary was proud to show that Wall Street was on her side ... And her opponent Trumpeting mostly economic arguments : jobs, not capital. Production in the US, not globalization. Well, he got elected, she didn't. Must be racism ... right ? Perhaps. I submit that Trump got far more votes from his promise to tax income less and tax imports than is generally believed, especially on this site.

I think that partially the democrats have been hijacked by this immigration, tolerance, ... ideology. It has gone too far. Traditionally, of course, the right is pro-immigration (cheap labor, acceptance of very weak employment conditions, tolerant of outright abuse and exploitation), and the left is anti-immigration, because they're trying to improve the position of the poor in society. Improving that position through scarcity of course works.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#18

Post by candiodari »

manicdee wrote: post #16
throwaway91111 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, it's better to elect flawed but representative people. How else are people to learn?

Learn what? That the slip from representative democracy to genocide-crazy fascism is one election cycle?

Could you explain how leaving the EU is genocidal and/or fascist ? How it is going to change the government in the UK ?

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#19

Post by aryehof »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #6

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed to be representing the electorate, shouldn't it have been pretty straightforward that the corresponding bill would pass largely unchallenged? If it had failed, how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions?

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. The Judiciary are independent, and only make rulings based on current law and precedent. Some sought clarification that the current Government (executive branch) could not invoke Brexit without regard to Parliament. The Courts decided that was the case according to current law, precedent and convention. The Government then put it to Parliament that they be given the power, that passed, meaning if put to the Courts again, they would have to now find in favor of the Government.

Frankly a triumph of correct process being followed, and an example of the real independence and effectiveness of different branches of government in the UK.

Parliament is the people, which is why it is sovereign. In the USA, so much power has been devolved to the executive branch (the President) by the people (Congress) that the President has increasingly become sovereign, and access to legal recourse increasingly difficult. One reason the USA is number 21 on the 2016 Democracy Index, and now in the "Flawed Democracy" category.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#20

Post by andrewflnr »

candiodari wrote: post #18
manicdee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learn what? That the slip from representative democracy to genocide-crazy fascism is one election cycle?

Could you explain how leaving the EU is genocidal and/or fascist ? How it is going to change the government in the UK ?

I'm guessing that was a reference to the US election.
Post reply on HN