Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#21

Post by flukus » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:19 AM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #17

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…

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…

> 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.

This is something people are missing about the "alt-right" movement, it's not particularly right wing economically, it's certainly a different beast from the neo-cons. In Australia our equivalent is probably the one nation party, but they are to the left of our Labor party.

> 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.

Yes, the left needs to go back to it's base and represent the working class. They've put for too much energy into playing wedge/identity politics and lost the working class to the likes of Trump.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#22

Post by generic_user » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:19 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

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?

> how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions? Sometimes the electorate requires protection from itself; the idea is not new (below History Stack Exchange answer references James Madison). "It is arguably the most famous of The Federalist Papers [1]. Madison argues that society is undone by faction" defined as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majorit…

Article 50 is part of the Treaty of Lisbon. Any member state can trigger article 50 and leave the EU. The time to debate whether or not article 50 was in some way a tyrannical or unjust was during the crafting of the law. So we can assume that it was deemed acceptable and agreed by the member states.

If your claim is that article 50 is tyrannical then the Treaty of Lisbon itself should be changed to remove article 50. Barring that, I don't think there is legal standing to try and prevent article 50 from being triggered. It was put to a popular vote and the PM is respecting the will of the citizenry.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#23

Post by Veen » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:24 AM UTC

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?

MPs represent constituencies in parliament. Many constituencies voted overwhelmingly to remain, which is why some MPs, especially on the labour side, felt they couldn't vote for the the bill.

Some, like Ken Clark, have been pro-EU for decades and simply believe Brexit is the wrong thing to do. He opposed the referendum. If you strongly believe something to be a terrible mistake, should you support it just because it's popular?

The UK isn't a direct democracy. We vote for the people who will make decisions on our behalf. I'm glad there are politicians who refuse to follow a marginally popular opinion because they believe it's wrong. That's their job.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#24

Post by untog » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:44 AM UTC

mbroncano wrote: post #9

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?

On a related note, it doesn't say much of the representative nature of the chamber that the vote doesn't reflect the split hair referendum result.

Of course not - the parliament is based on constituencies, not direct representation. Much like we saw in the US last year, it is possible to win a majority in a UK election while losing the popular vote.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#25

Post by untog » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:45 AM UTC

elastic_church wrote: post #3

H4CK3RM4N wrote: post #2

This will have huge implications for tech industry in the UK with drawing employees from the EU becoming a lot harder, as a result of uncertainty over visas if nothing else.

such that London software engineering salaries will no longer be comparably pitiful to America's?

That's the optimistic view. The pessimistic view is that a lot of multinational companies will leave London, driving down demand for developers (and, well, everyone else)

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#26

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:46 AM UTC

generic_user wrote: post #22

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions? Sometimes the electorate requires protection from itself; the idea is not new (below History Stack Exchange answer references James Madison). "It is arguably the most famous of The Federalist Papers [1]. Madison argues that society is undone by faction" defined as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majorit…

Article 50 is part of the Treaty of Lisbon. Any member state can trigger article 50 and leave the EU. The time to debate whether or not article 50 was in some way a tyrannical or unjust was during the crafting of the law. So we can assume that it was deemed acceptable and agreed by the member states. If your claim is that article 50 is tyrannical then the Treaty of Lisbon itself should be changed to remove article 50…

My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate morally; I don't believe I took a stance either way on Article 50.

The public referendum was non-binding, and legally, can be ignored.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#27

Post by elastic_church » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 6:03 AM UTC

cletus wrote: post #5

elastic_church wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

such that London software engineering salaries will no longer be comparably pitiful to America's?

Upvote. Not sure why you're getting downvoted because you are correct: London salaries are pitiful even before you factor in the enormous cost of living there (I lived and worked in London for 4 years but did contracting as the salaries even 10+ years ago were and are a joke comparatively). It's one reason I and many others work in the US instead. No idea what Brexit will do to relative incomes. It depends on what ha…

Simply put, I would not code for other people at the salaries that Romanians accept.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#28

Post by generic_user » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 6:09 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

generic_user wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 50 is part of the Treaty of Lisbon. Any member state can trigger article 50 and leave the EU. The time to debate whether or not article 50 was in some way a tyrannical or unjust was during the crafting of the law. So we can assume that it was deemed acceptable and agreed by the member states. If your claim is that article 50 is tyrannical then the Treaty of Lisbon itself should be changed to remove article 50…

My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate morally; I don't believe I took a stance either way on Article 50. The public referendum was non-binding, and legally, can be ignored.

But the topic of discussing is article 50. So I am contextualizing your post with the current topic.

> My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate

I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost.

So again in the current context there is little evidence of a 'tyrannical majority'.

I'm not saying that your points are not valid in the abstract. But in the current discussion of article 50 and Brexit I do not see much evidence that the process or result could credibly called into question.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#29

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 6:15 AM UTC

generic_user wrote: post #28

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate morally; I don't believe I took a stance either way on Article 50. The public referendum was non-binding, and legally, can be ignored.

But the topic of discussing is article 50. So I am contextualizing your post with the current topic. > My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there sid…

> I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on that. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost.

Again, it was not a legally binding referendum. The government is free to throw the results out.

Politicians must be ready to sacrifice their political career to save the electorate from its own self-destruction. Simply because the people vote on something doesn't mean you give it to them.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#30

Post by kodfodrasz » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 6:24 AM UTC

elastic_church wrote: post #27

cletus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvote. Not sure why you're getting downvoted because you are correct: London salaries are pitiful even before you factor in the enormous cost of living there (I lived and worked in London for 4 years but did contracting as the salaries even 10+ years ago were and are a joke comparatively). It's one reason I and many others work in the US instead. No idea what Brexit will do to relative incomes. It depends on what ha…

Simply put, I would not code for other people at the salaries that Romanians accept.

This basically means you would not code for other people only at a pay lower than what a Romanian would accept, as if a Romanian would accept a pay of X, that also means he/she would accept a pay of X+ε, for all wages from X to ∞.

This makes you a pretty cheap labour, and if your hate against Romanian people can somehow be turned to motivation, probably a very productive one!

If you are formulating hatespeach against Eastern-Europeans, please be precise!