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

UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 649 posts

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#461

Post by zigzigzag »

vkou wrote: post #439
rayiner wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Throughout history, discrete groups have waged wars of independence to ensure that they can have a government that reflects their shared history, culture, and values. My family is from Bangladesh, which fought a war to separate from Pakistan over cultural/linguistic differences. In another example, Israel is engaged in an existential b…

> What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Yet, Britain has done its best to deny the same right to self-determination to its subjects. Self-determination seems to be an excuse trotted out to support existing power structures. "We should secede from _____ - but nobody should secede from us." Britain and Ireland, Britain and India, Britain and Scotland... Britain had to be dra…

Uh, Britain organised a full blown referendum for Scotland after Scots voted a separatist party into their own local Parliament ... a referendum the nationalists then lost. Now perhaps there'll even be a second, despite said nationalists saying it would be a "once in a generation" event.

How is that being dragged, kicking and screaming?

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#462

Post by pm90 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #390
zekkius wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, humans are inclined to form tribes and to fear the other, just like our primitive ancestors. It's little reason to justify such division today, and especially not to participate in mass murder to achieve it.

the whole point of delineating societal groups is to provide ring-fences for cultural groups that may otherwise be at each other's throats. Just look at the continuous fighting between Shi'ite and Sunni muslims that could arguably be traced back to the Sykes-Picot agreement drawing up borders that did not respect the locations of mutually-unfriendly groups.

Slight nitpick: The Shia-Sunni divide has plagued the Islamic world ever since the succession of Muhammad. Sure, Sykes-Picot aggravated it greatly, but it did not cause it.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#463

Post by rbehrends »

Nursie wrote: post #382
rbehrends wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. 1. The European Commission is elected by the European Parliament. 2. The European Commission has the power to initiate legislation, but EU legislation is enacted by the European Parliament (lower chamber of the legislature) and the Council of the European Union (upper chamber of the legislature). This is why EU legislation begins with "REGULATION/DIRECTIVE ... OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL" [1]…

The Commission is appointed by the Council, not elected by the Parliament. The Commission then originates all legislation, which Parliament can approve or not. It's not a system I would buy into voluntarily.

False.

The Commission election involves several steps.

First, the President is nominated. While this is technically a power of the European Council (not to be confused with the Council of the European Union), in 2004 the Parliament won the right to determine the president and the nomination by the European Council is only a formality. (Similar to the appointment of the British PM by the British monarch).

In practice, the choice of president is now the result of the elections to the European Parliament through the so-called "spitzenkandidaten" process [1], where each group in the EP nominates a candidate and the candidate of the largest party that can command a majority in the EP is chosen, who is then formally appointed.

Second, the Commission President in conjunction with the member states nominates the remaining commissioners. The EP conducts hearings, after which the Commission is voted on. The EP can reject the Commission. In 2014, this resulted in the rejection of the Slovenian commissioner [2] and the Hungarian commissioner being stripped of the citizenship portfolio [3] as the result of questions regarding Hungary's human rights record.

The EP can also remove the Commission through a motion of censure, Article 234 TFEU. This is what happened to the Santer commission (except that they resigned before the EP could vote them out of office).

Note that under the British system, the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet does not even have to face hearings. The members of the cabinet are simply chosen by the PM, the PM is appointed by the monarch.

That only the Commission can initiate legislation is not much of an issue and has more to do with how complex EU legislation is, which has to conform to the legislation of all the member states. The EP can propose legislation through Article 225 TFEU, can attach legislation to other legislation (such as the budget) through amendments if necessary (similar to how the US Senate gets around the Origination Clause) and simply force the Commission to initiate legislation or block other legislation (or, in the worst case, vote the Commission out of office).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Comm...

[2] http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/slovenia-s-nomin...

[3] http://www.novinite.com/articles/164253/Hungary's+Navracsics...

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#464

Post by rbehrends »

presidente20 wrote: post #405
rbehrends wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. 1. The European Commission is elected by the European Parliament. 2. The European Commission has the power to initiate legislation, but EU legislation is enacted by the European Parliament (lower chamber of the legislature) and the Council of the European Union (upper chamber of the legislature). This is why EU legislation begins with "REGULATION/DIRECTIVE ... OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL" [1]…

The point is that powers of veto are less influential than powers of creating policy. I don't think people are saying that the EU is completely undemocratic (as pointed out above, democracy is a somewhat muddy concept in practice), more that it falls short of the standards of a typical democracy (which to me means a directly elected executive body).

> The point is that powers of veto are less influential than powers of creating policy.

Can you explain what you are talking about? Because I honestly have no idea.

> democracy (which to me means a directly elected executive body).

Which happens pretty much nowhere in the world. Even in the US, only the President is directly elected, not the rest of the cabinet. In the UK, Germany, Spain, the executive is not directly elected.

And in actual practice, the Commission President is the result of the elections to the European Parliament, with each party nominating a candidate and the candidate of the winning party getting the job.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#465

Post by golemotron »

barrkel wrote: post #455
rayiner wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Throughout history, discrete groups have waged wars of independence to ensure that they can have a government that reflects their shared history, culture, and values. My family is from Bangladesh, which fought a war to separate from Pakistan over cultural/linguistic differences. In another example, Israel is engaged in an existential b…

The core concept in EU law is subsidiarity. Look it up if you're unfamiliar - by treaty, the EU may only make laws where actions by individual countries are insufficient. I think you're being incredibly one-sided and myopic, if not ignorant. Collective action problems are real. Nation states are a poor way to deal with many cross-border problems, just like individuals without a government is a poor way to deal with m…

> by treaty, the EU may only make laws where actions by individual countries are insufficient.

Who decides what is insufficient? When culture and values are different the call on what is insufficient may not work for everyone.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#466

Post by another-dave »

zigzigzag wrote: post #461
vkou wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Yet, Britain has done its best to deny the same right to self-determination to its subjects. Self-determination seems to be an excuse trotted out to support existing power structures. "We should secede from _____ - but nobody should secede from us." Britain and Ireland, Britain and India, Britain and Scotland... Britain had to be dra…

Uh, Britain organised a full blown referendum for Scotland after Scots voted a separatist party into their own local Parliament ... a referendum the nationalists then lost. Now perhaps there'll even be a second, despite said nationalists saying it would be a "once in a generation" event. How is that being dragged, kicking and screaming?

If I remember correctly, the SNP ran in 2016 (after the Scottish referendum) with a manifesto that said if UK voted "Leave" in Brexit but Scotland voted "Remain", they would push for a second independence referendum. So this was the platform on which they were returned to government.

Also, I think it's fair to say that Britain leaving the EU is a sizeable enough change to counter the "once in a generation" line — the choice is no longer Independence V status quo of 2014. Especially considering that at least some people voted to stay in the UK in order to remain in the EU.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#467

Post by HenryBemis »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #376
mpweiher wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm...it started at $1.1686. And now it is at $1.09, so 6% off.

It's spent more of its life than not above both figures.

Guys, guys.. no panic and no stress!

GBP is not going to "collapse" any day soon (if at all). But if I feel that there is an "incident" imminent (e.g. an important negotiation about to fail, and I am expecting a large payment in GBP, I would still receive it and pay taxes within the UK, but I wouldn't mind receiving it in USD or EUR.

Pound was, is, and will remain hard currency.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#468

Post by gizmo »

stephen_g wrote: post #328
gizmo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK economy will not collapse because of this, but it will cost them billions in the short term and a few basis points of yearly GDP growth for the next decade, and that really adds up. What's even worse is that the UK leaving the EU can destabilize the Euro, which is already on a knife's edge. If the Euro collapses we'll get a worldwide recession, with a staggering human cost. It's too easy to dismiss concerns as…

The late economist Wynne Godley explained why the Euro couldn't work in the long run and described how it would cause problems like Greece back in 1992 [1]. There is simply no way a supra-national currency could work without a federal budget. It's probably time to accept that the Euro will likely fail no matter what we do. Sadly, the people of Greece have already paid a terrible cost... 1. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n…

I'm familiar with his work. Many economists gave similar warnings. The Euro was a poorly conceived idea, no doubt. That is a sunk cost, though. The question is how to best go forward from here.

Even if a Euro breakup is inevitable (it isn't; it can muddle along indefinitely if all countries adhere to a gold-standard-like fiscal policy) then a carefully premeditated breakup 8 years from now is much better than taking out the support beams now and watch it all fall apart.

The Eurozone hasn't even recovered from the 2008 crisis. The banks haven't been reformed, unemployment is still high, millennials are still struggling financially. Even if the countries agreed the Euro has to break up (and they don't) it would still take years of negotiations for a plan to materialize. There is nothing that can be done short term that wouldn't be a total disaster. So kicking the can down the road is likely the best option.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#469

Post by jwdunne »

zigzigzag wrote: post #461
vkou wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Yet, Britain has done its best to deny the same right to self-determination to its subjects. Self-determination seems to be an excuse trotted out to support existing power structures. "We should secede from _____ - but nobody should secede from us." Britain and Ireland, Britain and India, Britain and Scotland... Britain had to be dra…

Uh, Britain organised a full blown referendum for Scotland after Scots voted a separatist party into their own local Parliament ... a referendum the nationalists then lost. Now perhaps there'll even be a second, despite said nationalists saying it would be a "once in a generation" event. How is that being dragged, kicking and screaming?

When the majority of Scotland wanted to remain part of the EU, the terms changed. The fact is Scotland, NI and Wales largely wanted to remain whilst England drags the rest along with. They have no choice.

That's a pretty big change in the game and wasn't really on people's minds in 2014. I certainly wasn't thinking about the EU exit in 2014. In fact, in 2015, a 2016 EU referendum wasn't widespread knowledge.

In fact, I was shocked by the leave vote. Almost as much as the Conservative majority a year before. I'm from Salford too and the vote was a highly Leave. I'm sure those in Scotland felt that more so.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#470

Post by 794CD01 »

vkou wrote: post #439
rayiner wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Throughout history, discrete groups have waged wars of independence to ensure that they can have a government that reflects their shared history, culture, and values. My family is from Bangladesh, which fought a war to separate from Pakistan over cultural/linguistic differences. In another example, Israel is engaged in an existential b…

> What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Yet, Britain has done its best to deny the same right to self-determination to its subjects. Self-determination seems to be an excuse trotted out to support existing power structures. "We should secede from _____ - but nobody should secede from us." Britain and Ireland, Britain and India, Britain and Scotland... Britain had to be dra…

If anything that just demonstrates the point further. Ireland and India are now independent and are happier for it. Scotland will soon join them. The EU doesn't want Britain to leave. The oppressors and the oppressed do not have the same goals.
Post reply on HN