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

How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

howtobrexit.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 142 posts

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#71

Post by foldr »

presscast wrote: post #58
M2Ys4U wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK does have a constitution. It's just not all written down (lots of things work on 'convention'), and the bits that are written down aren't all written down in one document.

Ah ok, that's definitely an important distinction. Practical question: how does one determine whether an action is unconstitutional? How does one refer to "case history" (or whatever) if it's not written down?

It is all written down (in innumerable textbooks, court judgments, etc. etc.), just not in a single official document titled "The Constitution of the United Kingdom".

Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :)

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#72

Post by Waterluvian »

presscast wrote: post #58
M2Ys4U wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK does have a constitution. It's just not all written down (lots of things work on 'convention'), and the bits that are written down aren't all written down in one document.

Ah ok, that's definitely an important distinction. Practical question: how does one determine whether an action is unconstitutional? How does one refer to "case history" (or whatever) if it's not written down?

That's a part of the "crisis". In Canada there's also many unwritten conventions. Its just been so that nobody's forced the testing of these, for lack of a better term, "gentleman's agreements".

For example, in Canada the dissolution of Parliament (aka. triggering an election) occurs because the Prime Minister asks the Governor General (who is basically a proxy for the Queen of Canada) to issue a proclamation stating as much.

So does that mean the Prime Minister could simply never do that, causing their party to form the official government indefinitely?

Well... Maybe. Nothing says they can't do that. It's just that no PM has ever thought of trying it.

It must sound loosey goosey and kind of dangerous, but it seems to work fine.

Some rules aren't written unless some jerk makes us write them down.

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#73

Post by ben_w »

hanoz wrote: post #60
pjc50 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Republic of Ireland joining the United Kingdom Sure, but this is somewhere in probability behind "UK destroyed by asteroid impact". > Scotland making a bid to join the EU There are persistent rumours that people on the UK side are trying to avoid having any kind of double-no-border situation that would work for NI be also applicable for Scotland. Because during the referendum all sorts of claims about the need for…

>> Republic of Ireland joining the United Kingdom > Sure, but this is somewhere in probability behind "UK destroyed by asteroid impact". Maybe, but Ireland also leaving the EU would be a good and not entirely unpopular solution.

That would take a minimum of two years, so it still wouldn’t work at this point, even if it were not for the fact that recent opinion polls say 92% of RoI wants to stay in the EU: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism_in_the_Republ...

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#74

Post by grovehaw »

clubm8 wrote: post #19
bilbo0s wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only winning move is not to play ... That's a losing move too. The Leave voters would all label you 'undemocratic'. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well. Unfortunately, at this point there really are no " winning " moves. Probably just a few moves that might be less bad than other moves.

>The Leave voters will all call you undemocratic. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well. This is the same country that has the queen give "consent" for all legislation, correct? What exactly is the point of the monarchy if they won't step in during this serious issue to act as the "adult in the room"?

Unlike the US which painstakingly separated powers into different branches of government, the UK habit of governance is to fuse powers together.

This gives rise to the concept of the King or Queen in Parliament. That is to say absolute authority resides with the Monarch but is delegated to his/her parliament. Parliament then generates legislation to which the Sovereign assents. The Royal Assent has not happened in person since 1854.

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#75

Post by zhengwang »

martythemaniak wrote: post #31

Brexit has definitely changed my mind on one thing - majority vote in a referendum is bad. Or rather, the percentage vote required should be proportional to the gravity of the question. Referendums are rare, so most votes should require well over 50%. I did not used to think this. In 2007 British Columbia had a referendum on switching to proportional representation from FPTP. The result was like 52% in favour, but th…

This of course just sets up a scenario where those in charge can make it impossible for any change to occur that they don't like which defeats the purpose doesn't it?

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#76

Post by microcolonel »

Latteland wrote: post #68

The current situation is so depressing. The combined ongoing destruction in the uk and the us of many years of relative safety and peace while claiming it's all to protect us from change or something like that reminds me that the many poor leaders and failures of ancient countries making terrible decisions that lead to the end of their countries can happen now. What a run on sentence. At the same time, I'm extremely…

If you think it's all hot air, you are not paying close enough attention, or you live in a bubble. Frankly, the political ideas which are popular on Hacker News are laughably untenable, but to HNers seem highly plausible.

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#77

Post by dalore »

Someguywhatever wrote: post #34
clubm8 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Leave voters will all call you undemocratic. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well. This is the same country that has the queen give "consent" for all legislation, correct? What exactly is the point of the monarchy if they won't step in during this serious issue to act as the "adult in the room"?

Why is the democratic decision to leave not an "adult" decision? To conduct the referendum and then not abide by the result would absolutely be undemocratic. The UK is already dragging it's heels on taking action WRT Brexit IMO. I think that they will drag it out so long that they say the mandate of the referendum has expired, and then re-rerun the referendum. They will rinse and repeat until they get the result they…

Well that's what you're meant to do with referendums. You have them to judge the peoples intent. And people's intents change over time and so you keep having them. Not to keep having them until you have the answer you want. You're making it a winner vs loser but it's not.

All the brixteers saying to not have another referendum and that's it's not democratic is a cognitive dissonance. It's saying it's not the will of the people to ask the people if they want.

Ireland as you said kept voting until they joined the referendum. So initially they didn't want to join, but then over time they did. Nothing is stopping them from having another referendum to leave the EU (like the UK did). And if the sentiment of the people show they do they, they will.

If you go on about the will of the people, then having another referendum makes more sense. 2 years ago was a long time, and peoples opinion changes. That referendum 2 years ago was given as a NON-BINDING referendum, to see what people thought about and if they should actually look at is a valid option. People said yes. So now we've looked at it, we've seen what deals we can get and we know a bit more of what is involved (and the people managing it). So now would be a good idea to have a binding referendum on which deal, or even to remain. This would be the will of the people.

It's like buying house, you make an offer first and then you get a survey. If the survey says something is bad that you missed, would you still buy the house at the same price?

If we have another referendum and people think the deals suck we would rather remain, that is literally the will of the people. If really feels like the argument to not have another vote is that you're afraid it might go the other way (since it was so close anyway). But you shouldn't be. If we have another vote and we remain, the brexit people can continue the discussion and convince us that it would be better over time. Then when we have enough national support, have another referendum. You're meant to keep having referendum to judge peoples intent. For something as major as leaving the EU we shouldn't be rushing it and jumping the gun with no plan in place. We can stay, make our plans, present these plans to the people, get them to see it's the right move. Not jump in and saying 50% of people want to leave so we must leave, that creates a big wedge down the country of leave vs remain and no one gets along.

A big change should come around slowly. This isn't a revolution.

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#79

Post by zimablue »

songshu wrote: post #52
martythemaniak wrote: post #31

Brexit has definitely changed my mind on one thing - majority vote in a referendum is bad. Or rather, the percentage vote required should be proportional to the gravity of the question. Referendums are rare, so most votes should require well over 50%. I did not used to think this. In 2007 British Columbia had a referendum on switching to proportional representation from FPTP. The result was like 52% in favour, but th…

The problem with Brexit is that "leave the European Union" is not a policy, it's an outcome. All of the thinking about how to do it should have taken place before the vote, and then we could have voted on that (this is actually the way legislation is typically developed in the UK, and the job of our sometime venerated civil service). Compare it to the recent Irish referendum on abortion, where there was a clear plan…

I think you're kind of splitting hairs, all policies can be viewed as outcomes. "Bring back grammar schools" is both a policy and an outcome. "Improve education" is only an outcome because it doesn't discuss how to achieve it. "Leave the EU" is 100% achievable and has an obvious way to achieve it, it's policy just not detailed policy.

Realistically they should have planned more, but planning is limited when you're going into negotiations with an unpredictable third party. If other countries had voted to leave the EU, or the German or French elections had been different then the negotiation would be very different. Even the UK election after the vote could have wildly changed our brexit policy.

Re: How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

#80

Post by dalore »

mrighele wrote: post #66
conanite wrote: post #25

Scotland and NI quit UK to form their own republic and rejoin EU together. Everyone happy. Maybe even republic of Scotland-Ireland.

Rejoining EU would not be automatic. They will have to to again all the accession iter. EU countries that have issues with independence movements (e.g. Spain w.r.t Catalonia) will not let automatic re-join, because the "You will be out of EU if you secede" is one of the arguments used for saying that secession is a bad move.

Yes they would have to join, but if Brexit happened they are no longer in the EU and so need to leave the UK and then apply for the EU. Wonder if they would need to go through a period of not being in either?

Imagine a hard border on Scotland.

Don't think the monarchy would approve of that much.

Post reply on HN