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

101–110 of 142 posts

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

#101

Post by ng12 »

JimDabell wrote: post #56
Y_Y wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gaelic/Celtic Union is an idea that has been batted around for a while now. It might be political fantasy, but the populaces seem to be general amenable (not including, ironically, the various "unionists").

Honestly, the Brexit that would probably keep the most people happy is if England and Wales minus London left the UK, and the remainder of the UK plus London stayed in the EU. Scotland would have to become a special economic zone though.

That aligns with a lot of pro-Brexit rhetoric, that is London does what's best for London and the rest of England can go pound sand.

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

#102

Post by zimablue »

pjc50 wrote: post #82
zimablue wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

The trouble is that of the two obvious options, one is pointless ("Norway") and the other ("Canada") breaches the peace treaty in Northern Ireland.

Fortunately we're something like (top of my head) ten times as important to the EU as either of those, and so even the most hardened remainer would privately admit that we should have more leverage in negotiations.

Presumably Norway isn't in the ECHR, which would be significant. Neither is it obligated to join the Eurozone. It's more complicated than you're painting it.

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

#103

Post by arountheworld »

markonen wrote: post #100
arountheworld wrote: post #83

This presentation is biased. It doesn't take into account that the Northern Ireland is really a problem of the EU. There are soft borders in the EU for example Poland - Russia, where people can roam freely. EU is just not being flexible to make a "political point", which is pathetic. They shouldn't include a provision to leave the Union in the first place.

I'd like to hear more about this Polish–Russian soft border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland%E2%80%93Russia_border

Check the "Border area" section. I see no reason why something similar couldn't be implemented for Northern Ireland.

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

#104

Post by DonaldFisk »

bilbo0s wrote: post #16
tim_hutton wrote: post #12

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

> 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.

My own position is that as the vote was about EU membership and nothing else, the UK should stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union, i.e. Norway+Turkey (Norway isn't in the Customs Union). This is the least damaging option, the Irish border problem evaporates, and it would be immediately accepted by the EU without any further negotiations. It would also have won had the referendum been conducted properly: with Remain, various Leave options, to be ranked in order of preference. We'd lose our MEPs but otherwise it would be business as usual.

If it doesn't satisfy most Leave voters, I'd just tell them that we can have another referendum in a generation's time to decide whether to stay where we are, leave the SM&CU, or rejoin the EU, if there's any demand for one then.

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

#105

Post by wlll »

arountheworld wrote: post #96
wlll wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't take into account that the Northern Ireland is really a problem of the EU. As somoene who grew up in the UK with the IRA blowing up bits of the country, some rather close to me, I disagree. It's likely that the communities that would be split by a new border in Ireland would disagree too. The EU is negotiating in it's best interests, as is the UK. There aren't going to be any favours traded on either sid…

If the UK doesn't put up a border then it is the EU that is causing a problem. There doesn't have to be a hard border, but EU insists that there should be.

> If the UK doesn't put up a border then it is the EU that is causing a problem.

The UK is leaving the EU, borders are implicit in that, and bi-directional. You don't get to leave the EU and not leave the EU.

Can you cite the Poland/Russia thing? I searched but couldn't find anything. edit You referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland%E2%80%93Russia_border in another post.

> Because Kaliningrad Oblast is small, homogeneous and an exclave within the European Union

That's not the same as the NI situation.

Regardless, the EU is negotiating in it's best interests, as anyone could predict it would. If I were French or German or whatever I'd want to get the best deal possible in the negotiations. No-one is going to give us any favours here, everything we want we've got to make happen ourselves. If the EU is using the Irish border as a bargaining position then that's what they should be doing, in the best interests of the citizens remaining in the EU.

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

#106

Post by wlll »

arountheworld wrote: post #103
markonen wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to hear more about this Polish–Russian soft border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland%E2%80%93Russia_border Check the "Border area" section. I see no reason why something similar couldn't be implemented for Northern Ireland.

> Because Kaliningrad Oblast is small, homogeneous and an exclave within the European Union

That's not the same situation as NI.

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

#107

Post by cuboidGoat »

arountheworld wrote: post #96
wlll wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't take into account that the Northern Ireland is really a problem of the EU. As somoene who grew up in the UK with the IRA blowing up bits of the country, some rather close to me, I disagree. It's likely that the communities that would be split by a new border in Ireland would disagree too. The EU is negotiating in it's best interests, as is the UK. There aren't going to be any favours traded on either sid…

If the UK doesn't put up a border then it is the EU that is causing a problem. There doesn't have to be a hard border, but EU insists that there should be.

I'd love to see that result, purely for the hilarity of watching the people I share a house with, who voted for Brexit, explode at the idea of the UK government not policing an external border.

The only reason they voted for Brexit was because they think it means they can get rid of all the migrants, they tell me this quite regularly.

One of them moved here from Bahrain, though apparently this means their family were ex-pats, not migrants. The other is from a long line of Christian overseas missionaries.

If they thought for a second that Brexit would mean leaving the border with Northern Ireland wide open, they would be screaming blue murder.

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

#108

Post by Kalium »

greeneggs wrote: post #69
Kalium wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is a good example of what happens when pretty much any policy can be set by simple majority vote. The result is, to be kind about it, a lot of room for improvement.

It isn't. Since Proposition 13 passed in 1978 (by a simple majority), California has required 2/3 majority votes in the legislature to increase taxes, and 2/3 majority votes for local elections to increase taxes.

If memory serves, there are still vast areas of policy that can be voted on by a simple majority.

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

#109

Post by presscast »

foldr wrote: post #71
presscast wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

>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 :)

I appreciate the joke (really!), but that's not what's perplexing, here. Even if there are disagreements in (e.g.) US constitutional matters, the reference documents and their order of succession is well-known.

Are there ever cases in the UK where two different canonical documents disagree?

I've been living here for a year now... I really ought to know this stuff :/

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

#110

Post by lostmsu »

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…

I am not trying to insinuate anything, but could you please introspect for me if your mind only changed because the vote did not match what you wanted both times, but this time you feel its more important, so your reasoning flipped to justify?

Again, not attacking, genuinely curious.

Post reply on HN