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

111–120 of 142 posts

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

#111

Post by DonaldFisk »

keithpeter wrote: post #62
songshu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cameron did the 'either / or' thing three times, once on House of Lords reform, once on Scots independence and latterly on Brexit. Won the first two, came a-cropper on the third. Personally, I'm against referendums of any kind.

It was for Alternative Vote, not House of Lords reform.

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

#112

Post by JimDabell »

ng12 wrote: post #101
JimDabell wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Haven't you got that backwards? It would be the rest of England leaving, against London's wishes, while there's nothing but inaction on London's part. How have you got that turned around so that it's London forcing their will on the rest of England?

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

#113

Post by kybernetikos »

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…

Agreed. This is also the reason why just because a group of rebels can retain enough cohesion to overthrow a government doesn't mean they can govern effectively.

When a vote is for 'status quo' or 'not status quo' then there'll be a lot of people voting for 'not status quo' that want radically different and incompatible things.

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

#114

Post by kybernetikos »

zimablue wrote: post #102
pjc50 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Norway is part of the ECHR. In fact, just like the UK it was a founding member of the Council of Europe which agreed to create the ECHR at the Congress of Europe at which Winston Churchill was a delegate from the UK.

The ECHR is a separate institution to the EU anyway so I'm not sure why it would be relevant. Leaving the EU does not leave the ECHR, and there has been no referendum to suggest that the UK should do that.

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

#115

Post by zimablue »

kybernetikos wrote: post #114
zimablue wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Norway is part of the ECHR. In fact, just like the UK it was a founding member of the Council of Europe which agreed to create the ECHR at the Congress of Europe at which Winston Churchill was a delegate from the UK. The ECHR is a separate institution to the EU anyway so I'm not sure why it would be relevant. Leaving the EU does not leave the ECHR, and there has been no referendum to suggest that the UK should do tha…

You're right on Norway being a member of the ECHR, I wasn't sure as I stated in my post, but you're vastly oversimplifying by implying there's no connection https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-3614979...

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

#116

Post by switch007 »

koops wrote: post #45
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…

"...a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but a two-thirds majority in case of more major..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE In case anyone missed the reference

I love Palin's delivery of this:

"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away" :D

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

#117

Post by pjc50 »

zimablue wrote: post #102
pjc50 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, probably, but leverage for what? Nobody can agree on things to ask for which the EU haven't already explicitly ruled out.

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

#118

Post by tzs »

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…

> 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%.

For this kind of referendum it also might be worth considering changing the "one person, one vote" rule.

By "this kind" I mean referendums that (1) have a much bigger long term impact on some large groups than they do on other large groups, and (2) there is good reason to believe that within some reasonable time frame that those groups who are the most impacted will be able to win a referendum to try to reverse this referendum, and (3) it will be very difficult and take a long time implement such a reversal.

It just doesn't seem fair that, say, someone who is 95 years old and who has a very good chance of being dead before Brexit can be implemented and a 25 year old whose entire life has been built around a world where Britain is part of the EU have an equal say in this.

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

#119

Post by kybernetikos »

zimablue wrote: post #115
kybernetikos wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway is part of the ECHR. In fact, just like the UK it was a founding member of the Council of Europe which agreed to create the ECHR at the Congress of Europe at which Winston Churchill was a delegate from the UK. The ECHR is a separate institution to the EU anyway so I'm not sure why it would be relevant. Leaving the EU does not leave the ECHR, and there has been no referendum to suggest that the UK should do tha…

You're right on Norway being a member of the ECHR, I wasn't sure as I stated in my post, but you're vastly oversimplifying by implying there's no connection https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-3614979...

There is no direct connection. But a respect for human rights is required to belong to the EU. Leaving the ECHR would cast the UKs commitment to human rights into question (at the very least it would be an indication that the UK has a different conception of human rights to the rest of the EU) and would mean that the EU would have to scrutinise whatever legislation took its place to ensure that the UK did still intend to retain a conception of human rights close enough to the other member states.

None of this means that the recent referendum gave any mandate for leaving the ECHR.

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

#120

Post by AnimalMuppet »

slacka wrote: post #63
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 disagree with your conclusion because you are not considering external factors. The issue isn't majority vote. The problem is many of the voters were not properly informed about the consequences of their decision. More importantly, many voters were misinformed by an external disinfo campaign.[1] [2] A better informed electorate would have prevented Brexit. We don't allow foreign countries to air political ads. It's…

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

Yes, foreign interference was a problem, and we need to do better to prevent it. And simple majority rule on referendums leads to hotheaded spur-of-the-moment decisions, even without foreign interference.

Post reply on HN