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

Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#131

Post by SolaceQuantum »

balabaster wrote: post #124
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #99

I'll be the first to admit: I'm an American. I fundamentally do not understand Brexit. I understand the following timeline: 1. A largely disseminated, nation-wide vote occurs, bolstered by nationalist sentiment, that the EU is bad for the UK. This vote results in a conclusion that UK should leave the EU. 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not vot…

That "woman of great importance in the UK government" is the Prime Minister. For the purpose of this discussion, and until she's voted out, she is the most important person in the United Kingdom.

10-4. Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't? Presumably, the same gov't that put forth this vote? At least some significant margin of politicians must have wanted this vote knowing that 'yes' is on the table. Where are they?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#132

Post by Rebelgecko »

gwbas1c wrote: post #112
ceejayoz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU is a phenomenally novel way of integrating sovereign nation-states into a singular political entity, that happened without war. Not just without war, but between nations that've been regularly at war with each other (in various iterations) for well over a thousand years. It's a pretty remarkable achievement.

And some EU states still don't recognize each other. Just look at the 49.999 hz issue.

For those who are having trouble googling that term: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16535067

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#133

Post by hollerith »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #92
vinceguidry wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit is a real problem that the human race is faced with. There can be no higher question than that of what rules people should be using to deal with each other. For most of human history the rules were imposed by force. You open your market because if you don't, I'll escalate from sending a strongly worded missive all the way up to sending my armies to pillage your countryside. Recently we've moved to a more contr…

I’m not sure. I think we’ll leave or stay in the EU and it won’t make a tangible difference in the long run. Not in the way that say the internet, smartphones, antibiotics, nuclear weapons/power, quantum physics etc etc have made a difference to the world. MAD means we probably won’t have a major war any time soon, so we’ll be trading with the EU regardless, it’s all semanitics and minor politics.

>MAD means we probably won’t have a major war any time soon

Was the Korean war a major war in your book? To the Korean people it was.

In that war, the US's having nukes did not prevent North Korea from starting the war, did not prevent the Soviets from sending MIGs with Soviet pilots against the US army and air force and did not prevent China from sending a million soldiers.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#134

Post by xienze »

gonehome wrote: post #104
yholio wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some might say that a good outcome is one where the people can freely make their own choices and accept the consequences. The plight of the British might serve as a cautionary tale informing the decisions of some other country, that's certainly a good thing in some sense. Democracy is not guaranteed to deliver prosperity or lead only to the correct decisions, yet it's the best system we have.

What if the consequences are instability or large scale war?

Well, what if? You're essentially arguing that if our benevolent overlords decide that the democratic process might result in something unfavorable that they should do the wise thing and ignore the will of the people.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#135

Post by [deleted] »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #122
toomuchtodo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, definitely. Override uneducated decisions that harm the republic, regardless of "the will of the people" [1] [2] [3] [4]. That is exactly why republics exist versus direct democracy. “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea) Disclaimer: American [1] ht…

Apocryphal quote. https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest...

[deleted]

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#136

Post by m0zg »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #85
m0zg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, nevertheless, the directly expressed will of the people. This is very much the social contract that holds the society together, and makes the government accountable to the people. Would you rather they just did as they please?

Yes, definitely. Override uneducated decisions that harm the republic, regardless of "the will of the people" [1] [2] [3] [4]. That is exactly why republics exist versus direct democracy. “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea) Disclaimer: American [1] ht…

But "the republic" is not a uniform mass. What's good for some is bad for others. It is far from certain for me at least that the huge influx of cheap labor from Eastern Europe does not harm the lower classes in Britain. I'm pretty certain, on the other hand, that this works extremely well for the upper classes.

Besides, given the quality and moral scruples of "decision makers" that governments are usually comprised of, why would you so completely trust them with the fate of the republic in the first place, especially if the populace does not have the benefit of either the first or the second amendment of US constitution?

This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. You can't pick and choose. If your position is that government knows best, you should be prepared that the government will make decisions you don't like, too.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#137

Post by ddebernardy »

pkaye wrote: post #5

Don't fully understand UK government structure but is it possible for the labor party to take over leadership and revoke article 50 before the deadline?

It's possible Labor will take over if May loses her confidence vote. But Corbyn's current position has been that he'd pursue Brexit with unicorn promises, rather than cancel the whole thing like his constituents want him to do. So it's doubtful that Labor would revoke article 50.

Just spitballing here... Methinks May will win her confidence vote tomorrow. From there, the consensus seems to be to steer towards a peoples' vote -- aka a new referendum -- in spite of May being hostile to that idea. But don't rule out some back and forth with the EU. May has a long way to go to win a rerun of this vote, but if her premiership is anything to go by she's resilient, and the GBP lost around 10% against the USD and EUR within minutes of the Commons vote. (Edit: the GDP seems to have bounced back since.)

As an aside, I'm no fan of May, and the referendum campaign was full of lies and manipulation, but methinks May actually has merit in raising that a peoples' vote would not be good for the legitimacy of and trust in politicians and institutions. After all, what's the point of organizing a referendum and then electing representatives that don't deliver. And what's the point of organizing referendums if the powers that be will continue to ask the question again and again until constituents give the expected answer?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#139

Post by nostrademons »

gonehome wrote: post #104
yholio wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some might say that a good outcome is one where the people can freely make their own choices and accept the consequences. The plight of the British might serve as a cautionary tale informing the decisions of some other country, that's certainly a good thing in some sense. Democracy is not guaranteed to deliver prosperity or lead only to the correct decisions, yet it's the best system we have.

What if the consequences are instability or large scale war?

Then that's what we get. There's no guarantee of a good outcome: if the majority of people want to do stupid things, a democracy will let them.

In such a case we'd probably be fucked regardless of what form of government we had. A dictatorship, monarchy, or oligarchy lets a minority of people do stupid things, and if you have a majority, it's fairly likely there is a powerful minority contained within them.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#140

Post by prepend »

mikepurvis wrote: post #119
m0zg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, nevertheless, the directly expressed will of the people. This is very much the social contract that holds the society together, and makes the government accountable to the people. Would you rather they just did as they please?

The real issue is that the people who voted "for Brexit" were all voting for different things, because it wasn't at all articulated what "Brexit" would look like. Now that that's better understood, there should absolutely be a second referendum, probably with three ranked options: 1. Stay 2. Soft leave (May's deal) 3. Hard leave (No deal) With months and months of nonstop coverage, one could now say that there's broa…

...and keep asking until you get the answer that truly answers the will of the people?

Could you make the same argument that people voted yes for multiple reasons?

I think it’s difficult to see an outcome where a single referendum would be sufficient to solve all doubt.

Especially with three options, if no option has majority would you stick with original referendum? Or not exit?

Post reply on HN