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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#141

Post by notahacker »

mrec wrote: post #103
yholio wrote: post #41

The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. Somebody needs to own up to that lie and accept that a "no deal" outcome, wh…

> they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal They're not, May is, and May is not a Brexiter. The Brexiters generally are pushing to leave on WTO terms, not so much as a preferred end state but in recognition of the fact that only a genuine commitment to doing so has any chance of convincing the EU to agree to sensible terms such as Canada+. If the EU can keep the UK under its thumb forever then of cou…

It stretches credulity beyond breaking point to suggest that the UK reneging on all its existing commitments to the EU in a fit of jingoistic pique whilst suffering the consequences of not having properly prepared for that outcome is a situation likely to lead to the EU offering more favourable trading terms.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#142

Post by PaulRobinson »

Here's what happens next:

- A motion of no confidence has been tabled and will be debated and voted on tomorrow

- If the motion carries (i.e. the Government loses):

1. Theresa May must resign as Prime Minister

2. There can be a 14 day window in which a new government is formed, which must be approved by a motion of confidence. This is likely to be waived

3. There will be a general election. Theresa May will remain leader of the Tories. The Tories will lose

4. Corbyn will then seek a deal that retains customs union. This is likely to take time, so he will likely seek a delay from Parliament on Article 50 for such a deal to be agreed

5. We leave with a customs union probably in Autumn of 2019

- Most Tories know this, so will support the PM in a vote of no confidence, and the Government may win it. In that scenario:

1. Theresa May stays Prime Minister

2. She will go back to the EU and demand a new deal, likely with a hard time limit on the NI backstop, the main issue that caused tonight's defeat

3. At the same time, she will ask "senior Parliamentarians" what they would need if that were not possible

4. The only thing that will carry a vote in Parliament right now other than a customs union deal (which she has personally refused to engage with), is a second referendum

5. If the backstop isn't removed, it's therefore quite likely Article 50 is rescinded and a new referendum happens this Summer. It's likely such a referendum will have two questions: Do you wish to leave or remain?; and, in the event of a vote towards leave, would you accept the backstop or would you prefer "No Deal".

6. This will either result in a Remain vote and possibly a civil war (no, seriously), or a Leave vote that risks breaking up the UK with the NI needing to align with the Republic and, so, a civil war but contained to NI, or a Leave deal with support for "No Deal" and a default position of WTO rules

All outcomes have downsides. There is no winning here, and there is no situation in which we get to revoke Article 50 and the UK remains in the EU and all is well. It will leave 17m people in an absolute rage, and they have already murdered one MP. It'll get worse.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #39
MatekCopatek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this would imply a public referendum is impotent - if you don't like the outcome, you can just keep campaigning and try again later.

How are referendums brought to a vote? We don't have such a thing in the US. Certain states do, but not the country.

> How are referendums brought to a vote?

Parliament votes to have them

> We don't have such a thing in the US.

Well, Congress doesn't choose to have them (separation of powers helps here; the Brexit referendum was very much about electoral strategy in a system where voting for a district legislator is also voting for a particular executive administration.)

> Certain states do, but not the country.

What many US states regularly have is binding referenda with Constitutional force and process; while these may sometimes be of legislative origin, they could do Brexit-style referenda (because of their general powers) but, again, separation of powers kind of eliminates the political use of them, or at least that of Brexit specifically, and a non-binding referenda on a non-profit proposal isn't something that makes a lot of sense outside of very particular political circumstances.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#144

Post by makomk »

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…

May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission, meaning that anyone who wants to leave won't support it. It also removes almost all the benefits of remaining in the EU, meaning Remain supporters hate it too. Oh, and for bonus points it effectively makes Northern Ireland no longer fully part of the UK, meaning that the DUP (the Northern Ireland unionist party which the Tories have to ally with to get a majority) will never support it. There are other issues with it too, of course, but that's the general gist.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#145

Post by CodeGlitch »

jcranmer wrote: post #59
tunesmith wrote: post #2

The whole thing seems like a slow motion train wreck, except with the potentially and arguably happy outcome of them remaining in the EU.

The "best" solution to this problem is to cancel Brexit. Even that solution would cause a massive political blowback and only deepen the current divides that exist today. The "fantasy" solution is that the government can somehow negotiate a better deal for Brexit. But this is pure fantasy. For starters, there is severe disagreement as to what kind of deal ought to be pursued among the people who dislike May's deal. M…

"you can't fly between UK and Europe;"

These problems are temporary - do not believe all the scaremongering. The same goes for the economy. Life well go on for christ's sake.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#146

Post by freehunter »

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…

The problem is, many people wanted Brexit for different reasons. It's easy to find a consensus to the question "should the UK leave the EU". "Brexit" is an abstract, but "single market" and "passports" and "trade deals" and "Ireland" and "Scotland" and "financial regulations" etc are all details that need to be sorted out, and many people feel very differently on them.

It's easy to find a consensus to the abstract question "should the UK leave the EU". It's much harder to find a consensus to the all of these questions when asked together. All the people who wanted Brexit are backing away from May's solution because she needs to answer all of those questions 100% correct for 51% of the population. Any disagreement and the deal is off.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#147

Post by UK-Al05 »

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…

The core of the issue that this deal is a compromise.

It basically saying the UK is leaving the EU, but not really as we still follow EU law. As such it is not acceptable to brexiters.

For remainers, well they don't want leave anyway.

Thus no one supports it.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#148

Post by toomuchtodo »

thesagan wrote: post #121
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…

If there's an authority which can deem an election decision as "uneducated" and "harmful" then why have voting at all? Why not just leave major decisions to a committee, if we're going to pick and choose which elections are decided "correctly."

> Why not just leave major decisions to a committee

We do this in the US, but the committee is formed of three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. People vote for representatives. Representatives enact legislation or executive orders. Those legislation or executive orders can be challenged by our judicial branch and thrown out, regardless of the will of the people and their representatives (see: same sex marriage, abortion, asking people if they're citizens on our census, blocking immigration from countries based on religion, laws that bring about voter suppression). Works well, checks and balances and all that.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#149

Post by gonehome »

xienze wrote: post #134
gonehome wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm arguing in favor of representative government where elected people decide on what makes the most sense for complex issues. Relying on advice from experts, but ultimately making the call that's in the country's best interest.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#150

Post by CydeWeys »

m0zg wrote: post #83
toomuchtodo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The referendum was non-binding. It would be entirely legitimate for Parliament to say "We can't obtain a satisfactory outcome and have opted to remain in the EU as it's a superior economic option." You don't continue to take your sovereign nation over the cliff because of an unreasonable minority of citizens (whether or not they were a majority of those who voiced their opinions in said referendum).

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?

Polling has pretty consistently been anti-Brexit for awhile now, once the clear scope of what Brexit entails has actually been better understood. If another referendum were held today it would fail.

Why should a single non-binding vote taken at one point in time two years ago be considered forever irrevocable? Especially considering all of the pro-Brexit fake news and false promises at the time? Most of the promises made by the Brexiteers have turned out to be lies; the UK will not be better off, the NHS will not be better funded, etc. Given how so many underlying rationales for pro-Brexit votes have turned out to be false, of course it makes sense that a different result would be obtained today.

Post reply on HN