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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#291

Post by detaro »

derriz wrote: post #269
makomk wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No it does not. It simply requires that the UK ensure that no hard (customs) border is required in Ireland. A key component of the Good Friday Agreement which ended 3 decades of bloodshed on the island of Ireland was that physical border checks between the two states whould be phased out. All it requires is that the UK accepts that EU customs checks are performed between Britain and Ireland rather than at the Irish b…

To be fair, "simply" introducing a hard border between parts of your country isn't quite... simply. Which country would do that? In addition, it's a pretty crappy symbol of "getting independence" if you "leave behind" a part of your country to get it, and that's how it's understandably perceived. And May's government relies on the DUP to achieve a majority in parliament, for which this is wholly unacceptable, since it stands for getting closer to the main land and not being one with Ireland. (of course she doesn't have a majority now, but the DUP might very well have broken away long ago if this had been a plan)

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#292

Post by scott_s »

rchaud wrote: post #159
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…

> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit Former PM David Cameron put Leave/Remain to a vote, but publicly said he voted Remain. Resigned after the vote results. Theresa May took his place after some debate; she was vociferously pro-Brexit, and looked like the best option if Britain was to act tough when negotiating with the EU. A number of people dropped out of the succession race, gambling that the Bre…

> Theresa May took his place after some debate; she was vociferously pro-Brexit

I don't think that is accurate. See https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/12/what-is-theresa-may-s-vi..., https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38653681, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Brexit

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#293

Post by balabaster »

arethuza wrote: post #266
balabaster wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"she is the most important person in the United Kingdom." I believe members of the UK armed forces would probably dispute that.

Who are governed ultimately by the Prime Minister. So they do what she tells them to, ultimately making her the most important person.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#294

Post by rtkwe »

RafiqM wrote: post #223
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…

> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU. With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good: 1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous) 2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad…

> 4) Hold another referendum where it's going to have to be a decision between staying in or exiting with no deal (also political suicide & creates distrust).

I've never really understood this reasoning given how Leave as completely nebulous with no real details. Is it really such a betrayal to go back and say "alright here's what Leave actually means is this what you actually want vs Remain"? That's been my issue with the whole vote from the beginning, leave was so nebulous there was no actual consensus behind what it should have actually meant.

Granted it was kind of impossible to have the details before the actual vote because the actual deal had to be negotiated but I don't see how the situation hasn't changed enough for another referendum to be appropriate.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#295

Post by [deleted] »

aurailious wrote: post #68
severino wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.

Replace "should" with "could" and you'd be right. Each vote would be genuine if its conudcted according to law.

[deleted]

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#297

Post by sparkie »

aurailious wrote: post #68
severino wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.

Replace "should" with "could" and you'd be right. Each vote would be genuine if its conudcted according to law.

If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then?

Kids learn at an early age that when you lose, you lose. They usually grow out of "best of 3" or "best of 5" before age 10.

Even a 5 year old knows that "best of 2" doesn't work.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#298

Post by rustyboy »

prepend wrote: post #140
mikepurvis wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I agree that it's not the will of the people on face, however I think a re-do is okay in this situation. The UK is a representative democracy and their elected officials cannot arrive at a deal on something a majority of voters wanted, so what do you do then?

If you just default to force something through would violate the rights of those who voted for members who are voting "No" to the deal.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#299

Post by avar »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #142

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 le…

> 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.

The ECJ has said that the UK can just revoke article 50 and stay in the EU[1]. I understand how this might be political suicide for some in the UK, but there is the option of takesies backsies (although that would happen to e.g. the EMA is unclear).

So one option is to hold another referendum, and see if the "stay" votes carry it this time around. If they do they revoke article 50, if not it's back to square #1.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/uk-can-unil...

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#300

Post by laurentoget »

School-Cotton wrote: post #194
makomk wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The UK is a sovereign country -- how is it possible for them to never be able to do something without someone else's permission?

They are a sovereign country, but they are an island, not a ship, they cannot weigh anchor and set sails. They may wish for the US to be a closer partner than the EU but it will remain a long flight and 5 timezones away.
Post reply on HN