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

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#361

Post by pseudolus »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #342
pseudolus wrote: post #317

One of the effects of Brexit that is overlooked by people outside of the UK is the effect that it will have on the Union itself. In 2014 during the Scottish independence referendum those favouring remaining in the UK prevailed by about 11%. One of the strongest arguments made by those who favoured remaining was that an independent Scotland would not accede to the EU automatically, according to the EU itself, but woul…

By Union what is meant here is, the United Kingdom?

Yes, the union of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom: England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The union between England and Wales dates back to 1536, Scotland became part of the Union in 1707 (Scotland, England and Wales comprising Great Britain), and Northern Ireland (1922). There was a union with all 32 counties of Ireland in 1801.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#364

Post by ivraatiems »

jandrese wrote: post #357
ivraatiems wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read your post as quite confident, but a lot of people were equally confident that the original referendum would be a strong Remain victory. What are you basing these predictions on?

It seems like the second referendum will also fail if it still includes the "allow brown people into your country" part of being an EU member.

Are there polls or other evidence supporting that?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#365

Post by School-Cotton »

gumby wrote: post #301
School-Cotton wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's the opposite: of course they can leave, but they don't want to lose all the benefits they had before leaving. Unfortunately for them there's little benefit for the people they are leaving to really offer them anything. At least in a divorce you tend to split things (I'll keep the bed and you can have the dresser). In this case it's someone walking out the door but saying "hey, could you let me still come by for…

I understand that. I was responding to:

> May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#366

Post by School-Cotton »

tcgv wrote: post #277
School-Cotton wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apparently the UK is able to leave at any time if only they're willing to accept unfavorable EU terms. If they want a better deal they need to negotiate.

Then what does this sentence mean?

> May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#367

Post by cm2187 »

tunesmith wrote: post #10
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?

Isn't the labor party also against revoking article 50? Corbyn at least? I thought it was only the liberal party that has been consistent in arguing for revoking it.

Like the conservatives, they are divided between remainers and brexiters. Which is why it is a political mess. Now the conservative party being in power, these divisions are showing wide open. But you have a similar division within Labour.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#368

Post by mcguire »

arethuza wrote: post #311
balabaster wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Actually, I believe the armed forces of the UK actually take an oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch rather than to the state/government - I did think this didn't mean very much but I have raised the point with a serving army officer and he was rather insistent that they take it seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kin...

Interesting.

Dan Carlin has a series on his podcast discussing the background of the war in Asia in 1937-1945 (https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supern...). One of his major points about the Japanese government at the time was that the military held allegiance to the emperor, who couldn't or didn't actually do anything, rather than the civilian government. As a result, the military could do essentially anything it wanted.

That didn't end well.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#369

Post by cryptonector »

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?

Problem is: many labour MPs are from hard-brexit districts. Same thing for conservative MPs.

In fact, the problem is that the electoral map of the UK is more hard-brexit than the popular vote, while the MPs from hard-brexit districts are mostly remainers. Remainer MPs from hard-brexit districts have contradictory and irreconcilable motivations: they want the UK to remain in the EU, but they want to remain MPs. If at the end of the day the UK does not exit the EU, those MPs will lose their seats -- that's a lose-lose for them. If the UK manages to exit the EU, those MPs have a fighting chance to be reelected.

So right now Parliament wants to rescind the Article 50 invocation, but can't bring itself to say so. The best they can do without massive upheaval in the next general election is to either order a second referendum, or request a delay in exiting. And those two options only if a) the Speaker allows them (he has been allowing remainer motions that the parliamentarian has ruled out of order, so the Speaker might indeed continue to do so), b) the PM accedes or c) Parliament impeaches her. (c) hasn't happened in centuries, and (b) might not happen (but I wouldn't hazard a prediction). A successful vote of no confidence would not work: first there would have to be a new general election and a new government, which might not yield a remain result (the electoral map is hard for brexit).

Hope that makes the situation clearer, but! I am not a subject of the crown, so take this with a lot of salt.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#370

Post by derriz »

yholio wrote: post #303
derriz wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I have no idea why the extreme brexiteers find this idea so objectionable? Because it's a slippery slope that looks very much like ceding territory. It's not just border checks, but Northern Ireland would be effectively in the EU as far as customs rules and tariffs. Otherwise, you could circumvent the EU tariffs by importing in the UK, moving the goods "internally" to NE then loading them on a truck and unloading s…

Do you object to the Good Friday Agreement? Because its fundamental principle is that the constitional status of Northern Ireland was a matter for the people of Northern Ireland alone.

If the vast majority of people in NI are happy to be part of the EU customs zone and allowing them their wish (in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement) also allows brexiteers to turn the rest of the UK into a Singapore (Reece-Mogg) or a Venezuala (Corbyn) as they see fit without any encumberance from the EU, then what's the problem?

I just don't get it. A year ago, some of the leading voices of the Brexit movement were advocating special customs zones to be set up around the UK, once free for EU competition rules. There were news stories with brexiteers advocating a Tyneside Customs zone, for example. Why is it fine for Tyneside to be have a separate customs zone to the rest of the UK but not Northern Ireland?

Post reply on HN