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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#421

Post by simonbyrne »

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...

The Queen has immense theoretical powers, but it would trigger a major constitutional crisis if she were to exercise any of them without being asked by the PM.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#422

Post by dagw »

BossingAround wrote: post #70

All I can think of is, why? I don't know what were the main points against the deal, but the only reason I can think of that the deal is rejected is that Corbin, or whoever else would come out of this kerfuffle victorious, wants to re-issue vote on leaving the EU in order to stay..? This is insanely puzzling to me, and very much unexpected. Can someone ELI5..? Or maybe ELI15 would be enough.

Can someone ELI5

Everybody on both sides considers the deal a huge compromise and hope that by voting it down, their prefered solution will become viable.

I bet however that if this deal was put to a single ranked vote against all other options, everybody would put it as nr 2 and it would comfortably win.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#423

Post by growlist »

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…

I voted leave, and would be quite happy with no deal - and the gangsterism of the EU in the negotiations has only stiffened my resolve, and I gather there are plenty of others that feel similarly; this is one of the reasons that some remainers are scared of a second referendum - their is a chance the leave vote might actually increase, and then they'll really be up the spout because any further shenanigans on their part will make it transparently obvious that they don't give a fig about democracy.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#424

Post by [deleted] »

tim333 wrote: post #271
RafiqM wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't get how going back to the people is political suicide and creates distrust. I mean the first question was do you want to leave and the vote was yes. The second would be that now we know the facts were not entirely as advertised do you still want to go ahead? Not sure how that is betrayal, political suicide and the like - it seems fairly fair and sensible.

[deleted]

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#425

Post by notahacker »

School-Cotton wrote: post #366
tcgv wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's a (slightly exaggerated) reference to the Irish backstop.

The UK, as a sovereign nation, is party to international agreements which it has signed in the past which commit it to doing various things, many of them intended to be permanent and many unrelated to the EU. One of those is with the Republic of Ireland, over peaceful relations in the UK territory of Northern Ireland. The Irish government and many Northern Irish people regard this agreement, broadly construed, as implying that no new barriers will be set up on the Irish border. Another international agreement, WTO rules, which the EU is signed up to (and the UK also intends to trade under) implies that if the UK and EU adopt different customs regimes they will also be required to actively monitor customs borders between the UK trading bloc and the EU trading bloc. The Irish government (and by an extension EU negotiators representing their interests) regards feasible customs border check regimes as violating the spirit of the Good Friday agreement over security barriers. Therefore unless and until some border solution in line with WTO regulations and acceptable to the Irish government or an adjudicating party is found (or the Republic of Ireland also chooses to leave the EU, which is highly unlikely) Northern Ireland must not become part of a different customs area from the Republic of Ireland and therefore must remain subject to some relevant EU laws.

Being a sovereign country means the possibility of reneging upon prior commitments, but it doesn't mean these agreements don't exist or that parties won't insist you honour [their interpretation of] them when offering new agreements

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#426

Post by OscarCunningham »

ttul wrote: post #54
humps wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a confidence motion tomorrow evening at 7PM GMT. My understanding is, if the government loses a general election is triggered which takes a couple of months. So a new government could be in place before March 29th. However, I think if a general election was to happen then all sides would agree to ask for an extension to Article 50 and allow a few extra months for the new government to decide what to do. Anoth…

The betting odds show an 83% likelihood that the U.K. remains somehow after 3/29. There is a 40% chance of another general election this year (15% in 2020 and just 13% in 2021). I’d say odds are the confidence vote fails tomorrow and a general election is called, with a motion to extend article 50 until the election is held giving the people a chance to speak, albeit not via a referendum. Another referendum is not go…

Why would May call an election if the confidence vote fails?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#427

Post by nicoburns »

gonehome wrote: post #55
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…

Maybe? If you think that most of the people are actually looking at or arguing about the implementation of any specific policy (I'd suspect this is the minority). It seems more likely people are just arguing about which tribe they're a part of. In that case nobody cares about what the best outcome is or what the truth is. If you can get a brexit deal passed that still allows the UK to 'brexit' in name only, but other…

I think you've misread this one. People actually care about the outcome, and are deeply divided on what they think the best solution is.

(some) Leavers even now explicitly discuss some deals as being "leaving only in name", and thus as not delivering on what they voted for.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#428

Post by tomp »

paxys wrote: post #373
hazeii wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed; a lot of people subscribe to the view that the vote delivered the 'incorrect' result because one side was more effective at lying than the other side. Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate…

"Serving the people" can itself be interpreted both ways. Say there was a referendum and people voted to eliminate all taxes. Would they still have a duty to carry it out, knowing that it would most certainly lead to national collapse?

Yes. If people know that it could lead to national collapse, they'd more likely vote for actually sensible policies. If instead they think that "the politicians will figure something out" and that "my politicians are better than your politicians" you get the present political situation, when most votes (both referenda and elections) are less about policies and more about popularity, tribalism and virtue signaling.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#429

Post by hardlianotion »

dv_dt wrote: post #394

At this point a no deal Brexit looks substantially different from the possible-Brexit that was voted upon. Shouldn't there be a new referendum of basically a new question of a no deal Brexit vs Remain? I know very little of British politics, is there some other dynamic at work that pushes to what seems like a strongly economically destructive no deal Brexit?

I can never understand why no-deal v remain appears to be a reasonable position. A normal response to a closely contested referendum carried out the way this one was would be to find some consensus within parliament for how brexit could be delivered, _then_ enact article 50 to withdraw.

The current prime minister not only kept all opposition parties away from deliberations on how to proceed, but kept her own ministers in the dark while formulating her own policy, which she pursued largely in secret.

So why should the electorate be cheated in this manner? Even now, forms of brexit based on remaining in the EEA have a great chance of having parliamentary support.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#430

Post by leadingthenet »

sparkie wrote: post #343
paganel wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juncker tweeted about an hour ago that “time is almost up” for the UK. That means that the EU won’t sweeten the proposed deal.

They will make concessions. I'll put money on it. The UK leaving with no deal would be the beginning of the end of the EU. There is already growing anti-EU sentiment in Italy (4th largest economy in the block), Hungary, Austria, Poland. The UK leaving could set off a chain reaction which would either end the EU project or drastically reduce its size. The EU simply can't afford to have the UK leave completely, because…

This is ridiculous Brexiteer fantasy. The UK will have no measure of success in the short to medium term in a no deal scenario; it will be absolutely catastrophic.

It's meaningless to speculate what might happen in a fantasy scenario a decade or more later, but we know for a fact that the UK would be initially hurt much more badly by no deal than the EU.

If anything, no deal should convince Eurosceptics in other countries that they just cannot sell this fantasy to their constituents anymore.

Post reply on HN