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

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#441

Post by 7952 »

yholio wrote: post #87
gonehome wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

After brexit the people became a transcendent idea. An idea that nationalists want to have presidence over everything, including the democratic process and the rule of law. And at this point the people is just a proxy for the righteous authority of the nation.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#442

Post by pjc50 »

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?

> is there some other dynamic at work that pushes to what seems like a strongly economically destructive no deal Brexit

Lies in the press and post-imperial insecurity?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#443

Post by jpfr »

stale2002 wrote: post #398
jpfr wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver. It could go much much worse than just "bad". The UK imports a lot of food from EU neighbors. In case of a hard Brexit, this will just ... stop. The question is whether all supermarkets can immediately redo their supply chains. That is not likely. Especially since the UK will loose all trade agreements with the non-EU…

None of what you are saying is true, and it is clear that you have no idea how trade works. The EU and the UK already have a trade deal. It is called the World Trade Organization rules. Yes, some taxes and tariffs might be higher, but it is a complete lie, born of either ignorance or maliciousness, to claim that a country would literally starve to death. Once again, go look up the WTO trade rules. WTO trade rules cov…

> “The thing is, checks on non-EU trucks don’t take a couple of minutes,” Burnett told me. “They can take two or three hours.” Post-Brexit, British trucks would be non-EU. A team from London’s Imperial College subsequently estimated those queues could be 29 miles long at peak times on the British side, and there’s no reason to suppose it wouldn’t be the same on the French.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/sep/15/food-and-brexit...

Days of wait time would prohibit fresh/frozen food to make it to the UK before perishing.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#444

Post by pas »

growlist wrote: post #423
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 p…

> gangsterism

could you explain that a bit?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#445

Post by andybak »

growlist wrote: post #433
rtkwe wrote: post #270

The issue with the referendum since the beginning was leave was such a nebulous cloud for the entire range of Brexit from barely-there-Brexit to Britian-stands-alone(-get-those-people-out)-Brexit while remain had a very definite meaning. Because of that everyone could pour all their displeasure at anything wrong into leave and think the deal would take care of it. That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referen…

Edit: I got a bit carried away.

> all calls for a second referendum would be treated with utter contempt

Yes but it's symmetrical.

If result A then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side B

If result B then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side A

So no conclusion can be drawn by the fact that people are partisan. The question of whether a second referendum is a good idea is independent of the result of the first referendum.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#446

Post by JetSetWilly »

jandrese wrote: post #407
ivraatiems wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there polls or other evidence supporting that?

[flagged]

None of those articles constitutes evidence, they are just opinions of people wanting to push that line. In reality people voted brexit for very many reasons, seeking to dismiss it all as racism is just a lazy way to feel superior.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#447

Post by philwelch »

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…

The EU has to agree to an Article 50 extension--the UK can't extend it unilaterally. And there isn't really even time for a general election and a new government by the Article 50 deadline anyway, let alone time to negotiate a new deal. Article 50 can be revoked, but it can't be revoked in bad faith just to unilaterally give yourself an extension before re-invoking it again. And why would the EU grant an extension when Parliament has already turned down the best deal they're going to get?

It's entirely outside of the UK's hands right now. The best option will have to be to let the no deal Brexit happen, allow a binding Irish unification referendum within the next five years, and let the British people learn from their own mistakes.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#449

Post by hardlianotion »

pjc50 wrote: post #379
hazeii wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on.. I would - respectfully - point out that's not the situation. It is (was?) a promise in the sense that the government is there to enact the will of the people. The majority of people who voted, voted to leave (personally I was in the minority). So now (in engineering terms) it's pretty simple. If everyone sits on their hands, the UK will leave the UK as schedule…

More importantly the government cannot deliver both "Brexit" and "business continuity", potentially including such things as "food and medical supplies". This is gradually dawning on even the dimmest Cabinet ministers.

That is not true in general. I accept that this government cannot. It is perfectly feasible to leave the European Union and remain within EEA, gaining control of laws that do not relate to maintenance of European standards and maintaining business continuity.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#450

Post by sievebrain »

amelius wrote: post #438
rtkwe wrote: post #270

The issue with the referendum since the beginning was leave was such a nebulous cloud for the entire range of Brexit from barely-there-Brexit to Britian-stands-alone(-get-those-people-out)-Brexit while remain had a very definite meaning. Because of that everyone could pour all their displeasure at anything wrong into leave and think the deal would take care of it. That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referen…

> That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referendum would tarnish democracy' line I'm annoyed for another reason: first, in 1975, [1], there was a referendum that asked the British people if they would want to join the EEC. Then, in 2016, there was a referendum that asked them if they would want to leave the EU. So if there can be a second, then why can't there be a third? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His…

Maybe there can ... in another 40 years? You seem to be ignoring the rather large difference in time being proposed here.
Post reply on HN