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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#451

Post by dv_dt »

hardlianotion wrote: post #429
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 minister…

> Even now, forms of brexit based on remaining in the EEA have a great chance of having parliamentary support.

But that's not the deal with the EU and there is no time left to negotiate this I thought. Can you perhaps explain more?

Is it that you think May actually cheated the electorate that wanted Brexit? I though she was essentially on the side of Brexit?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#452

Post by sievebrain »

andybak wrote: post #445
growlist wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 firs…

Let's phrase it like this.

There would be nobody in parliament or government talking about a second referendum if remain had won. In fact it'd have been taken as a mandate to immediately pass more powers to Brussels, see the PESCO.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#453

Post by [deleted] »

Beldin wrote: post #239
nostrademons wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then that's what we get. There's no guarantee of a good outcome: if the majority of people want to do stupid things, a democracy will let them. In such a case we'd probably be fucked regardless of what form of government we had. A dictatorship, monarchy, or oligarchy lets a minority of people do stupid things, and if you have a majority, it's fairly likely there is a powerful minority contained within them.

The majority of EU citizens did not vote in the Brexit referendum. They shouldn't have to suffer the consequences [edit to clarify] of a war resulting from this vote.

[deleted]

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#454

Post by mattlondon »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #402
mattlondon wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

16 year olds can get married, join the military, work fulltime and pay income tax. Why shouldn't they also be allowed to vote?

You know what, you're right. We should extend all 18-21 privileges to 16 years of age across all developed nations and call 16+ aged individuals adults. Because after all, they're fully developed persons capable of the same level of rational thought and emotional separation as those at 18 through 21 years of age and beyond. So, age of adulthood: 16. Age of consent: 16. Age of military draft eligibility: 16. Subsequen…

You're welcome. Glad to help.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#455

Post by derriz »

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 a misrepresentation of what is referred to the "backstop" aspect of the Withdrawal Agreement (incorrectly called the "Brexit Deal" in the header above).

The "backstop" stipulates that any future trading relationship does not violate terms of the Irish peace agreement known as the Good Friday Agreement - specifically that there would be no physical checks at the border in Ireland.

Currently the border is virtually invisible because the UK and Ireland are EU members and in the same customs zone.

If, in the future, the UK decides it would prefer to leave the Customs Union (you can be in the customs union but not in the EU), then this would require a special arrangement for Ireland - probably requiring customs checking to be done between Northern Ireland and Britain instead of between north and south in Ireland.

For some people (and I don't know why - see my comment above), this is absolutely objectionable even though this arrangement would enjoy popular support in both parts of Ireland. If you're not prepared to accept this arrangement, then the UK would be stuck in the EU's customs union.

Of course if you want to leave the customs union (otherwise what's the point of brexit), then you have to accept the special arrangement for Northern Ireland or basically renege on the terms of Irish peace agreement.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#456

Post by hardlianotion »

tasubotadas wrote: post #432
sparkie wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So put your money. Make some short positions on Euro. And I would argue the opposite - the departure of the UK will leave the EU stronger. People will see what kind of clusterfuck it creates and they will learn that capital investors do not like such a mess. While countries in the EU (especially Ireland - THE English speaking country successor in the EU) will enjoy the diverted cashflows into their economies. If ther…

"And I would argue the opposite - the departure of the UK will leave the EU stronger."

It won't.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#457

Post by rtkwe »

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.

I don't see the contradiction here. Remain was what it says on the tin stay in the EU and any desired changes happen within the system of the EU. My whole point is the leave has gone from this huge nebula of different brexits to one, the one currently negotiated by PM May.

Ideally if it were possible the vote should have never been held until there was an actual deal or at least a concrete foundation. Without the actual details of a deal the referendum isn't much better than an opinion poll on the EU because there's no facts about what leave actually means before it's negotiated. Or a vote to initiate the process and another about the actual facts of the deal.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#458

Post by growlist »

johanek wrote: post #126
ceejayoz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was an MP, is still a MEP, and cofounded a party that once commanded "major party" status and nearly 20% of the vote in 2014. He's clearly representing some folks.

He's never been a MP, UKIP has never been considered a "major party" (how is this even defined?), there was no election in 2014, UKIP won 12.6% in 2015. He's clearly representing some people but your facts are way off.

Worth remembering the dirty tricks employed against him:

'The election of a Conservative MP could have been declared void if he had filed accurate returns that showed he had overspent on his campaign to beat Nigel Farage, a court has heard.

Craig Mackinlay, an accountant, stands accused along with his election agent and a party official of deliberately submitting “woefully inaccurate” expenditure returns.'

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#459

Post by lizknope »

jkmcf wrote: post #238
kodablah wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not voting as such individually. Also an American, but from the outside I don't see how a majority desire can be so accurately determined beyond a vote. > Some portions of the UK [...] are strongly aganst this voting result. This I definitely see from the loudest. So strongly that the vote has been tarnished e…

>Also an American, but from the outside I don't see how a majority desire can be so objectively determined beyond a vote. My personal opinion is "majority" wins isn't necessarily a proper majority. Given how our Congress votes party line on most things, and the ratio is more or less 50:50 Dm to Rep, a 66% majority seems minimal for passing any law unblemished with party bias. With 72% of registered UK voter turnout,…

In the United States we require super majorities to amend the Constitution. 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Something as important as Brexit should require more than 50.1% to pass. But it was actually non-binding anyway so the government could just ignore it.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#460

Post by neffy »

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…

The other precedent is the ratification of the Maastricht treaty, where it was rejected by referendum in Denmark for example 50.7% vs 40.93% - so again very close - amended, and then passed - by a second referendum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty

The failure by both Corbyn and May to acknowledge the need for a second referendum, imho, should raise the question of whether the UK is really a democracy any more.

Post reply on HN