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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#511

Post by hardlianotion »

derriz wrote: post #193
m0zg wrote: post #71

Of course it "failed". The government did everything it could to sabotage it and arrive at as unfavorable a set of exit conditions as possible. Even if she did want to get a good deal, May doesn't strike me as a cutthroat negotiator. Couple this with her unwillingness to abide by the will of the people (the size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning democracy), and you get this. This w…

Brexit has been sabotaged by a conspiracy by May? You seriously believe she is devious enough? This is tin-foil hat nonsense. Brexit is and will be a failure by definition - simply because it was never specified exactly what it involved. There are 1000s of ways to NOT be a member of the EU. "Brexit" covers all of them so leave-supporting politicians have been arguing furiously on the basis that their particular versi…

The truth is that May never consulted to find out what could fly.

A brexit that involved staying in the EEA would find a parliamentary majority, even now.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#512

Post by andybak »

davidw wrote: post #117

I loved the comparison to a submarine made of cheese: https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?l...

Pasted here for ease of re-pasting:

The thing is, the best way to understand Theresa May’s predicament is to imagine that 52 percent of Britain had voted that the government should build a submarine out of cheese.

Now, Theresa May was initially against building a submarine out of cheese, obviously. Because it’s a completely insane thing to do.

However, in order to become PM, she had to pretend that she thought building a submarine out of cheese was fine and could totally work.

"Cheese means cheese," she told us all, madly.

Then she actually built one.

It’s shit. Of course it is. For God’s sake, are you stupid? It’s a submarine built out of cheese.

So now, having built a shit cheese submarine, she has to put up with both Labour and Tory Brexiters insisting that a less shit cheese submarine could have been built.

They’re all lying, and they know it. So does everybody else. We've covered this already, I know, but it’s cheese and it’s a submarine. How good could it possibly be?

Only she can’t call them out on this. Because she has spent the past two years also lying, by pretending she really could build a decent submarine out of cheese.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#513

Post by VBprogrammer »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #475
megaremote wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Revoking article 50 would be a bad idea for civil stability What are they going to do? Lets be honest, the UK are the most impassioned people of all. They will not do anything. They aren't French, they aren't Spanish. Maybe they will have an extra cup of tea.

Especially when you consider it's the old that voted for Brexit. This stuff about riots is overplayed, if it was going to happen it would have started already.

If the pro brexit rallies are anything to go by the number of people who truly feel passionately for it are not bothered enough to take to the streets.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#514

Post by Tomte »

School-Cotton wrote: post #365
gumby wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If the UK signs the deal. Of course binding yourself by treaty to some future action does not negate your sovereignty. It's an expression of your sovereignty!

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#515

Post by tim333 »

sievebrain wrote: post #452
andybak wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Dunno. BBC from 2016:

> The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#516

Post by mpweiher »

sievebrain wrote: post #450
amelius wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You are ignoring:

a) the narrow outcome

b) the non-binding nature of the vote

c) the fact that leave overspent + cheated

d) the fact that what was presented as "leave" was an impossible lie

  (the cake-and-eat-it option)
e) even if you disregard the cake-and-eat-it faction, both "cake" and "eat it" were under the "leave" umbrella. Doesn't hurt to first settle whether you would prefer "cake" or "eat it" and then hold the referendum.

Oh and of course:

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." Who said it? Yes, Nigel Farage.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#517

Post by djmobley »

rtkwe wrote: post #457
growlist wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 act…

> Remain was what it says on the tin stay in the EU and any desired changes happen within the system of the EU.

That's simply not true. Both remain and leave campaigns were backed up by dubious or misleading claims about what the future would look like if the UK voted to leave the EU.

Those backing remain claimed Brexit would cause financial instability and require an emergency budget, that unemployment would rise, that NHS finances would be undermined, that families would be £4,300 worse off, that Scotland would immediately leave the UK, etc. David Cameron said he would stay on as Prime Minister in the event of a leave vote. None of these things happened.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#518

Post by JeanMarcS »

blibble wrote: post #319
xienze wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what if? You're essentially arguing that if our benevolent overlords decide that the democratic process might result in something unfavorable that they should do the wise thing and ignore the will of the people.

this is the general principle behind the EU Commission: that of a technocracy the head of the Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, on the 2005 French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'." the result being that the French rejected it, but it was adopted regardless

French referendum was the exact opposite of Brexit referendum.

The question asked was « Do we accept this constitution ? »

As you can imagine, barely anyone read it, so on the end most of voters choosed their response on this question : « Do I like my actual government ? »

But my point is, for the Brexit the question was simple, and could have been summarized as « Leave or stay ? » which is very easy to have an opinion on (even if the consequences were not that clear and, as many have stated in other comments here, an elaborated exit treaty should have been thought before asking).

So one one side, a complex question (due to the complexity of the text), and on the other a simple one.

And in the end, most of voters voted emotionally.

Maybe not that different after all.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#519

Post by lozenge »

dv_dt wrote: post #451
hardlianotion wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Our UK friends need to say what they want, instead of asking us to say what we want, and so we would like within a few weeks our UK friends to set out their expectations for us, because this debate is sometimes nebulous and imprecise and I would like clarifications," - 14 December

If the UK will offer something new, such as staying in the single market, then the EU is willing to reopen negotiations, extend article 50 etc. If the UK just says "this isn't good, we want something better" - then the EU won't renegotiate.

She voted Remain, and decided that implementing Leave was the only way to be Prime Minister and it was worth it. Also, she has such a thin majority, the Brexiters will topple her unless she toes to their line (restricting immigration, avoiding ECJ etc).

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#520

Post by mpweiher »

growlist wrote: post #477
DDub wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not an implementation of double jeopardy? Since the referendum new facts have come to light, that of what an exit deal would look like. New facts should allow for a new vote. If remain had won, there would be no new facts so why would another vote be justified?

Do you honestly think it is healthy for democracy if the UK is forced into remaining?

It is not forced to remain in any way shape or form.

It is forced to deal with reality, which is that what Brexiteers promised was always undeliverable.

Post reply on HN