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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#551

Post by makomk »

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…

Bear in mind that the second of those referendums didn't happen until two decades after the EEC we'd originally signed up to was massively and fundamentally changed in nature. Now we're talking about having another referendum two and a half years after the previous one, before the result of the last referendum has even been implemented. That's quite a difference and it very strongly suggests that we're only seeing calls for another referendum now because the last one came to the "wrong" result.

(Also, we didn't actually get any referendum on joining the EEC. The 1975 referendum was on whether we'd stay in and came with very similar warnings about the perils of leaving to the more recent referendum. One has to wonder whether, if that'd ended in a leave vote, we'd have had a second referendum several decades sooner than we did.)

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#552

Post by malchow »

You can be for or against Brexit. The saddest thing is the gulf between the governing class and Britons. The former cannot effectuate a strong existential roar from the people they represent.

That’s worse than this vote, and worse than the original vote for Brexit. (If you even think that was bad.)

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#553

Post by carwyn »

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?

How is having another vote, to establish a revised opinion based on new information and two long years of public debate and analysis of the original campaigns, undemocratic?

We could well be on path for a third general election in six years, a periodic vote to re-evaluate what we want as a country based on the current state of affairs.

Isn't being able to change your mind based on a changed context fundamental underpinning of a democratic system?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#554

Post by themacguffinman »

School-Cotton wrote: post #194
makomk wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission, meaning that anyone who wants to leave won't support it. It also removes almost all the benefits of remaining in the EU, meaning Remain supporters hate it too. Oh, and for bonus points it effectively makes Northern Ireland no longer fully part of the UK, meaning that the DUP (the Northern Ireland unionist party which the…

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

By first agreeing to such terms.

They can probably still leave as a sovereign entity, in the same way I can technically ignore my loans that I initially agreed to pay back. There will be consequences.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#555

Post by pjc50 »

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 about the whole "referendum is true democracy" because no two referendums in the UK have been held under the same rules.

EU nationals resident in the UK are entitled to vote in Parliamentary elections. They voted in the Scottish independence referendum. They were not allowed to vote in this referendum, despite the fact that it would erode their rights and possibly force them out of the country.

Besides, democracy has been "tarnished" by widespread cheating in the referendum which had not been adequately prosecuted.

Not to mention that the U.K. is not a "popular sovereignty" country, we're a constitutional monarchy with an unelected upper house! The uncodified constition gets changed increasingly often in a haphazard way. We're practically making it up as we go along (see Bercow controversy).

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#556

Post by rbanffy »

makomk wrote: post #551
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…

Bear in mind that the second of those referendums didn't happen until two decades after the EEC we'd originally signed up to was massively and fundamentally changed in nature. Now we're talking about having another referendum two and a half years after the previous one, before the result of the last referendum has even been implemented. That's quite a difference and it very strongly suggests that we're only seeing ca…

I wouldn't say it's because it's the "wrong" result but that only now you could make an informed decision because only now you can see what a Brexit looks like.

To be fair, it could be seen since 2016, but now it can no longer be honestly ignored.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#557

Post by notahacker »

flukus wrote: post #496
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…

That's not a second referendum, it's a fundamentally different one because the EEC is not the EU. If there had been a vote to join the EU (and on the other changes since) then it would have a lot more legitimacy and this mess probably would not exist, one way or the other.

There's a different name to the organization and a different cohort of voters, and certainly there was a case for offering voters a chance to ratify or reject Maastricht and Lisbon treaties (which may or may not have reduced the mess). But the EU fundamentally is what the EEC set out to be in 1957, far more clearly than the current Brexit options resemble the various 2016 pledges about a post-Brexit UK's aims resemble the respective deal and no-deal options actually on the table.

Free movement of workers and capital, common policies in agriculture etc, a European Investment Bank and Social Fund redistributing member states' tax revenues, legislative oversight, a European Council, Commission and Parliament are all in the original Treaty of Rome. The EEC was smaller then, of course, but it didn't hide its intent to invite more countries to join. And the UK completely avoided participating novel EU projects like the Euro that voters clearly didn't want.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#558

Post by RafiqM »

rusk wrote: post #502
RafiqM wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about practically any political issue, in the US or elsewhere. "Fair" and "sensible" are rarely anywhere near the primary considerations, are they? I do think what you suggest would be fair and sensible. I do not believe the voters will see it so reasonably. I'm from Ireland, where we had something similar happen. People still talk about how the govt will just hold multiple referendums till they get the answer…

I remember these referendums and in at least one case there was no explanation of the the referendum was the first time around. We were just expected to rubber stamp it. Also on one or other of them concessions were gained on the second time round. So it wasn’t just like the ”keep voting til you get the right result” thing that you hear people spouting ... does anyone actually believe we’re that soft?

Well that's what I'm saying - this is what you hear people spouting, it doesn't matter that there were good reasons for everything, you just have the distrust of the democratic process left at the end of the day.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#559

Post by spuz »

ed_elliott_asc wrote: post #339
cryptonector wrote: post #306

Article 50 exists. The UK can leave on WTO terms and the EU cannot stop it. The EU has some incentives (money) to give the UK some other deal than WTO terms, and it has some incentives (avoiding a rush to the exits) to give the UK nothing more than WTO terms. As it happens the UK is wealthier than other EU countries that might head for the exits if they thought they could get as good a deal as the UK, but no one thin…

The brexiteers weren’t sidelined, they were given foreign office and dept for brexit, they were just useless and incompetent

Honestly, I don't think "useless and incompetence" is a relevant criticism of those who were put in charge of the negotiations. Even a team 100 times more competent than May's would still run into the same hard issues.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#560

Post by gpm »

tim333 wrote: post #505
growlist wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that in the alternate scenario there wouldn't be half the establishment or more agitating to subvert the democratic will of the largest vote ever in British history, I guess..

There's something to be said for a bias towards the status quo. If it ain't broke don't fix it and all that. If the vote had been 60-40 leave I'd agree with you but it was close to 50/50 and based on some misinformation.

There's an argument that the bias towards the status quo weighs in the other direction. People are biased towards the status quo, if 50% of people are willing to go against the status quo they are more likely to be right than the 50% of people not willing to.

I actually find it really remarkable that 50% of voters were unhappy enough with the EU to go against the status quo.

Post reply on HN