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

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#561

Post by benmmurphy »

mpweiher wrote: post #516
sievebrain wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

In reply to point c)

The government spend £9.3 million pounds sending a pro-EU leaflet to every household in the country. That is more than the £7 million campaign spending cap. This is the leaflet in question: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

The leaflet doesn't even pretend to be neutral.

I think it is ridiculous to claim that leave overspent+cheated compared to remain. I think both parties played loose and fast with the rules. It just so happens remain is basically in control of the institutions and the bulk of media in the UK so you only really see one side of the story.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#562

Post by rbanffy »

djmobley wrote: post #517
rtkwe wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, t…

It was always clear the UK would never get a better deal than Norway. At no time an EU officer ever claimed anything different. The EU would never give the UK the Brexit as it was sold by the UKIP crowd because, if they complied, pretty much every country would want its own *xit deal and the EU would collapse as an empty balloon.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#563

Post by pjc50 »

sievebrain wrote: post #509
pjc50 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea that food and medical supplies will disappear is completely wrong and has already been debunked by, amongst other people, the head of the NHS. This is especially true because being in the EU actually increases food costs due to the common external tariff. The only reason food imports would slow is if the government wanted them to, which it doesn't. The illogical and ridiculous predictions that somehow the on…

So why did the government pay £14m to emergency charter ferries from a company with no ferries?

The UK survived by huge logistical effort and food rationing. It's now led by people I wouldn't trust with the logistics of a trip to Tesco.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#564

Post by FartyMcFarter »

pjc50 wrote: post #555
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 fa…

> EU nationals resident in the UK are entitled to vote in Parliamentary elections.

No they aren't:

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-regist...

I agree with your general point though.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#565

Post by nothrabannosir »

towelr34dy wrote: post #504
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…

There is a difference: If A, then result would NEVER be realistically contested If B, then result COULD be realistically contested No one would argue that if the vote were stay, we'd be seeing it again. It wouldn't happen. Not even maybe. But since the underdog won, since leave won, it is now contestable. I'm on this fence on this one, and I don't live there, so I don't have a side. But I do see each side's points.

> But since the underdog won, since leave won, it is now contestable.

As much as our friends in parliament sometimes make it out to be, it is not purely a match. There is no "underdog" in Brexit; there is one team, the UK, with two options: remain or leave. Choosing a bad option affects everyone equally (except a few career politicians).

With all the shouting and finger pointing it's easy to lose track of this fact: it is not a competition. We're in this together. We're a family, and we might be cutting off the nose to spite the face.

But it has morphed into an us-vs-them issue (brexiteers vs remainers, not even immigrants), and through the lens of competition we only see the finish line.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#566

Post by Shish2k »

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.

> There would be nobody in parliament or government talking about a second referendum if remain had won

Before the results were fully counted, when it looked as if remain had won, leavers were already beginning work on their campaign for a second referendum.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#567

Post by VBprogrammer »

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…

I don't think "we probably won't even starve to death" would have gone over quite so well on the side of the bus.

There is also the question of how easy unravelling our membership of the WTO with the rest of Europe will be.

I'm no expert in how international trade works but it's not as simple as WTO becomes the default day one no deal situation from what I've read. For example https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-...

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#568

Post by jmmcd »

Zenst wrote: post #545
neffy wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just after the original vote in 2016, Tusk admitted that the EU needed reform. Cameron (UK PM of the time) in 2015 went to the EU seeking reform, he was palmed of with some token concessions for the UK. 2016 we had a vote, since then it has been a cluster of chaos with every opportunity for personal limelight being sought over any sane approach. May's deal wasn't a deal the UK was looking for on either side and in ef…

> Firstly - cancel article 50, then reenact it again. That is within EU rules and avoids needing any yay or nay from EU.

This is not possible. The recent judgement that UK could unilaterally cancel A50 was predicted on a "good faith" cancellation, not gaming the system.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#569

Post by pjc50 »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #564
pjc50 wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fa…

> EU nationals resident in the UK are entitled to vote in Parliamentary elections. No they aren't: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-regist... I agree with your general point though.

Oops, you're right, it's the other way round; UK nationals in the EU can vote in Parliamentary elections but not the referendum.

The great thing about democracy is there are so many different electorates to choose from.

Post reply on HN