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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#581

Post by rst »

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…

The second referendum featured a Leave campaign that effectively promised, among other things, continued access to European markets on pretty much as-member terms; indeed, immediately afterwards, David Davis, placed at the head of the negotiations, was promising a deal that secured "all the benefits of membership".

That deal was not available, and so the result of the second referendum cannot be implemented. If you want to claim a democratic mandate for the departure options that are available (May's deal, leaving you tied to the EU on disadvantageous terms, or no deal, and immediate, massive disruptions in cross-border commerce), you'll need another vote.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#582

Post by specialist »

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…

Accepting the result normalizes the illegal campaigning and foreign influence.

If the leave decision was truly the will of the people, then holding another referendum shouldn't be a concern, if only to reaffirm the legitimacy.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#583

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

> This will either result in a Remain vote and possibly a civil war (no, seriously)

The UK doesn't have enough guns to have a proper civil war. (It's amazing how far one has to reach for good news in this situation!)

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#584

Post by Zenst »

pjc50 wrote: post #574
Zenst wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> and fix what is wrong - start by a EU Health Service, that oversight has always irked many with the EU ethos to free access to basics I don't understand this argument - "give me hard Brexit OR EU NHS"? > a second referendum should see all MP's remain neutral and they all focus on facts, over opinion. Also all avenues are equally explored from a worst to best case and presented to the public. The public love facts a…

It was an example, not a one or the other argument, sorry you misinterpreted it, and I can only put that down to how I presented it. My bad, sorry.

As for MP's being neutral, well, it's not impossible, and would be refreshing and well needed change. Otherwise we will just repeat the same old mess with no central point of facts and impartiality to look at for contrast. Making the whole vote a futile mess that will only end up with the same divide, whatever the outcome.

If only the EU stepped back and said we are looking at reforming certain area's, offering up something new to vote upon, at least that would appease the sense of democracy. Otherwise it would be seen as some as another case of the EU not liking the result and being told to vote again. Which is how they will see it, more so as that is what they feared publicly before the referendum and got shot down by the other side for lies.

So to say it is complicated is an understatement. But some grounding is needed and the MP's being neutral and not taking sides, same with parties. Would only help.

But then, much in politics that is flawed and in need of reform. Yet we can't even agree upon a digital voting system, let alone the ability to use more than a single character.

Imagine if Twitter had a limit of one character and you could only post once every 5 years. Think of the level of debate and productivity that would be achieved with such limitations and that is what politics is too the people and we call that democracy.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#585

Post by buttcoinslol »

growlist wrote: post #474
pas wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gangsterism could you explain that a bit?

The EU's plan from the start has been to make the process so painful as to dissuade anyone else from trying. Martin Selmayr was boasting that he has managed to trap the UK.

Of course, why would the EU adopt any other strategy if their goal is to keep the EU together?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#586

Post by AnimalMuppet »

notahacker wrote: post #153
duxup wrote: post #138

Are there British politicians brave enough and capable of becoming PM ... and willing to say "This is a bad idea and I won't do it?"

No

However, there might be a British politician brave enough to say "This is a bad idea, let's not do it", who, on the basis of saying that, might some time later become PM. They won't become PM this year, though.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#587

Post by zanny »

vkou wrote: post #341
hazeii wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed; a lot of people subscribe to the view that the vote delivered the 'incorrect' result because one side was more effective at lying than the other side. Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate…

> Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate, it seems). Governments do this all the time, though. Campaign promises are often just that.

And we see time and time again how ineffectual the population is at getting people into a majority position of power to see the pop proposals of the day enacted.

These direct democracy votes often turn out this way - the people vote on a topic differently than how they vote for representatives. But a large portion of why we don't practice direct democracy in most of the west is because you don't want a mob of opinions dictating national law.

It isn't undemocratic for democratically elected representatives to go against a referendum. They were elected to rule on behalf of their people, even if that is in contradiction to non-binding votes by said people. Its their reelection funeral if they go against popular opinion and turn out wrong, but its their job to do it if they think its right. Its why we have representatives in the first place!

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#588

Post by notahacker »

tim333 wrote: post #573
notahacker wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody that has made even the slightest attempt to follow events knows that May tried alternative attempts to get a deal (including a framework signed off by all the Brexiters in her Cabinet) and the EU repeatedly rejected them. Anybody that has a solid grasp of the facts knows that the issue is not that the EU "offered the UK nothing" but that the Irish government will veto any agreement which implies the creation…

If May wasn't in a coalition with the DUP then N Ireland could have remained in customs union with the EU as it is now and the mainland could have gone Canada+. Not really happening at the moment though.

Agree that the issue would have had a lot less salience if the government and media were largely free to ignore the DUP and Northern Ireland in general, though I imagine those ERG Brexiters who seem to want to find any excuse not to have a deal could have still made it a sticking point. And tbf, the unionists probably have as legitimate a point that a separate customs regime violates their idea of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement as the republicans, though a customs border at [air]ports is obviously less disruptive than one between socially and economically integrated regions on the Irish mainland.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#589

Post by accnumnplus1 »

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…

No. You seem very confused. Brexiters have not been doing any delivering. Brexiters want a WTO exit (aka "no deal"). The government are not brexiters - PM Theresa May is claiming her daft deal is brexit - she and a few of her supporters only - it is not what brexiters want.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#590

Post by ganeshkrishnan »

hanoz wrote: post #334

The deal was the worst of all worlds and deliberately designed to fail. The whole project since the referendum has been to work towards the palatable introduction of a second referendum whilst spending the intervening time demonstrating the impossibility of a good deal and the awfulness of no deal. We will now proceed to run down the clock towards the no deal 'cliff edge' and as the precipice looms go to the EU askin…

Absolutely this. The day brexit was being voted, I said I would eat my socks if brexit goes thru. The voters did vote for "leave" and my colleagues were wondering if I would really eat my socks. However, I told them this would never get passed thru the parliament. They will dilly dally, drag it along and dump it in the end saying it's too complicated.

To solve any equation, just follow the money. Big business stand to lose a lot of money; therefore brexit won't happen.

Post reply on HN