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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#591

Post by pron »

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…

> a "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver

I don't see the logic here. The deal (let's call it D), is clearly worse than staying in the EU (let's call that option E). From that relation D < E it does not follow that no-deal (N) is better than a deal, i.e. D < N. It may well be that N < D < E. So I don't see how no-deal is the "best the brexiteers can delliver."

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#592

Post by accnumnplus1 »

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…

How is "leave the EU" nebulous? There's nothing nebulous about it. The only thing that's nebulous, as Juncker said, is Theresa May with her faux-brexit deal.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#593

Post by tomp »

atombender wrote: post #237
ddebernardy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible Labor will take over if May loses her confidence vote. But Corbyn's current position has been that he'd pursue Brexit with unicorn promises, rather than cancel the whole thing like his constituents want him to do. So it's doubtful that Labor would revoke article 50. Just spitballing here... Methinks May will win her confidence vote tomorrow. From there, the consensus seems to be to steer towards a peopl…

[flagged]

You can be anti-globalization and intellectual.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#594

Post by AnimalMuppet »

severino wrote: post #43
tunesmith wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on, and the public has become more educated as to what the true effects of Brexit will be. Even leaving aside the question of how dishonest the pro-Brexit arguments were. It just seems reasonable to have another vote.

And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.

You speak as if the two questions being voted on are identical. They're not.

The first question was, should we Remain exactly as we are, or should we Leave in some totally unspecified fashion? The second question will be, should we Remain exactly as we are, or should we Leave in a no-deal hard exit, since that's the only possibility still on the table? It's no longer an abstract Leave, to which everyone can ascribe all their dreams and wishes; it's now a very specific Leave, with all the faults thereof. That may change the voting somewhat.

And, down the road, if there's another concrete Leave on the table, should the people have another referendum? Sure, why not? There probably won't be a need to vote on the negotiated Leave, though - losing by 230 votes in Parliament is probably enough. And there won't be any need to vote on a hard Brexit a second time, either - if it's voted on in a referendum, it will lose 65-35 or 70-30. (Or so I suspect, but what do I know? I'm not in the UK.)

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#595

Post by DerDangDerDang »

bsder wrote: post #337
blowski wrote: post #84

It feels like the country is roughly divided into 3 equal bits: * Leave EU quickly, at any cost * Don’t really mind either way, as long as economy is stable * Stay in EU The one in the middle doesn’t trust either of the others. So nobody can get a majority, whether we have another referendum or a general election. So this shitstorm will just go on and on.

So, basically, you have three groups: 1) Angry idiots 2) Idiots 3) Realists I feel sorry for you. It looks like you have the same problems as US politics.

Hey, don't forget us angry idiot realists!

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#596

Post by pjc50 »

incompatible wrote: post #546
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…

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Irish border if the no-deal exit takes place. Will the EU demand a customs border, but Ireland resist it?

I suspect not immediately, but smuggling and carousel fraud will start to increase and force the issue.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#597

Post by accnumnplus1 »

mrec wrote: post #103
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…

> they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal They're not, May is, and May is not a Brexiter. The Brexiters generally are pushing to leave on WTO terms, not so much as a preferred end state but in recognition of the fact that only a genuine commitment to doing so has any chance of convincing the EU to agree to sensible terms such as Canada+. If the EU can keep the UK under its thumb forever then of cou…

Exactly. I've been voted down for pointing that out. May is not a brexiter.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#598

Post by wpdev_63 »

This will kill the high end of the housing market in the U.K. as the cost of everything will go up. It will also help shore up some jobs that were exported to cheaper labor in the EU.

That's my take on it anyways.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#599

Post by flukus »

neffy wrote: post #460
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…

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…

> 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.

You call it a precedent, I'd call it an example of how undemocratic the EU is. The same situation came up with the treaty of nice and then again with the treaty of Lisbon when Ireland rejected them, the EU love making people vote until the get the "right" answer.

That's why they generally avoid letting people vote on it's continued expansion.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#600

Post by sonnyblarney »

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…

Your comment is highly misleading to the point that it is possibly the 'lie' you mean to make us wary of.

The evidence against your comment is in plain sight: a 'deal' is on the table right now, which some on 'both sides' just happen to not want for various reasons, but it could very well have passed.

The notion that there is only 'hard Brexit' or 'full EU' participation plainly not true, to even the most casual spectator, to imply such is an ugly, ideological misrepresentation of the facts, tantamount to the lie you're ostensibly loathing.

The 'deal' in place, which you suggest is 'the worst of both worlds' is plainly not. That the UK would be subject to EU rules during a period of negotiation is actually not very onerous. The UK was only one voice of a couple of dozen, to mostly lose that voice for 1-3 years is not a nation 'saddled with the EU' for any degree of time.

If the deal were to have been passed in Parliament - then some kind of trade negotiation would be worked out over the coming years, and then there'd be a fairly orderly Brexit: no UK in the EU, but some kind of 'decent trade deal' as some would want.

The EU has made things difficult in purpose, because they definitely don't want people thinking of leaving their club on purpose.

There is ample evidence of this, but I can point to one suitable clause in the current 'deal' in the table, which is that that the UK would not be able to exit the EU without permission of the EU itself, which is utterly unacceptable. It's a small but important clause, that should not be there.

This small clause has been enough to throw some Brexit Tories against the deal.

This small issue - in addition to the weirdly intractable problem of the 'Irish Border' and it's related backstop, is enough to make it 'hard'.

Without that clause, and without the Ireland border weirdness ... the deal in place would probably have passed.

Post reply on HN