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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#641

Post by peteretep »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #131
balabaster wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "woman of great importance in the UK government" is the Prime Minister. For the purpose of this discussion, and until she's voted out, she is the most important person in the United Kingdom.

10-4. Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't? Presumably, the same gov't that put forth this vote? At least some significant margin of politicians must have wanted this vote knowing that 'yes' is on the table. Where are they?

> Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't?

Because "Prime Minister" is not the head of state, so there's little respect for the position. Her position is equivalent to Speaker of The House in the US, only in a system where The House is also the Executive.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#642

Post by njarboe »

gonehome wrote: post #55
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…

Maybe? If you think that most of the people are actually looking at or arguing about the implementation of any specific policy (I'd suspect this is the minority). It seems more likely people are just arguing about which tribe they're a part of. In that case nobody cares about what the best outcome is or what the truth is. If you can get a brexit deal passed that still allows the UK to 'brexit' in name only, but other…

The whole idea of a following the results of a non-binding referendum that 52% of the people that voted passed for such a major thing as leaving the EU seems quite strange to my American eyes. I would think something as major as joining the EU should have required a super-majority of people voting for it in and a super-majority to leave. Like a US constitutional amendment. I need to read more English history to understand how people think this is the way things should work.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#643

Post by davidgay »

detaro wrote: post #291
derriz wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it does not. It simply requires that the UK ensure that no hard (customs) border is required in Ireland. A key component of the Good Friday Agreement which ended 3 decades of bloodshed on the island of Ireland was that physical border checks between the two states whould be phased out. All it requires is that the UK accepts that EU customs checks are performed between Britain and Ireland rather than at the Irish b…

To be fair, "simply" introducing a hard border between parts of your country isn't quite... simply. Which country would do that? In addition, it's a pretty crappy symbol of "getting independence" if you "leave behind" a part of your country to get it, and that's how it's understandably perceived. And May's government relies on the DUP to achieve a majority in parliament, for which this is wholly unacceptable, since i…

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_franche_du_pays_de_Gex

There was a custom's border inside France from 1815[0] to 2008, with different treatment for imports/exports from Switzerland to the small part of France beyond that custom's border.

According to that article, you can still buy cars w/o EU import duties in that part of France...

[0]: Yes, as a result of Napoleon's defeat and as part of Geneva joining Switzerland.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#644

Post by wahern »

njarboe wrote: post #642
gonehome wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? If you think that most of the people are actually looking at or arguing about the implementation of any specific policy (I'd suspect this is the minority). It seems more likely people are just arguing about which tribe they're a part of. In that case nobody cares about what the best outcome is or what the truth is. If you can get a brexit deal passed that still allows the UK to 'brexit' in name only, but other…

The whole idea of a following the results of a non-binding referendum that 52% of the people that voted passed for such a major thing as leaving the EU seems quite strange to my American eyes. I would think something as major as joining the EU should have required a super-majority of people voting for it in and a super-majority to leave. Like a US constitutional amendment. I need to read more English history to under…

Parliamentary Supremacy: Parliament has the last word on all constitutional matters, whether written or unwritten, and in any event can change any inconvenient aspects of the written constitution (e.g. historical bills and charters) with a simple majority.

Historically the House of Lords provided a check on populist sentiment in the House of Commons, but the powers of the House of Lords have slowly been diminished over the past century or two (albeit with their consent, more or less; but it's a one-way street), while also making membership more "democratic" and thus more likely to express populist sentiment.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#645

Post by sonnyblarney »

wbl wrote: post #640
sonnyblarney wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gains that Germany and France will make in EU oriented financials services will pale in comparison to the loss of a major trading partner. Remember that the EU is becoming less and less important over time as a financial services market, even the UK's financial services sector has become less dependant on it over time. The juicier fruit is in the rest of the world. There's quite a lot of real trade between the EU…

There already was a customs union. It was called the EU.

The EU is far more than a 'customs union'.

It's a political union, with an unelected Executive body, and a very powerful Supreme Court (Court of Justice), and so much more - that almost no European citizen ever voted for.

Everyone is for trade, most are for open borders, very few for deep political integration.

To the extent the elites push against the underlying sentiment - there will be problems. Such problems are clearly on the rise all over the EU in various incarnations, it'd be nice if the EU took this time of crisis to re-evaluate it's existence and reconsider a bunch of things.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#646

Post by krrrh »

jpfr wrote: post #405
benmmurphy wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a ridiculous claim. Are you saying the UK is going to stop food coming across its border when it is to the clear benefit of it's citizens? That is ridiculous. The UK will suspend ALL customs operations before it does that. The bureaucratic state is kind of broken but not that broken.

Everybody will try to get as much food over the border as possible. Everybody will work together. The EU, the UK, the US, everybody. But this could still go very very bad. What do you think "chaos at the border" means? Every truck, train and ship has to get the papers checked where they could just drive through before. But there are not enough qualified officers to actually check all the papers. So goods will come in…

These comments read like some of the best Y2K and peak oil fanfic.

> What do you think “chaos at the border” means?

Probably not the UK self-imposing a famine on its people in favour of establishing a permit Raj. It sounds a lot more like government officials trying to get attention through hyperbole and extra funding for their departments than anything else. There’s nothing stopping the UK from declaring no duties on all imports and liberalizing incoming trade from Europe and elsewhere even more than it is now if it’s in their interests to do so. A lot of trade policy is unilateral when it comes down to it.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#647

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

rtkwe wrote: post #294
RafiqM wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU. With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good: 1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous) 2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad…

> 4) Hold another referendum where it's going to have to be a decision between staying in or exiting with no deal (also political suicide & creates distrust). I've never really understood this reasoning given how Leave as completely nebulous with no real details. Is it really such a betrayal to go back and say "alright here's what Leave actually means is this what you actually want vs Remain"? That's been my issue wi…

To me it seems like that a revote would have to deal with the literal fear mongering the stay side has been pushing out. My personal favorite is the food shortages, while every other country outside of the EU manages to import food, apparently if you try to leave, you wont' be able to find the food you want on the shelves any more!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/02/brexit...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-food-shortages-stockp...

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/foodanddrink/brexit-foo...

The EU would not blockade Britain, as many of these articles seem to imply (how else would you just run out of something simply because you have to import it from a 'foreign' country now?). Britain would have to pay any tariffs the EU imposes to others of course, but it would also be in their best interest to not set them so high that people in Britain stop buying their products at all. Any 'shortages' would be brought about by shear mismanagement.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#648

Post by jpster »

IMO the UK has very little negotiating leverage with the EU.

For its preservation, the EU leaders know they must make an example of the UK.

A new referendum will take time - if it ever happens.

And if it does, the country may remain as divided as ever.

They need to secure an extension from the EU. With no extension, a disruptive, hard Brexit will happen in just 10 weeks and the UK is not at all prepared.

I just don’t understand what the UK MPs are thinking, and I don’t understand why David Cameron opened this Pandora’s Box in the first place.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#649

Post by renaudg »

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.

Well, of course. Remain is the current, familiar situation.

A Remain victory wouldn't have come with a 25% drop in the pound, rampant inflation, the worst growth rate of G8 countries, stockpiling of food and drugs, and an increasing risk to see the world order that brought about the longest period of peace (70 years) in this corner of the world, being toppled.

A Remain victory would also have been obtained in spite of, not thanks to, Russian interference, fake news, and overspending by Vote Leave (as found by the Electoral Commission who referred them to the police)

So yes, somehow the idea of a second referendum makes more sense in one case than in the other. Dunno why...

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#650

Post by renaudg »

philwelch wrote: post #415
RafiqM wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU. With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good: 1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous) 2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad…

So, option 2 (May's deal) is off the table. It's not gonna happen. That was today's vote. Maybe if they stall for another couple months and vote on it again in February or early March it might force the issue, but I doubt it. Option 4 (second referendum) isn't necessarily on the table, because the UK cannot hold a referendum in the time they have left until the Article 50 deadline in March. They would have to ask the…

That's not quite correct. The EU has stated they would consider granting an extension "for the right reasons" (meaning of course, a second referendum).

It's definitely possible to stop the clock.

Post reply on HN