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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#841

Post by burfog »

mattlondon wrote: post #383
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…

17m people might be in a rage, but the other 16m are equally in a rage, but I've not seen any civil war here yet. With respect, I think you are grossly over-reacting by mentioning civil war. If it goes to a second referendum and remain win, then that is the "will of the people", not politicians/Westminster elite/EU telling people how to live their lives, it's the fellow man and woman on the street making the decision…

You ignore that individual humans will change their political opinion as they age: Every year more and more remainers become leavers. This isn't the sort of thing where you can just wait for the leavers to die and then you win.

Someday, you too will be old. Guess how you will vote. :-) Some young person, much like yourself today, will be thinking that your death would make the voting turn out better and will be eagerly awaiting it. Eventually, they too will be old... and so it continues on forever.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#842

Post by robertony »

gambiting wrote: post #788
TheGrumpyBrit wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no need for detail, because the WTO already provides a framework for trade agreements. That was the assumed state people voted on - talk of a deal came afterwards, and was considered by many to be an attempt to do "Brexit in name only", causing a situation where we're still obligated to the EU but no longer have any MEPs.

>>That was the assumed state people voted on I can't believe anyone would make such an assumption. I know some people who 1) voted leave 2) are perfectly aware that under WTO rules their businesses would literally have to close because they trade with EU and their European partners won't accept a ~20% hike on the price of British products due to non-EU custom duties. They all wanted out of EU because they don't like…

The "leavers" you talk to are pretty different from the leavers I talk to.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#843

Post by cardinalfang »

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…

Trade in radiotherapy supplies is currently regulated under the Euratom treaty. When the UK leaves it is required to submit a System of Accountancy and Control for Nuclear Material to the IAEA to continue trading. The current status is "we expect them to be in place to meet international obligations when the UK leaves Euratom" which is perhaps not totally reassuring for cancer patients.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#844

Post by m_mueller »

_nalply wrote: post #817
nraynaud wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the voter’s fault. In a functioning democracy, there is a system to approve a text by popular vote instead of the usual parlement. So the question at such a vote should always be: “do you approve the proposed text?”, then the text becomes law. By organizing an abstract opinion poll, the government just prepared a shit show, there no way to make any significant chunk of the population happy, everybody had…

That's what Switzerland does. Just today I voted about an energy act, a police act and a residence planning act. I admit that I didn't study the law texts carefully. Instead I read the neutral explanation of the government and both explanations of the pro and contra committees and decided whether the reasonings convinced me or not. So even in Switzerland you could get the proverbial shit show if someone managed to co…

be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces, while the law text actually says "public spaces and what's observable from there". i.e. pretty much any Swiss inhabitant can now be put under surveillance in their private homes without any judge order.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#845

Post by random_moonwalk »

justaguyhere wrote: post #651
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…

This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election - voters need to take at least some responsibility. No amount of "voters' remorse" is going to help now.

If you broke apart what brexit might actually mean for the country into its constituent parts, I think most people would feel out of their depth voting on these potential amendments individually. It's interesting that when you package all the details up into a single ill-defined 'brexit' people feel happy to project their own vague meaning onto the term and confidently cast their vote.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#846

Post by _lbaq »

robertony wrote: post #838
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…

The Brexit promise was to leave the EU and open better trading options with the rest of the world. Outside of the EU, there is no issue reducing VAT, customs fees etc. In fact, WTO rules even allow more competitive options between countries if the UK chooses to lower associated fees in the WTO. Additional the UK is able to negotiate trade deals for it's own interests rather than concerns about protectionism for the E…

>The Brexit promise was to leave the EU and open better >trading options with the rest of the world.

One would think that the EU would be in a better position to get better deals than a single country.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#847

Post by bookbinder »

ajuc wrote: post #774
nraynaud wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the voter’s fault. In a functioning democracy, there is a system to approve a text by popular vote instead of the usual parlement. So the question at such a vote should always be: “do you approve the proposed text?”, then the text becomes law. By organizing an abstract opinion poll, the government just prepared a shit show, there no way to make any significant chunk of the population happy, everybody had…

> This is not the voter’s fault. Yes it is. Asked "do you want to fundamentally change status quo in some random yet to be decided way that most experts warn you will result in chaos" population should have voted "no". Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths. The lessons from Brexit are the same as the lessons from Trump in USA, Kaczyński i…

Why is ajuc's comment being downvoted?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#848

Post by moystard »

sintaxi wrote: post #822
ajuc wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not the voter’s fault. Yes it is. Asked "do you want to fundamentally change status quo in some random yet to be decided way that most experts warn you will result in chaos" population should have voted "no". Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths. The lessons from Brexit are the same as the lessons from Trump in USA, Kaczyński i…

It stands to reason that the EU would not agree with the decision. If a "no deal" is the only way it can be done then that is what is done. That's what the people voted for. Britain is the second largest net contributor to the EU next to Germany. Britain will be absolutely fine.

Eventually it probably will (brexiters seem to think in 25 / 50 years time, which is apparently a good price to pay for Brexit...).

However, the UK will lose the huge amount of influence it has at the moment on the world stage, will be pressured by bigger economies to accept unfavorable trade deals and deregulation (US food standards, VISAs, etc) and its manufacturing will be severely damaged; it could possibly collapse entirely. The irony is that this will likely create a wave of unemployment in the very regions that voted in favour of Brexit.

But regardless of the consequences, if you think people voted for a "no deal" when they voted Brexit, you are deluded. Let's illustrate my point with a few quotes:

"The free trade agreement that we will ahve to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history" - Liam Fox - 2017

"Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation" - John Redwood - 2016

"Within minutes of a vote for Brexit, CEO's would be knocking down Chancellor Merkel's door demanding access to the British market" - David Davis 2016

“It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.” - Boris Johnson 2016

As you can see, no deal is far from the position that was pushed to the people, even after the vote had occurred. Saying people voted for a "no deal" because they voted for Brexit is disingenuous. Long gone is the time of "Having our cake and eat it"

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#850

Post by kristianc »

_lbaq wrote: post #846
robertony wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Brexit promise was to leave the EU and open better trading options with the rest of the world. Outside of the EU, there is no issue reducing VAT, customs fees etc. In fact, WTO rules even allow more competitive options between countries if the UK chooses to lower associated fees in the WTO. Additional the UK is able to negotiate trade deals for it's own interests rather than concerns about protectionism for the E…

>The Brexit promise was to leave the EU and open better >trading options with the rest of the world. One would think that the EU would be in a better position to get better deals than a single country.

> One would think that the EU would be in a better position to get better deals than a single country.

One would think, but the EU has been trying and failing to secure any kind of a trade deal with the US, largely due to Europe's instinctive love of protectionism.

Post reply on HN