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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#921

Post by m_mueller »

AstralStorm wrote: post #853
m_mueller wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only. And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not cover…

When it comes to surveillance I don't put any trust in the system other than what's strictly allowed / disallowed according to law text. Remember Fichen?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#922

Post by andrepd »

asabjorn wrote: post #709
dTal wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can deny it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_i... Of particular interest is where the massive pile of cash that funded the Leave campaign actually came from.

It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by Russia, and any opponent of the progressivism pushing for this is obviously an racist/sexist/bigot. It is interesting how all the yellow jackets, the maga folks, and the brexiters are all brutes easily influenced by nepharious forces against their own good. Especially when others manipulate their sometimes violent primitive tendencies. It is i…

Ctrl-F "racis"/"sexis" yields no results. That didn't stop you from triggering the persecution complex and going "waa, can't even disagree, they'll call you a bigot".

Please, don't buy into that divisive rhetoric.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#923

Post by robertony »

hkt wrote: post #871
robertony wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some "leavers" just want to trade with the rest of the world with flexibility and not be bound to the EU. It's a hard argument to make that the EU is better when "leavers" compare the economic growth of the EU, which employs protectionism to prevent easy trading with outside of the EU when comparing the potential trade deals with the rest of world outside of the EU, without the need for VAT etc.

"Flexibility" - the EU has more free trade deals than the UK will ever negotiate on its own. Not to mention the immense value of the single market itself. Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe.

> the EU has more free trade deals than the UK will ever negotiate on its own.

It doesn't really matter how many trade deals or what the trade deals are when VAT, import fees are applied in such a way to equalize the costs of external trade, to the point there isn't much benefit of trading with outside the EU unless they're some how able to significantly reduce costs or pioneer an industry that doesn't exist in the EU.

Even with just the UK utiliziling only the WTO (which the UK has no control over in the EU), the UK could stand to get better trading with the rest of the world than it can within the EU. But, this is not just because it can set the WTO rates.

The UK is not obligated to apply VAT and other fees after it leaves the EU on any imports and it doesn't have to be concerned about applying protectionism in industries that don't even exist in the UK.

> Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe.

I'm not really sure about which standards you're talking about, but I'll take a couple of the earliest and longest implemented standards that the EU requires, something that Greenland left over in the beginning.

The standards of the common agriculture policy and the common fisheries policies that the UK farming and fishing industires have been lobbying to fix for multiple decades has only lead to the destruction of environments, forcing farmers on quotas who then can't sell their products being forced to then depend on EU subsidies and grants to operate, it has lead to the destruction of much of the industry in the UK which in turn has made in particular, numerous farming and fishing towns become welfare dependent... It's been over 20 years of consistent failing to address these issues.

The worst part of this all is that these issues were completely avoidable, the EU and UK could have actually solved these problems and not let the situation deteriorate to the point that people have become that unhappy that they just want out. I am interested though to hear an opposing view how this improved lives in Europe.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#924

Post by andrepd »

asabjorn wrote: post #730
mirimir wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing against a strawman. So do you think that nations don't intervene covertly in other nations? What about the US in Iran (1953) or Chile (60s)? And so why is it so improbable that Russia is doing it? And recall the study by Prof. Igor Panarin (former KGB analyst) predicting that the US will fragment. Maybe it's more like a game plan.

I am just observing. It’s very impressive for Russia to be the essential force behind all major opposition movements that apparently are not rooted in legitimate concerns.

Again, nobody is really claiming they are an "essential force", only that they are a factor. Quit straw-manning.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#925

Post by gadders »

AstralStorm wrote: post #910
gadders wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are multiple issues that have led to the UK being in the situation it is in: 1) The UK wanting to negotiate an amicable parting, but the EU actually wanting to punish the UK and negotiated in bad faith 2) Not starting No Deal preparations immediately. Standard negotiating tactic is to have a "BATNA" - best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Not beginning No Deal preparations prevented that. 3) Havin…

1) Not true, there were multiple good deals presented including this one which the Parliament voted against - provided Northern Ireland situation is solved in a satisfactory way. This specific point was the keystone and why many early proposals failed. 2) There was no plan and no negotiations before incoming the article or trying the referendum. If the were serious plans before, situation would be different. 3, 4) Ye…

The deal isn't satisfactory at all, as it offers no legally binding way for the UK to decide to leave without the EU's permission. The EU could string out border and trade discussions for years and the EU would be defacto in the EU but without a vote.

David Cameron tried to discuss reform with the EU before the referendum, but was rebuffed.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#926

Post by asabjorn »

andrepd wrote: post #922
asabjorn wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by Russia, and any opponent of the progressivism pushing for this is obviously an racist/sexist/bigot. It is interesting how all the yellow jackets, the maga folks, and the brexiters are all brutes easily influenced by nepharious forces against their own good. Especially when others manipulate their sometimes violent primitive tendencies. It is i…

Ctrl-F "racis"/"sexis" yields no results. That didn't stop you from triggering the persecution complex and going "waa, can't even disagree, they'll call you a bigot". Please, don't buy into that divisive rhetoric.

We all know the rhetoric used against the brexiters, and what I stated is representative of that.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#927

Post by Tomte »

sintaxi wrote: post #911
Tomte wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are sovereign, as article 50 proves. Unfortunately, they want something from the EU. Actually a lot. And so they need to offer something in return. That's the big joke of Brexit. Boris Johnson fantasizing about dozens of trade deals ready to be signed when the UK exits. How many are there now? Zero. Because the UK isn't in a position as strong as Brexiteers fantasized. Ostensibly they are all for negotiating dea…

I hate to break it to you but Britain is "offering little" because they actually have more negotiating power.

I disagree, but that wasn't my point, anyway.

My point was that you cannot invite real interest-driven negotiations and then complain about red lines the other side draws in the sand.

It's either a real negotiation or an agreement between friends.

The latter would have been preferable, but all the hatred towards the EU side made that an immediate non-starter.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#928

Post by rmc »

dmurray wrote: post #852
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…

I don't see how this could reasonably have been done in the Brexit case. You would have to spend years negotiating the terms of the withdrawal first, then ask the people for a yea or nay. That negotiation would go totally differently if the UK government couldn't credibly claim it had a mandate from the people for the withdrawal.

In a way they did just that. David Cameron negotated some changes to EU law (minor tweaks), and said to the British people: "I went to the EU and got these changes, shall we stay in or leave?"

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#929

Post by rmc »

mattmanser wrote: post #899
_lbaq wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Think of 27 people negotiating, all with very different agendas, versus one person with a clear agenda. Why do you believe that the EU would be in a better position? It's like a rat king when it comes to negotiating, 27 countries pulling in different directions all with different desires.

Because the EU has a lot more to offer than the UK alone.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#930

Post by rmc »

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 that there would be no downsides, that there would still be frictionless trade with the EU (which so much of the UK economy relies on), that nonUK EU citizens in the UK would have to leave, but UK citizens in the EU27 would be able to stay there.
Post reply on HN