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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#951

Post by Tomte »

mattmanser wrote: post #900
jinglebells wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. greater autonomy in deciding on laws (especially wrt things like immigration policy) Which turned out to have been possible all along, Theresa May simply didn't implement the EU rules which have already existed when she was home secretary. Immigration can never be solved by leaving the EU because it was already solved. > They want the European oversight on laws. If the last two years have shown us, the UK doesn'…

Funny, I never knew there were 500 countries in the world.

Trade deals aren't always comprehensive, but can be sector-specific.

(I have no idea whether the number 500 is correct)

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#952

Post by brynjolf »

asabjorn wrote: post #926
andrepd wrote: post #922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Source?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#953

Post by Tomte »

gadders wrote: post #925
AstralStorm wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course it does. The UK only has to guarantee they won't do anything that means "hard border in Ireland".

They choose not to guarantee that.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#954

Post by duxup »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #586
notahacker wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems like things almost have to hit rock bottom before the locals realize that this deal is not going to be having cake and eating it too.

Hopefully after it finally hits that point the EU is smart enough to throw them a bone or two on a "deal" that makes it look like they got something form the EU... but still way short of total chaos.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#955

Post by rtkwe »

rezeroed wrote: post #868
meepmorp wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s nebulous because “leave the EU,” means everything from remaining in the SM and CU, to having no formal relationship with the EU, and a number of positions in between. People voted for the leave option without well defined idea of what that choice entailed. Remain, by contrast, was basically about keeping things as-is.

"no formal relationship with the EU" - anything else wouldn't really be leaving, would it? It would be partial leaving. The vote wasn't for partial leaving.

Then the leave vote wasn't actually leave because even leave didn't want to completely cut the UK off from the single market! That's been the paradox at the heart of brexit since the beginning, they complained about the amount of EU regulation but want to still sell and buy from the single market which requires that they conform to a large majority of the regulations they were complaining about.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#956

Post by hannasanarion »

m0zg wrote: post #486
hannasanarion wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some elections, ie, local elections on representation. Not major elections with constitutional implications. There is a reason that it takes 2/3 of the Senate to ratify international agreements, and 3/4 of the states to change the constitution. Brexit is a constitutional change.

Then they wouldn't have joined in the first place. The "join" vote was 67/33 in favor, 2/3rds, but not 3/4ths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_C...

1. The United Kingdom does not have the same constitution as the United States.

2. 3/4 of the states are not the same as 3/4 of the people.

3. This does nothing to help your original point that all democracies make all decisions by simple majority.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#957

Post by josefresco »

adventured wrote: post #942
josefresco wrote: post #897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're giving US conservative republican voters and politicians too much credit. They didn't "vote their heart" they voted their hatred and wallet.

Conservatives didn't elect Trump. They tried to elect everybody else but Trump, he was maybe their sixth choice out of the original group. Independents and particularly white women elected Trump. They were the most important swing vote that determined the critical states that gave Trump the electoral college edge over Hillary's massive $2 billion political campaign. Hillary's failure to resonate with independent whit…

"he was maybe their sixth choice out of the original group"

As soon as he won the nomination, they all fell in line. So clearly he was the "conservative peoples" choice, but not the "conservative establishment" choice. Once he was elected, republicans (even the establishment) further fell into line by continuing to support, condone and cover for his (and the GOP leadership's) corruption.

"Independents and particularly white women elected Trump"

Independents sure but white ... republican women voted for him too. Being a "white woman' does not automatically make you a liberal democrat.

"Hillary's massive $2 billion political campaign"

Cute. All presidential campaigns are massive on the $ scale.

"Hillary's failure to resonate with independent white women and minorities, particularly black voters, sank her campaign."

Lots of factors contributed to Hillary's loss, it was not just "white women and minorities" who failed her.

Anecdotally, the people who have admitted to me (they feel shame BTW) voting for Trump did so out of their own self-interest. They thought they were "shaking up the system".

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#958

Post by imtringued »

buttcoinslol wrote: post #585
growlist wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because they have other more important goals like not compromising their core values and undoing 50 years of history of the EU for the benefit of a single country that doesn't even care about the EU.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#959

Post by swish_bob »

pjc50 wrote: post #563
sievebrain wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So why did the government pay £14m to emergency charter ferries from a company with no ferries? The UK survived by huge logistical effort and food rationing . It's now led by people I wouldn't trust with the logistics of a trip to Tesco.

> The UK survived by huge logistical effort and food rationing.

And by having the support of the largest empire the world has ever seen ...

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#960

Post by lurquer »

dTal wrote: post #809
lurquer wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corpses in the street? The UK imports around 25% of food-related commodities from the EU. Even with no deal, these imports will continue (as the EU has to sell them to someone.) Even if the EU stopped, there would not be corpses in the street as there happens to be a very wealthy English-speaking country not too far away that happens to produce more food than any country on the planet and is more than willing to trad…

I think you missed the point. The point is that 1) overnight disruption of existing supply chains is very likely, and 2) in today's last-minute food supply infrastructure, it only takes a few days for shelves to empty. Empty shelves = hungry people = riots. So it's not a question of whether the US will trade with the UK, in the long run. It's a question of whether, 2 days after a hard Brexit, everyone has been well-o…

Think this through. If there is a hard Brexit, the only hinderance to goods coming INTO the UK is the UK. Do you really think the UK will stop or hinder food imports to such an extent that there are "empty shelves" and "riots"?

The economic concern of a hard Brexit isn't the imports, but the exports. There might be significant economic disruption if the EU slows down trade of items coming INTO the EU and OUT OF the UK. But, the UK is solely in control of how smoothly goods coming INTO the UK and OUT OF the EU get distributed.

Post reply on HN