Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes • Hacker News Board

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#101

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

dumael wrote: post #61

dragonwriter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a variety of reasons (legal, procedural, and political) MPs can't simply resolve to reject Brexit, There is no legal reason why ministers cannot reject Brexit; given the role of Parliament in the UK system of government, there is very little that ministers could be legally prevented from deciding, since the current (at whatever time it is you are asking the question) Parliament itself is generally the ultimate…

> There is no legal reason why ministers cannot reject Brexit; There is, for a revocation of article 50 notice to be legal, Parliament has to pass a motion directing the Government to do so[1]. [1] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/revoking-article-50-after-the-ecjs-rul...

> There is, for a revocation of article 50 notice to be legal, Parliament has to pass a motion directing the Government to do so[1].

We're talking here about what MPs can reject or not, and the fact that Parliament must direct the government before the government doing it is legal is not a legal barrier to MPs taking action on it (the form of which action would be an Act of Parliament directing the government.)

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#102

Post by berbec » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

berbec wrote: post #87

weinzierl wrote: post #55

> MPs voted down her deal by 391 to 242 - a smaller defeat than when they rejected it in January. > The PM said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave without a deal on 29 March and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed. What happens if they vote "No" three times in a row (no deal, no no-deal , no postponement)? If this wasn't politics I'd say: See if you can simplify this function, bonu…

There actually is a similar flowchart in a linked article. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-...

  void choices()
  {
    if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(12_march))
    {
      brexit(29_march[current_deal]);
    }
    else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(13_march))
    {
      brexit(29_march[no_deal]);
    }
    else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(14_march))
    {
      if(EU_yes_vote(21_march))
      {
        brexit(extension_date);
      }
    }
    else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(22_to_29_march))
    {
      brexit(29_march[current_deal]);
    }
    else
    {
      brexit(1/0);
    }
  }

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#103

Post by sparkie » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #53

rtkwe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the consensus is they will just extend instead of actually going through a 100% no-deal Brexit. Seems like a fairly safe bet given the UK can do it unilaterally and how bad it would be.

Why would the EU allow the UK to extend this one-foot-in-one-foot out nonsense? It's not clear that any deal it is willing to offer will get parliamentary assent.

The EU doesn't want the UK to leave. It would damage their project massively. It might even unravel it entirely if some other countries decide to follow in the UK's footsteps.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#104

Post by nicoburns » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59

nkkollaw wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean there's only 10% chance than the UK will leave the EU? That's pretty low!

No, there's only a 10% chance that the UK will leave in 10 days, with no deal . At least, that's how I read nicoburns' answer.

Yep, that's what I meant. Overall chances of leaving the EU I'd put at 50%. Which is really another way of saying I have no clue.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#105

Post by the_gastropod » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

hlnas wrote: post #28

LeonM wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's a democracy, they let the people vote, and the people voted in favor of leaving the EU. It's the same for me as a non-American looking at the whole Trump situation. The people chose him as their president, yet I get the impression (again, I'm an outsider) that very few people like him as a president.

That's what the mass media, which is skewed to the left, wants you to think. The truth is that his approval rating is doing okay, and it's especially good for republican voters.

> and it's especially good for republican voters.

This is true, but maybe not for the reasons you think. The number of people who self-identify as "Republican" has shrunk considerably over the past few years. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/14/trump-owns-...

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#106

Post by nicoburns » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

mrec wrote: post #68

nicoburns wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not impossible, but probably not. I'd give it maybe a 10% chance. There's a clear majority of MP's who don't want a No Deal scenario. Most likely there will be a postponement of some kind, but probably a short one. What happens at the end of that period is entirely unclear at this point. Leaving without a deal is still a distinct possibility, but probably not the most likely one. I'd give about even odds to some…

> The vote is likely to be close again That depends very much what the question is. The vast majority of those pushing for a 2nd ref want it to be a choice between May's WA and Remain. In which case the majority of Leave voters boycott (because there'd be no Leave option as most people understand it) and Remain wins by a landslide. National support for the WA is down in the noise. Personally, I think that if you're g…

> Personally, I think that if you're going to do that you may as well just skip the referendum entirely, declare that the whole thing's cancelled and save everyone a lot of bother.

I think it's significantly more democratic to have another vote. Most people thought remain would win the first one, but they didn't. If leave won again, we'd definitely definitely have to leave.

> there'd be no Leave option as most people understand it

I question that there is such a shared understanding of what leave means. Leavers seem pretty split between hard and soft options.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#107

Post by matthewmacleod » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

nkkollaw wrote: post #13

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #6

I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that political suicide?

Well, people vote for something and you ignore their democratic vote. Pretty bad.

You've been downvoted, but this is the core issue preventing a simple solution.

It is legitimately damaging to democracy to have the results of a referendum ignored. That referendum shouldn't have been executed in the manner it was, but we can't ignore the outcome.

The problem is, the practical reality of that vote (as it has worked out) is pretty sketchy, and pleases very few people. So now we have the three immediate options of "no deal" (obviously catastrophic), "negotiated deal" (no political support) and "cancel" (directly opposed to the referendum outcome).

Honestly the only way I see out of it with even a shred of democracy left is to hold a second referendum to ratify the deal.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#108

Post by mehrdadn » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

pmyteh wrote: post #60

nkkollaw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you personally think that the UK will actually end up leaving the EU in 10 days? If yes, what are the chances of that happening?

I hope not; in addition to negotiating an exit deal, there's also a stack of legislative changes that need to be made before exit (deal or otherwise) which are stacked up and waiting. It's nearly impossible to see how that can be done even partially adequately at this point, so any exit would very likely be (1) with no deal (May's won't fly and there's no chance of negotiating another one this month) and (2) totally…

Is a second referendum really that likely? I feel like the way they're treating it it's a 5% likelihood.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#109

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #71

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #6

I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that political suicide?

The problem was the plebiscite format. It had two options: . [ ] Remain a member of the European Union . [ ] Leave the European Union Do you see the huge honking flashing design flaw here? No? Let's rephrase this with a little substitution: . [ ] Continue the known reality . [ ] Do something else (to be determined later) There's the problem. The second was a catch-all that cast a huge net encompassing all imagined al…

No, what should have happened is a second plebiscite confirming the actual deal negotiated with the EU, with:

(1) Accept deal and exit,

(2) Exit with no deal,

(3) Rescind Article 50

As the options.

Or, the government should just not have used a non-binding referendum on such a complex policy matter as an electoral ploy in the first place and actually governed as elected to do rather than passing the buck.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#110

Post by renholder » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

TicklishTiger wrote: post #5

Why do politicians always seem so uncivilized to me? Both sides of an argument always argue as if they believe the other side is stupid and they know for sure they are right. That is the biggest stupidity in itself. Why are there no politicians that spend their time on trying to understand the other side, rather then shouting out their own message? Those would be the ones I would vote. But they simply do not exist.

It didn't use to be this way, to be sure. The darkest "shade" thrown even thirty years ago was child's play compared to today's vitriolic rhetoric.

I think it has to do with the polarisation (radicalisation?) that has come about because people have been grouping into their own echo-chambers. "The other guy" has moved from being a compatriot who they disagreed with to being an adversary to be conquered. See any political or news sub in /r/ as a principle example of this.