Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 192 posts

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

#111

Post by nicoburns »

mehrdadn wrote: post #108
pmyteh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What option do you think is more likely?

Any leave option has the Irish border question to sort (unless we remain in the customs union I suppose), which is pretty intractable, and already causing low-level violence to start up again in Ireland from what I hear.

And surely we won't choose to stay without a referendum.

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

#112

Post by sparkie »

amriksohata wrote: post #51

No deal looks increasingly on the table, what I fear most is it forces another general election that brings a party like ukip back to the fore. It is in both parties interests to vote for a deal, but their selfish bickering has already seen a fracture in labour and you could see more splitters and divided coalition parties building an alliance with ukip to get a majority

It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their constituents will remember their betrayal, and then it will be no surprise they will vote for somebody else.

May's deal is not what the people voted for, and so, the house of commons is full of lying politicians who will have exhausted their careers on the gamble that they could stop Brexit from happening.

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

#113

Post by mrec »

osrec wrote: post #22

I think this just goes to show that maybe the entire Brexit option was not a good one. I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal - she is trying her level best, powering through defeat after defeat in the house! One could conclude that, perhaps, there just isn't a good deal to be had. Brexiteers seem to have this "it'll be alright on the night" attitude - as if they want to leave without weighing up t…

> I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal

May has two contradictory goals. She doesn't want to really leave the EU - I think absolutely everything about her staff picks, negotiating non-strategy and Cabinet management supports that - but she's a genuine Tory loyalist who needs to maintain enough of a fig-leaf of Leaving that her party doesn't get utterly obliterated by irate voters at the next election. That's a tough needle to thread, and she's completely failed to thread it. She's achieved her first goal by abandoning her second.

> as if they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both sides - their staunchness confuses me

I don't think "staunchness" is quite the word. They want to leave, and they don't see the WA as leaving. (Nor does the general population; I think the last poll showed only 12% thought the WA respected the referendum result.) The talking point being pushed hard by No 10 has been "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good", implying that the ERG etc are blocking the WA because they think, unrealistically, that they can get a harder exit by holding out. That may be true for some. But I think many genuinely do believe that the WA (effectively non-voting membership with no safeguards and no way out) is worse than staying in the EU (as a voting member with the option of going Article 50 again). Many have said so. Some observers may dismiss that as rhetorical, but I don't think it is.

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

#114

Post by benj111 »

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…

I'd broadly agree with you. My crystal ball says a short interim delay to before the EU elections, because at the moment theres no plan to timetable for, with a longer delay for something else.

I think if there were a 2nd referendum, it would be remain, if only because all the old people that voted leave have died off. I don't think it would be by a satisfying large margin though.

That's if we get a referendum though. The Overton window has shifted so for over, MPs might just unite on a soft Brexit.

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

#115

Post by weinzierl »

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-...

Thanks, that's better than my code. It has a logical flaw though, I think. It says "UK asks for a short extension" and then the EU leaders magically could decide to "No to short, but yes to longer extension". I don't know if this is a serious possibility or just wishful thinking...

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

#116

Post by kristopolous »

dragonwriter wrote: post #109
kristopolous wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, that works too. Anything that resolves the unspecific versus specific problem without introducing further problems suffices.

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

#117

Post by nbevans »

rtkwe wrote: post #33
napo wrote: post #8

It's getting closer and closer to a no-deal, and yet the pound doesn't really go down. Does anybody understand why?

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.

We cannot extend unilaterally. It needs EU's consent and they've already stated that: 1) it won't be free - £1bn/mo has been mooted from various sources, 2) there would be clear legal strings attached such as a requirement for a 2nd referendum, 3) extension would only be allowed up to the day before the EU Parliament elections on 23rd May.

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

#118

Post by dragonwriter »

sparkie wrote: post #112
amriksohata wrote: post #51

No deal looks increasingly on the table, what I fear most is it forces another general election that brings a party like ukip back to the fore. It is in both parties interests to vote for a deal, but their selfish bickering has already seen a fracture in labour and you could see more splitters and divided coalition parties building an alliance with ukip to get a majority

It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their constituents will remember their betrayal, and then it will be no surprise they will vote for somebody else. May's deal is not what the people voted for, and so, the house of commons is full of lying p…

> It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their constituents will remember their betrayal

If their constituents viewpoints have moved since 2016/2017, they won't view it as a betrayal; more precisely the concern is that each major party is concerned that their own Leave faction will be more likely to abandon them than Remain-leaning voters outside will be to come over if their party is the one that flips.

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

#119

Post by dotdi »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #70
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?

As a quick intro – membership of the EU has been a bit of a hot topic in the UK for quite a few years now, and longer in certain circles of the Conservative party. That party made a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on membership as a bit of a concession to help avoid a split in the party. It was generally expected that this would be an easy win for the "remain" group, and there is only minority support among…

> some of them would like to push forward with a "cliff-edge" style exit

Agrees in Russian

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

#120

Post by Androider »

sparkie wrote: post #97
matthewmacleod wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a quick intro – membership of the EU has been a bit of a hot topic in the UK for quite a few years now, and longer in certain circles of the Conservative party. That party made a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on membership as a bit of a concession to help avoid a split in the party. It was generally expected that this would be an easy win for the "remain" group, and there is only minority support among…

Membership of the EU has been a hot topic before the EU even existed. Ted Heath got us into the EEC without a referendum in 72, and then offered us a vote to remain or leave in 75. The scaremongering about leaving back then was almost exactly the same as it is being presented now. My opinion is that a deal cannot be negotiated among uneven parties. Right now, the UK can either leave with no deal, or leave on the term…

It's a large market for both sides, but Brexit will hurt one much more than the other.

The UK exports ~50% of its goods and services to the EU. The EU exports 8% of it's good and services to the UK. The latter is in absolute terms the larger amount of goods and services, but the former is just a massive portion of total trade to have to suddenly replace or re-negotiate.

Think about it this way: SMB company A has to suddenly replace 50% of its customer base. Enterprise company B has to suddenly replace 8% of it's customers. I know which one I'd rather be!

Post reply on HN