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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#161

Post by m0zg »

abalone wrote: post #152
m0zg wrote: post #71

Of course it "failed". The government did everything it could to sabotage it and arrive at as unfavorable a set of exit conditions as possible. Even if she did want to get a good deal, May doesn't strike me as a cutthroat negotiator. Couple this with her unwillingness to abide by the will of the people (the size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning democracy), and you get this. This w…

> the size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning democracy Literally, no. The size of the margin is a direct factor in many democratic processes and determines how resilient the decision is to subsequent challenge. Major, foundational changes are rarely decided by simple majorities in one event. > You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome. To say otherwise opens yo…

Literally yes. Some elections right here in the US are decided by as few as a dozen votes, and people accept the results.

> You just called some referendums "bullshit"

You're putting words in my mouth Cathy Newman style here.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#162

Post by lizknope »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #99

I'll be the first to admit: I'm an American. I fundamentally do not understand Brexit. I understand the following timeline: 1. A largely disseminated, nation-wide vote occurs, bolstered by nationalist sentiment, that the EU is bad for the UK. This vote results in a conclusion that UK should leave the EU. 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not vot…

> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May?

They resigned.

Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary resigned. David Davis who was literally the "Brexit minister" resigned.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/theresa-mays-gov...

Here are more people who resigned.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-ministers-who-have-quit-over-...

My view is that these people lied to the public about how awesome Brexit would be. Once it got to the hard work of making it happen they realized how awful the deal would be and how the economy would be harmed. Because they didn't want their name attached to it they resigned.

Some of them are hoping that May will resign and they can become Prime Minister instead.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#163

Post by scarmig »

m0zg wrote: post #71

Of course it "failed". The government did everything it could to sabotage it and arrive at as unfavorable a set of exit conditions as possible. Even if she did want to get a good deal, May doesn't strike me as a cutthroat negotiator. Couple this with her unwillingness to abide by the will of the people (the size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning democracy), and you get this. This w…

> You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome. To say otherwise opens you up to the same kind of bullshit when things turn out the way you like and the _other_ side doesn't like the result.

Sure you do. Why not? And everyone is always vulnerable to revisions of their accomplishments: the fact that, in the US, the ACA was passed in 2010 doesn't mean that Republicans are banned from amending or changing it for all eternity.

Every two years, Americans get a re-do on voting for their representatives. And we... kind of get by.

I don't see why giving UK voters another vote is some terrible Stalinist undermining of democracy. It's split near 50/50 either way, and it seems silly to let whether it's raining or not, or Russian-sponsored media campaigns, determine an important policy matter like this. Voters in 2016 are not sacrosanct, brilliant policymakers whose decisions have to be respected for all eternity.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#164

Post by phn »

m0zg wrote: post #83
toomuchtodo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The referendum was non-binding. It would be entirely legitimate for Parliament to say "We can't obtain a satisfactory outcome and have opted to remain in the EU as it's a superior economic option." You don't continue to take your sovereign nation over the cliff because of an unreasonable minority of citizens (whether or not they were a majority of those who voiced their opinions in said referendum).

It was, nevertheless, the directly expressed will of the people. This is very much the social contract that holds the society together, and makes the government accountable to the people. Would you rather they just did as they please?

Referendums should be reserved to societal/moral issues (gay marriage, etc.). Otherwise, let's have a referendum asking the people if they want to keep paying taxes -- that should work well.

Quite extreme, I know. My point is that the government is elected to make decisions taking the economical and political consequences into account.

Expecting the general public opinion to be the end-all response to whatever decision is simply wrong.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#165

Post by cm2187 »

gonehome wrote: post #104
yholio wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some might say that a good outcome is one where the people can freely make their own choices and accept the consequences. The plight of the British might serve as a cautionary tale informing the decisions of some other country, that's certainly a good thing in some sense. Democracy is not guaranteed to deliver prosperity or lead only to the correct decisions, yet it's the best system we have.

What if the consequences are instability or large scale war?

War between who and who?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#166

Post by dbdjfjrjvebd »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #99

I'll be the first to admit: I'm an American. I fundamentally do not understand Brexit. I understand the following timeline: 1. A largely disseminated, nation-wide vote occurs, bolstered by nationalist sentiment, that the EU is bad for the UK. This vote results in a conclusion that UK should leave the EU. 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not vot…

May is prime minister. Practically this role is similar to president and majority leader combined. Essentially she is finally responsible for everything.

Unfortunately for her there are essentially three groups. (1) Brexit on WTO terms, (2) cancel Brexit and remain, and (3) those that largely support her deal. These groups are more certain what they don't want than what they do want. This means that 2/3 of the MPs oppose this deal. But 2/3 will oppose any option.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#167

Post by kodablah »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #99

I'll be the first to admit: I'm an American. I fundamentally do not understand Brexit. I understand the following timeline: 1. A largely disseminated, nation-wide vote occurs, bolstered by nationalist sentiment, that the EU is bad for the UK. This vote results in a conclusion that UK should leave the EU. 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not vot…

> 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not voting as such individually.

Also an American, but from the outside I don't see how a majority desire can be so accurately determined beyond a vote.

> Some portions of the UK [...] are strongly aganst this voting result.

This I definitely see from the loudest. So strongly that the vote has been tarnished every which way (which, let's be honest, you can do with any vote you want due to all the malfeasance you can find by campaigners). It's becoming a pattern. The votes that the loudest in democracy don't like or can't understand are being challenged on several grounds, most boiling down to assuming ignorance and gullibility of the other side. Accepting results is becoming harder and harder for some to the point where the larger-yet-silent groups feel no recourse but to use the polls and the louder feel no recourse but to invalidate votes and/or prevent them from happening and/or try again.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#168

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #89
hacker_9 wrote: post #63

To be honest this is just a repeat of two years ago, apart from now it's May not getting her way instead of Cameron. The whole thing is such a colossal failure that they need to just to give up and stop acting like this is the 'will of the people' - as if people don't change their mind when presented with the facts or something.

"Tea?" "OK, go on." "There's no kettle so I'm burning the house down to heat water." "Now wait a…" "Shut up, I've a clear mandate for tea." https://twitter.com/LouiseJJohnson/status/829617043582369792

[deleted]

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#169

Post by yholio »

mrec wrote: post #103
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…

> they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal They're not, May is, and May is not a Brexiter. The Brexiters generally are pushing to leave on WTO terms, not so much as a preferred end state but in recognition of the fact that only a genuine commitment to doing so has any chance of convincing the EU to agree to sensible terms such as Canada+. If the EU can keep the UK under its thumb forever then of cou…

There is no Canada+ on the table and there never was, it's just "Canada" without the "+": a set of trade liberalization measures that cover some physical goods and very few services. It's a bad match for Britain's needs:

http://www.policyreview.co.uk/eu-uk-canada/

It's hard to understand why Germany or France, who stand to gain from excluding the powerful UK service sector from the EU financial markets, would think that adding the "plus" to a Canada type deal is a "sensible" thing. It's sensible only for the brexiteers who peddled Canada+ as a real thing.

Never-mind the fact that, in order to export to the EU market, UK still needs to respect the EU regulations, like any other trade partner of the EU. Only now, they no longer have any say over those regulations.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#170

Post by jvreeland »

qfq wrote: post #160
davidw wrote: post #117

I loved the comparison to a submarine made of cheese: https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?l...

>Theresa May was initially against building a submarine out of cheese, obviously. Because it’s a completely insane thing to do. Leaving the EU is not a completely insane thing to do. The UK (and many other countries) have legitimate grievances about some things the EU is foisting on them (immigration for example) and the EU is giving them the cold shoulder and fining them if they don't comply. Labelling people who ar…

Leaving the EU and expecting to get most of if not all the benefits with no sacrifices, as it was sold to people is insane.
Post reply on HN