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

Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#31

Post by flukus »

Veen wrote: post #23
tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #6

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed to be representing the electorate, shouldn't it have been pretty straightforward that the corresponding bill would pass largely unchallenged? If it had failed, how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions?

MPs represent constituencies in parliament. Many constituencies voted overwhelmingly to remain, which is why some MPs, especially on the labour side, felt they couldn't vote for the the bill. Some, like Ken Clark, have been pro-EU for decades and simply believe Brexit is the wrong thing to do. He opposed the referendum. If you strongly believe something to be a terrible mistake, should you support it just because it'…

So your happy for MP's to cede your sovereignty rather than risk a popular vote? Because that's how Britain ended up in the EU in the first place.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#32

Post by generic_user »

candiodari wrote: post #17
Symmetry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget. Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the e…

So what you're saying is: 1) obviously the UK was in the EU for the past years 2) people voted against this for 2 reasons. One, they're against the EU. Two, they're not happy with how their own lives changed under 1. 3) We should ignore the second argument and go against the will of the people because ... we're smarter and think that argument is wrong ? Because their lives got worse for other reasons, not this policy…

> And frankly, I suspect this is at least partially what happened in the US. Trump, the republican candidate, certainly appeared to be to the left, economically, of the democrat candidate at a time when lots of people got systematically worse off. Meanwhile Hillary was proud to show that Wall Street was on her side ... And her opponent Trumpeting mostly economic arguments : jobs, not capital. Production in the US, not globalization. Well, he got elected, she didn't. Must be racism ... right ? Perhaps. I submit that Trump got far more votes from his promise to tax income less and tax imports than is generally believed, especially on this site.

Yes, and also his stance on TPP moved many Unions and there members to vote for him. He has already made good on that and scrapped TPP. A move that was applauded by Berny Sanders the Unions and many on the left.

The unions have been fighting TPP for many years and Trump scrapped it on his first week in office.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#33

Post by nhebb »

flukus wrote: post #21
candiodari wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is: 1) obviously the UK was in the EU for the past years 2) people voted against this for 2 reasons. One, they're against the EU. Two, they're not happy with how their own lives changed under 1. 3) We should ignore the second argument and go against the will of the people because ... we're smarter and think that argument is wrong ? Because their lives got worse for other reasons, not this policy…

> And frankly, I suspect this is at least partially what happened in the US. Trump, the republican candidate, certainly appeared to be to the left, economically, of the democrat candidate at a time when lots of people got systematically worse off. This is something people are missing about the "alt-right" movement, it's not particularly right wing economically, it's certainly a different beast from the neo-cons. In A…

> This is something people are missing about the "alt-right" movement

The definition of "alt-right" has bifurcated. Originally, it meant non-GOP establishment (aka, GOPe), which is what I think you mean. The term was adopted by white nationalist groups, and that has been the primary definition used by the media.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#34

Post by flukus »

nhebb wrote: post #33
flukus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And frankly, I suspect this is at least partially what happened in the US. Trump, the republican candidate, certainly appeared to be to the left, economically, of the democrat candidate at a time when lots of people got systematically worse off. This is something people are missing about the "alt-right" movement, it's not particularly right wing economically, it's certainly a different beast from the neo-cons. In A…

> This is something people are missing about the "alt-right" movement The definition of "alt-right" has bifurcated. Originally, it meant non-GOP establishment (aka, GOPe), which is what I think you mean. The term was adopted by white nationalist groups, and that has been the primary definition used by the media.

I'm using it in an even more general sense, the rise of non-establishment right wing groups around the world. Was the term adopted by white nationalist groups or was that just mud slinging that got stuck?

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#35

Post by arjie »

candiodari wrote: post #17
Symmetry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget. Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the e…

So what you're saying is: 1) obviously the UK was in the EU for the past years 2) people voted against this for 2 reasons. One, they're against the EU. Two, they're not happy with how their own lives changed under 1. 3) We should ignore the second argument and go against the will of the people because ... we're smarter and think that argument is wrong ? Because their lives got worse for other reasons, not this policy…

William Bernstein in A Splendid Exchange argues that pro- and anti- immigration (and free trade) positions are taken not as fundamental philosophical positions by the left or right wing but by the different trade factors as would be expected considering the results of free trade or movement of labour under the Stolper-Samuelson theorem.

A simplifying example is that in a field and region that is labour intensive but having a scarcity of labour, labour agitates against immigration and free-trade.

It's a fairly convincing argument, though it references a trade model that is somewhat simplistic.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#36

Post by Veen »

flukus wrote: post #31
Veen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MPs represent constituencies in parliament. Many constituencies voted overwhelmingly to remain, which is why some MPs, especially on the labour side, felt they couldn't vote for the the bill. Some, like Ken Clark, have been pro-EU for decades and simply believe Brexit is the wrong thing to do. He opposed the referendum. If you strongly believe something to be a terrible mistake, should you support it just because it'…

So your happy for MP's to cede your sovereignty rather than risk a popular vote? Because that's how Britain ended up in the EU in the first place.

I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority.

I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives.

Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#37

Post by Veen »

flukus wrote: post #31
Veen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MPs represent constituencies in parliament. Many constituencies voted overwhelmingly to remain, which is why some MPs, especially on the labour side, felt they couldn't vote for the the bill. Some, like Ken Clark, have been pro-EU for decades and simply believe Brexit is the wrong thing to do. He opposed the referendum. If you strongly believe something to be a terrible mistake, should you support it just because it'…

So your happy for MP's to cede your sovereignty rather than risk a popular vote? Because that's how Britain ended up in the EU in the first place.

I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority.

I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives.

Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#38

Post by edblarney »

aryehof wrote: post #19
tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #6

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed to be representing the electorate, shouldn't it have been pretty straightforward that the corresponding bill would pass largely unchallenged? If it had failed, how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions?

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. The Judiciary are independent, and only make rulings based on current law and precedent. Some sought clarification that the current Government (executive branch) could not invoke Brexit without regard to Parliament. The Courts decided that was the case according to current law, precedent and convention. The Government then put it to Parliament that they be given the power, that pas…

"In the UK, Parliament is sovereign."

The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'.

Within the EU, UK Parliament is not quite 'sovereign' :)

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#39

Post by generic_user »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #29
generic_user wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the topic of discussing is article 50. So I am contextualizing your post with the current topic. > My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there sid…

> I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on that. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost. Again, it was not a legally binding referendum. The government is free to throw the results out. Politicians must be ready to sacrifice their political career…

> Again, it was not a legally binding referendum.

That is probably part of the argument that was made to require a parliamentary vote. Which is conceivably a fair judgement.

But on the other hand what is the purpose of having a referendum to leave the EU if it is not intended to be enacted in law? It would be rather nonsensical to hold referendums that have no effect and could be discarded at will.

Nevertheless, as we saw the substantial majority voted to honor the referendum and a fairly small minority did not. That leads me to believe that the overwhelming sentiment is to honor the democratic vote and the will of the people.

The risk of denying the democratic majority is the risk of the 'tyranny of elite minority'. Its hard to decide which is the true injustice in an abstract fashion. Its very much a question of context and specifics.

Re: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

#40

Post by elastic_church »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #30
elastic_church wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply put, I would not code for other people at the salaries that Romanians accept.

This basically means you would not code for other people only at a pay lower than what a Romanian would accept, as if a Romanian would accept a pay of X, that also means he/she would accept a pay of X+ε, for all wages from X to ∞. This makes you a pretty cheap labour, and if your hate against Romanian people can somehow be turned to motivation, probably a very productive one! If you are formulating hatespeach against…

How did you extrapolate low wages to hatespeech against Eastern-Europeans? This presupposes quite a lot and suggests a lot more about you.

I made a pretty specific and narrowly tailored statement. Your postulate primarily neglects reality.

Post reply on HN