Live data from Hacker News

Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

nytimes.com

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will make concessions. I'll put money on it. The UK leaving with no deal would be the beginning of the end of the EU. There is already growing anti-EU sentiment in Italy (4th largest economy in the block), Hungary, Austria, Poland. The UK leaving could set off a chain reaction which would either end the EU project or drastically reduce its size. The EU simply can't afford to have the UK leave completely, because…

That sort of assumes that the UK is all hunky dory after it leaves. If it gets slammed with an immediate recession/raising unemployment/etc... then that's leverage the EU has to convince other members to stay.

That's certainly a possibility too, but do you think it's one that EU leaders are willing to bet the future of their superstate on?

The UK has a lot going for it. It might not be hunky-dory immediately after leaving, but there's plenty to suggest that the UK will do just fine in the medium to long term.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#412
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea why the extreme brexiteers find this idea so objectionable? Because it's a slippery slope that looks very much like ceding territory. It's not just border checks, but Northern Ireland would be effectively in the EU as far as customs rules and tariffs. Otherwise, you could circumvent the EU tariffs by importing in the UK, moving the goods "internally" to NE then loading them on a truck and unloading s…

The alternative is a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which the UK specifically agreed not to do in the Good Friday Agreement. A hard border, combined with the overwhelming preference of North Irish to remain in the EU, increases the chance of a successful North Irish referendum for unification with Ireland. If the UK allows such a referendum and Ireland unifies, then the UK is ceding…

No, the alternative is not a hard border.

The alternative isnfor the UK and ireland to simply refuse to enforcr a hard border and dare the EU to do it if they are so upset about customs.

What, is the EU going to station troops there, because of trade deals?

Neither Ireland or the UK are interested in enforcing any sort of hard border. It is instead the EU who would become unhappy about broken trade deals.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on, and the public has become more educated as to what the true effects of Brexit will be. Even leaving aside the question of how dishonest the pro-Brexit arguments were. It just seems reasonable to have another vote.

And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.

It's double jeopardy, there is a case for a fresh vote because new facts (May's deal/No Deal) are present. If there are new facts after this vote (for example a new A50 or similar) then there is the case for another one.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#414
post #271
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU. With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good: 1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous) 2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad…

I don't get how going back to the people is political suicide and creates distrust. I mean the first question was do you want to leave and the vote was yes. The second would be that now we know the facts were not entirely as advertised do you still want to go ahead? Not sure how that is betrayal, political suicide and the like - it seems fairly fair and sensible.

Think about practically any political issue, in the US or elsewhere. "Fair" and "sensible" are rarely anywhere near the primary considerations, are they?

I do think what you suggest would be fair and sensible. I do not believe the voters will see it so reasonably.

I'm from Ireland, where we had something similar happen. People still talk about how the govt will just hold multiple referendums till they get the answer they want on an issue. This is in reference to referendums that happened 10 and 20 years ago. It doesn't matter that these decisions have proven positive for the country - there's still resentment and bitterness, and this was an issue with far less emotional weight than brexit.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#415
post #223

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…

> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU. With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good: 1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous) 2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad…

So, option 2 (May's deal) is off the table. It's not gonna happen. That was today's vote. Maybe if they stall for another couple months and vote on it again in February or early March it might force the issue, but I doubt it.

Option 4 (second referendum) isn't necessarily on the table, because the UK cannot hold a referendum in the time they have left until the Article 50 deadline in March. They would have to ask the EU for an extension, and there's no guarantee that they'll get one.

Option 3 (pass an Act of Parliament to revoke the Article 50 invocation) is possible, but just like May's deal, I don't think the current Parliament has the votes, and there isn't time for a general election before the deadline. It's also a relatively permanent option--the legal opinion seems to be that a country can revoke Article 50, but they can't just keep invoking and revoking Article 50 over and over again in bad faith, which would seem to preclude any sort of "let's revoke Article 50 and we can just re-invoke it later once we realize what we actually want out of this".

Option 1--No Deal Brexit--is just what is going to automatically happen absent some sort of uncertain intervention. You can't get a second referendum or even a new deal done in time for the Article 50 deadline, you can't revoke Article 50 unless you're actually committing to remaining in the EU, and the existing deal is dead in the water. And, in a certain sense, Option 1 is really just a manifestation of the idea that, in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#416
The best thing for Britain would be to just give up, accept that there will be no deal, and spend the remaining time making as many preparations as possible, and piecemeal deals on smaller subjects.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#417

There's not much time left. Brexit happens March 29th. The EU countries are hiring more customs inspectors. Shippers are planning new shipping routes to avoid transit through the UK. The UK's financial services sector takes a huge hit. UK financial services have already moved US$1 trillion in assets out of the UK, and that's picking up as the deadline approaches. The City of London will be much less important soon.

> Brexit happens March 29th

Worth noting this date isn't immovable, though it is the date if nothing changes.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#418
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, definitely. Override uneducated decisions that harm the republic, regardless of "the will of the people" [1] [2] [3] [4]. That is exactly why republics exist versus direct democracy. “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea) Disclaimer: American [1] ht…

But "the republic" is not a uniform mass. What's good for some is bad for others. It is far from certain for me at least that the huge influx of cheap labor from Eastern Europe does not harm the lower classes in Britain. I'm pretty certain, on the other hand, that this works extremely well for the upper classes. Besides, given the quality and moral scruples of "decision makers" that governments are usually comprised…

> This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain.

Your bet would be wrong. If the data showed exit was superior, I'd hope the government went for it. I am entirely comfortable with the government making decisions I don't like; I'm American and am used it it.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#419

Article 50 exists. The UK can leave on WTO terms and the EU cannot stop it. The EU has some incentives (money) to give the UK some other deal than WTO terms, and it has some incentives (avoiding a rush to the exits) to give the UK nothing more than WTO terms. As it happens the UK is wealthier than other EU countries that might head for the exits if they thought they could get as good a deal as the UK, but no one thin…

The way May approached negotiations with the EU was from a position of weakness and was doomed to fail. I wonder how much of her approach was a result of political constraints or how much of it was a result of incompetence or deliberate sabotage by her or the bureaucracy. 1) She should have made deals or conditional deals with other trading partners before submitting Article 50. This way she would have had a good BAT…

It has been suggested that the conference speech where May (chasing a soundbite) said that the UK would not agree to a deal that involved the UK being subject to the ECJ

a) was never shared with her cabinet

b) May didn't realise at the time that this meant, by extension, leaving the Single Market and customs union.

In another era it would be hard to imagine policy being formed by pure accident...but I am beginning to believe that this may be true

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#420

I voted remain but I spend a lot of time with group of people who voted leave. Some of them have realised the leave campaigners basically had no evidence to back up their claims and so feel lied to but, sadly, the others are just angry - and I mean really angry. They want out at all costs because the “EU is telling us what to do”. Revoking article 50 would be a bad idea for civil stability but going through with it s…

> Revoking article 50 would be a bad idea for civil stability

What are they going to do? Lets be honest, the UK are the most impassioned people of all. They will not do anything. They aren't French, they aren't Spanish. Maybe they will have an extra cup of tea.

Post reply on HN