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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#541

Post by mstade »

I’ve heard a lot of people make the point that it’d be political suicide if the government declares brexit a bad idea and then backtracks, ignoring the referendum and thus remain in the EU after all, that it’d feed into the hand of the nationalists – but I’ve got hard time understanding why? Doesn’t this assume that people are just dumb? That hey believe the government has been sitting on their hands in trying to get a deal done, and not really, I mean really tried?

Isn’t there an argument to be made that they did try, and here are the results, and because of that they’ve concluded that it’s a bad idea? Is it really so hard to believe that a majority of the UK voters wouldn’t accept this, when it was such a contested referendum result in the first place?

Especially so when the referendum question was only discussing leaving the EU, rather than promising any particular outcomes?

I’m having a hard time believing that a majority of people in the UK are so entrenched that they can’t possibly change their minds given the light of new facts, hat everyone will turn to nationalistic agendas, and that the referendum result of two and a half years ago is still a valid gauge of popular sentiment.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#542

Post by rtkwe »

djmobley wrote: post #517
rtkwe wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the contradiction here. Remain was what it says on the tin stay in the EU and any desired changes happen within the system of the EU. My whole point is the leave has gone from this huge nebula of different brexits to one, the one currently negotiated by PM May. Ideally if it were possible the vote should have never been held until there was an actual deal or at least a concrete foundation. Without the act…

> Remain was what it says on the tin stay in the EU and any desired changes happen within the system of the EU. That's simply not true. Both remain and leave campaigns were backed up by dubious or misleading claims about what the future would look like if the UK voted to leave the EU. Those backing remain claimed Brexit would cause financial instability and require an emergency budget, that unemployment would rise, t…

I think it's too early to say that none of those bad outcomes have happened because the UK hasn't actually left yet. The actual policy though under remain was known, leave was just a cloud of displeasure at the EU with no idea what the actual policy would be. My point isn't about what either side claimed would happen it's that the policy each vote would result in was solid on the remain side and completely fluid on the leave side. Regardless of bad claims by either side that fact makes me open to a second referendum.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#543

Post by mikekchar »

philwelch wrote: post #338
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…

> 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. The UK already picked and chose the parts of EU membership they wanted. They opted out of the Euro, they opted out of Schengen, they opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights--all of this, and more,…

To be fair, they didn't really opt out of the Euro. It is completely unfeasible at the time. Originally they were going to go with the Euro and to start the transition they linked the pound to the deutsche mark. However, the German economy was crushing the British economy and this pushed interest rates in the UK to over 10% (Fun fact: I was getting 12% interest in my savings account in the UK). Mortgage rates were about 18% IIRC and this sparked a bursting of the real estate bubble in London. Prices fell 25% in 1992 as banks foreclosed on under water properties. The Japanese bought up a lot of properties, which buoyed the market somewhat, but it wasn't until the pound delinked from the deutsche mark that the market could recover properly. I remember that day well as I lost half the value in my UK bank account (so much for 12% interest ;-) ).

Everybody knew that the UK couldn't adopt the euro which is why they "opted out".

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#544

Post by pjc50 »

woodpanel wrote: post #468
dijit wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s almost comical (if it wasn’t so pathetically sad) how divided and polarised the country is. My mother and her entire extended friend circles are aggressively pro-leave, even tofting sound-bites at me. A little further south/east (mum lives in Coventry) in Kettering my friend is pro-leave, but not aggressively so, his soon-to-be wife is remain, but they tout their points and agree to disagree. Further south in Lo…

But only if Brexit isn’t being done, right? Not living in the UK, but I would guess that as stupid as Remainers might think Brexit is and Brexiters are, it‘s a whole other ballgame to assume that because they are stupid you are entitled to nullify a vote. And because of that, even though a lot in the EU are rooting for it, I doubt a second referendum is going to take place. Even die-hard remainers would ask themselve…

Let them riot. Then we'll see how many of the alleged people actually exist.

(There are not going to be pro Brexit riots outside the existing far right EDL and other small groups.)

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#545

Post by Zenst »

neffy wrote: post #460
amelius wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referendum would tarnish democracy' line I'm annoyed for another reason: first, in 1975, [1], there was a referendum that asked the British people if they would want to join the EEC. Then, in 2016, there was a referendum that asked them if they would want to leave the EU. So if there can be a second, then why can't there be a third? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His…

The other precedent is the ratification of the Maastricht treaty, where it was rejected by referendum in Denmark for example 50.7% vs 40.93% - so again very close - amended, and then passed - by a second referendum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty The failure by both Corbyn and May to acknowledge the need for a second referendum, imho, should raise the question of whether the UK is really a democracy…

Just after the original vote in 2016, Tusk admitted that the EU needed reform. Cameron (UK PM of the time) in 2015 went to the EU seeking reform, he was palmed of with some token concessions for the UK. 2016 we had a vote, since then it has been a cluster of chaos with every opportunity for personal limelight being sought over any sane approach.

May's deal wasn't a deal the UK was looking for on either side and in effect was a weaker form of what article 50 was and is. Yet also locked the UK into the EU with no say until a final trade deal that the EU approves was agreed. In short, a terrible deal as not only less say than as with article 50, but also given all the cards to the EU when it comes to making a deal. Sheer madness at any business level of thinking.

So what have we got, a divided kingdom instead of a united one. You can go down this side, that side avenue for eons, both sides did some epic flaws and lies.

SO how do we move on.

Firstly - cancel article 50, then reenact it again. That is within EU rules and avoids needing any yay or nay from EU. Bit of a gaming the system, but at least resets the clock and allows time for second referendum. Equally it means going back to the start, but article 50 also allows early leaving.

Yes I agree now, a second referendum is needed; BUT it has to be done in a way that respects the first vote, otherwise you will still end up with a divided kingdom. You do this by combining the results of the first vote with the second vote. You allow again as with the first vote 16 year old to vote and have a say and the final result is what we do and that frankly has to be either. 1) Stay in the EU, but equally get fully behind it this time and fix what is wrong - start by a EU Health Service, that oversight has always irked many with the EU ethos to free access to basics, health being one. Curtly what the EU people want over a Army, least all those I know think so. 2) If we leave, we go WTO, plan for that and if the EU wants to sort a deal out, fine, we will run with a direction and anything else is good. Least can do trade deals with other countries and the whole focus upon the EU at the expense of ignoring those avenues is very blinkered.

But one aspect many overlook. The UK has on many votes in the EU history, singularly or instrumentally held the EU back from advancing, with financial services regulation and taxation being one area that stands out. This hampers how the EU has progressed and as it stands, and been detrimental. So putting the money aside what the UK pays in - has anybody really asked the question of the EU people - is the EU better of without the UK?

I would also add, that a second referendum should see all MP's remain neutral and they all focus on facts, over opinion. Also all avenues are equally explored from a worst to best case and presented to the public. The public love facts and a full picture, let them have that and vote without pontificating peer-pressure. Let it be fair.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#546

Post by incompatible »

notahacker wrote: post #356
cryptonector wrote: post #306

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…

Anybody that has made even the slightest attempt to follow events knows that May tried alternative attempts to get a deal (including a framework signed off by all the Brexiters in her Cabinet) and the EU repeatedly rejected them. Anybody that has a solid grasp of the facts knows that the issue is not that the EU "offered the UK nothing" but that the Irish government will veto any agreement which implies the creation…

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Irish border if the no-deal exit takes place. Will the EU demand a customs border, but Ireland resist it?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#547

Post by siquick »

mattlondon wrote: post #347
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children should not be able to vote.

16 year olds can get married, join the military, work fulltime and pay income tax. Why shouldn't they also be allowed to vote?

Why should they pay tax without representation?

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#548

Post by mikeash »

nostrademons wrote: post #139
gonehome wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the consequences are instability or large scale war?

Then that's what we get. There's no guarantee of a good outcome: if the majority of people want to do stupid things, a democracy will let them. In such a case we'd probably be fucked regardless of what form of government we had. A dictatorship, monarchy, or oligarchy lets a minority of people do stupid things, and if you have a majority, it's fairly likely there is a powerful minority contained within them.

Democracy doesn’t have to mean that 50% + 1 gets whatever they want. There can be higher bars to clear for more drastic changes, and pretty much every democratic government has some.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#549

Post by Balero »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #332
siquick wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't 52% of the country though. The voter turnout was 72% and that excludes the millions of under 18s who will be affected by this the most.

Children should not be able to vote.

Old people should not be able to vote. They don't understand the world, and won't be alive to feel the effects of any decision.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#550

Post by dragonwriter »

gonehome wrote: post #149
xienze wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what if? You're essentially arguing that if our benevolent overlords decide that the democratic process might result in something unfavorable that they should do the wise thing and ignore the will of the people.

I'm arguing in favor of representative government where elected people decide on what makes the most sense for complex issues. Relying on advice from experts, but ultimately making the call that's in the country's best interest.

So, like, Parliamentary sovereignty with a democratically elected parliament, instead of popular sovereignty? What an odd idea.
Post reply on HN