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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#571

Post by joshuahughes »

rbanffy wrote: post #556
makomk wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that the second of those referendums didn't happen until two decades after the EEC we'd originally signed up to was massively and fundamentally changed in nature. Now we're talking about having another referendum two and a half years after the previous one, before the result of the last referendum has even been implemented. That's quite a difference and it very strongly suggests that we're only seeing ca…

I wouldn't say it's because it's the "wrong" result but that only now you could make an informed decision because only now you can see what a Brexit looks like. To be fair, it could be seen since 2016, but now it can no longer be honestly ignored.

I don't think we're seeing "what a Brexit looks like". We're seeing the fumbling of a government who gave the British people a vote in 2016 and whose bluff was called. They didn't want and, more importantly, didn't expect the result they got, and stupidly had done nothing to prepare for it. And for the last two years, they've petulantly gone through the motions of negotiating a deal that they would dearly love to fail. In light of all that, it's entirely unsurprising that the process has been a catastrophic mess. However, it doesn't give anyone the freedom to give up on what most definitely was a democratic decision.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#572

Post by makomk »

Tomte wrote: post #469
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…

"WTO terms" aren't what you think they are. They aren't a fully-developed agreement between nations to trade. They are basicslly just a framework. You still need to negotiate with each other. For example, the other country will want papers with your goods. Which forms needs to be filled out? With which information? The WTO doesn't regulate that. You still need to agree on all the technicalities. You only get some lim…

The WTO doesn't just limit tariffs, they also restrict what kinds of non-tariff barriers to trade are possible. In very broad terms, countries may still set their own standards for goods sold there (unlike in the EU), but they must enforce those standards fairly and equally against both local and foreign goods. There's some exemptions for stuff like sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on animal, plant and food imports, and these will almost certainly cause major problems if Brexit happens, but the WTO certainly isn't just about tariffs.

This is one of the big problems I have with the reporting on Brexit, actually. The press not only left widespread misunderstandings like this about the WTO unchallenged, when a politician did finally push back against this all the publications that'd remained silent insisted he was the one pushing dangerous misinformation because people might misunderstand and think the WTO solved everything.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#573

Post by tim333 »

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…

If May wasn't in a coalition with the DUP then N Ireland could have remained in customs union with the EU as it is now and the mainland could have gone Canada+. Not really happening at the moment though.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#574

Post by pjc50 »

Zenst wrote: post #545
neffy wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ef…

> 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

I don't understand this argument - "give me hard Brexit OR EU NHS"?

> 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.

Pure cloud cookoo land. If they were capable of this level of honesty we wouldn't be in this mess. The public aren't too keen on facts either.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#575

Post by AnimalMuppet »

arethuza wrote: post #311
balabaster wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are governed ultimately by the Prime Minister. So they do what she tells them to, ultimately making her the most important person.

Actually, I believe the armed forces of the UK actually take an oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch rather than to the state/government - I did think this didn't mean very much but I have raised the point with a serving army officer and he was rather insistent that they take it seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kin...

"A Man Called Intrepid" points out that this was a big deal in World War II. If England had fallen to the Nazis, the loyalty would have remained with the king, not with whatever puppet the Nazis had put in place.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#576

Post by BerislavLopac »

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…

On point 1:

a) The vote (referendum) was advisory, and non-binding. Basically an opinion poll held by the government.

b) It has been proven that there were many manipulations, irregularities and outright illegal activities which have influenced the result.

Normally, these two would be enough for a government to ignore the vote result. But these are not normal times.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#577

Post by tim333 »

jandrese wrote: post #375
lizknope wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 publ…

The problem is that literally nobody wants May's job right now. Given the shit sandwich she has to work with she's doing the best she can, but the best they can do is make a terrible situation slightly less terrible.

Boris wants the job, God help us.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#578

Post by makomk »

pjc50 wrote: post #569
FartyMcFarter wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EU nationals resident in the UK are entitled to vote in Parliamentary elections. No they aren't: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-regist... I agree with your general point though.

Oops, you're right, it's the other way round; UK nationals in the EU can vote in Parliamentary elections but not the referendum. The great thing about democracy is there are so many different electorates to choose from.

As far as I understand it, the eligibility rules for the EU referendum were exactly the same as for Parliamentary elections: UK nationals in the EU were only eligible to vote if they'd been abroad for less than 15 years.

The Scottish independence referendum was the oddball one, largely at the request of the Scottish government from what I can tell. It required actual residence in Scotland but little else.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#579

Post by Zenst »

jmmcd wrote: post #568
Zenst wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ef…

> Firstly - cancel article 50, then reenact it again. That is within EU rules and avoids needing any yay or nay from EU. This is not possible. The recent judgement that UK could unilaterally cancel A50 was predicted on a "good faith" cancellation, not gaming the system.

Actually it is technically viable, going by the judgment. Though I'd still class that as gaming the system. I'm not seeing anything in the judgement that would prevent such an approach.

https://twitter.com/EUCourtPress/status/1072039706123210752

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#580

Post by BerislavLopac »

cryptonector wrote: post #320
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 hasn't been held responsible for this, yet. She's survived an internal party vote of no confidence, and she is clearly confident that her government will survive tomorrow's parliamentary vote of no confidence. Right now the PM (and the EU) gets to go back to the drawing board. And Parliament gets to try to force various things, such as a second referendum, or a delay to brexit (which the EU would have to acquiesc…

> Right now the PM (and the EU) gets to go back to the drawing board

Nope. The EU has said there will be no more negotiations.

Post reply on HN