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

Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 192 posts

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#81

Post by altern8 »

grey-area wrote: post #52
nkkollaw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people vote for something and you ignore their democratic vote. Pretty bad.

Democracy is a process not a single vote. People voted based on russian-funded lies funnelled through corrupt millionaires like Arron Banks, illegally funded and illegally targetting voters with murky data from the likes of cambridge analytica, using extensive and highly targetted ad campaigns on FB (still going on btw - over £500k spent this week). Among other lies politicians told them that we'd stay in the custons…

I assume you also believe we never went to the Moon..?

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#82

Post by altern8 »

chc wrote: post #27
nkkollaw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people vote for something and you ignore their democratic vote. Pretty bad.

The usual suggestion is not to ignore the vote, but to put it back up for a vote. Ask people if, now that they've seen the difficulty of Brexit, they still want to do this. If the people actually want the Brexit that exists in real life, they'll reaffirm. It's still democratic by any reasonable definition of the word.

Having people vote again and again until you get the result you want is like ignoring the vote.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#83

Post by cmurf »

TicklishTiger wrote: post #5

Why do politicians always seem so uncivilized to me? Both sides of an argument always argue as if they believe the other side is stupid and they know for sure they are right. That is the biggest stupidity in itself. Why are there no politicians that spend their time on trying to understand the other side, rather then shouting out their own message? Those would be the ones I would vote. But they simply do not exist.

This is such classic Dunning Kruger effect. You've never heard of them, therefore they don't exist, yet you won't do basic research necessary to prove your own assumptions wrong. Democracy isn't easy, it's hard. But it's better than anything else we've come up with so far, other than the benevolent dictator model - and good luck with them always being benevolent.

There are quite a lot of such politicians, but they don't have the personality you're criticizing, so they're not visible generally, but in particular not the media which is selling politics as entertainment just like anything else.

Shirley Chisholm? Bet you've never heard of her, which is fine, I don't expect that. You do also have the imagination that she should exist, which is good. But where you fail is your assumption that you are right to conclude they do not exist just because you've never heard of them. So you're stupid and yet you know for sure you're right. You're doing the exact same damn thing you accuse others of. It's blatant hypocrisy, which happens to be very common and you seem to think it's an exception! Of course you have to call that out in order to hold people accountable to a higher standard. It is in fact the thing you call uncivil that causes a chance at civility!

How about Ander Crenshaw? You won't see him on TV and you won't see him shouting. Michael Bennet, is another one you won't see on TV, and the one time in his political career he went on a rant was eviscerating the pure stupidity of a colleague to his face, calling him out with factual evidence of his hypocrisy based on indisputable past action.

I guess you lack the imagination of truly uncivilized behavior that exists today and through most of human history. Dead bodies littering fields, bloating, leaking, bursting. Firing squads. Mass graves. Really, you think politicians are uncivilized? It's a ridiculous comment.

Calling a stupid person stupid is not uncivilized. It's called making an observation. Politics is when you don't do that every time stupidity is displayed.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#84

Post by matthewmacleod »

weinzierl wrote: post #55

> MPs voted down her deal by 391 to 242 - a smaller defeat than when they rejected it in January. > The PM said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave without a deal on 29 March and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed. What happens if they vote "No" three times in a row (no deal, no no-deal , no postponement)? If this wasn't politics I'd say: See if you can simplify this function, bonu…

I would stress that constitutionally parliament's vote on "no deal" is entirely irrelevant – the currently legal status is that the Treaties will cease applying to the UK on 29 March, regardless of the outcome of that vote. In other words…

  func brexit(){
       if(deal){
            exit(deal);
        } else {
            if(!deal) {
                exit(null);
            } else {
                if(postpone){
                    wait(TIME);
                    brexit();
                } else { 
                   exit(null);
                }
            }
        }
    }
However, this is subject to change. Motions can (and will) be amended.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#85

Post by paulddraper »

LeonM wrote: post #23
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #6

I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that political suicide?

Well, it's a democracy, they let the people vote, and the people voted in favor of leaving the EU. It's the same for me as a non-American looking at the whole Trump situation. The people chose him as their president, yet I get the impression (again, I'm an outsider) that very few people like him as a president.

As am American, that's exactly what I thought when I read GP's comment.

The losing side is always more emotional and vocal in politics. The winning side has nothing to prove, except during a re-election. It was that way for Bush, Obama, Trump, and it will be true of the next President.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#86

Post by [deleted] »

LeonM wrote: post #23
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #6

I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that political suicide?

Well, it's a democracy, they let the people vote, and the people voted in favor of leaving the EU. It's the same for me as a non-American looking at the whole Trump situation. The people chose him as their president, yet I get the impression (again, I'm an outsider) that very few people like him as a president.

[deleted]

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#87

Post by berbec »

weinzierl wrote: post #55

> MPs voted down her deal by 391 to 242 - a smaller defeat than when they rejected it in January. > The PM said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave without a deal on 29 March and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed. What happens if they vote "No" three times in a row (no deal, no no-deal , no postponement)? If this wasn't politics I'd say: See if you can simplify this function, bonu…

There actually is a similar flowchart in a linked article. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-...

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#88

Post by sparkling »

ddebernardy wrote: post #75
sparkling wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote. What if i told you that crying "b-but the other side lied!" and talking about "russian hackers" do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held vote? Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be cry…

> do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held election In case it needs reminding, those elections did occur, and May ended up needing to go in bed with the DUP to stay in power. Edit: ok, I see what you've done with your edit... > Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them seriously. Everyone would have corr…

*vote, not election, pardon

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#89

Post by dotdi »

I'm a bit confused as to why politicians always bring up ‘ignoring the will of the people’ when it's been shown that ‘the people’ have been lied to on a grand scale and there is evidence that Cambridge Analytica had worked pro-Brexit.

I guess nowadays you cannot convince people with facts anymore. You can only convince them with covert, subliminal ads on their social media feeds.

Re: Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

#90

Post by benj111 »

napo wrote: post #8

It's getting closer and closer to a no-deal, and yet the pound doesn't really go down. Does anybody understand why?

Theres a vote tomorrow on whether to reject a no deal brexit, the the consensus is that will pass, with the PM presumably asking for an extension, so no deal still isn't a given.
Post reply on HN