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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#901

Post by C1sc0cat »

AstralStorm wrote: post #853
m_mueller wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces, while the law text actually says "public spaces and what's observable from there". i.e. pretty much any Swiss inhabitant can now be put under surveillance in their private homes without any judge order.

This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only. And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not cover…

That would depend on the wording and on legal precedent in the UK some civil service pensioners had changes to their pensions because the wording of the scheme of arrangement used a different three letter word than some other pensioners.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#902

Post by AstralStorm »

hardlianotion wrote: post #410
paxys wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit itself can of course be delivered, but the larger promise sold to voters - that the country would be able to negotiate favorable trade deals, that it would directly result in increased NHS funding, that it would lead to reduced immigration without affecting free movement for workers, that customs and border control would be seamless, that European court of justice would stop having jurisdiction in UK affairs e…

All of that remains to be seen. There are two major causes to this particular outcome. 1. Article 50 is an exceptionally poor piece of legislation if your objective is to deliver a smooth and equitable separation from the Union. 2. The Irish border is very sensitive and prone to violence, and the Irish government has successfully ensured that their concerns addressed in the form that they have been, within the withdr…

1. It is actually a pretty well written piece of law, the about only problem in it is short timeframes - it wasn't imagined in the spirit of complete political mess but more like an orderly exit option with previous long deliberation. Unfortunately British politicians love to stall and waste time, eventually invoking a fallback clause.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#903

Post by C1sc0cat »

pavlov wrote: post #887
jrumbut wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In retrospect, it didn't go all too well with the mandate either.

In a functioning parliamentary democracy, the proper order of actions for Brexit would have been: 1) UKIP (or a coalition of Brexit-minded parties) wins general election. 2) PM Nigel Farage opens withdrawal negotiations with the EU. 3) 2+ years later, with a complete withdrawal agreement on the table, a referendum is held on whether to accept the deal. 4) If at least 50% of voters support the withdrawal agreement, it…

2/3rds or 75% not 50% plus 1

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#904

Post by stupidcar »

TheGrumpyBrit wrote: post #773
justaguyhere wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election - voters need to take at least some responsibility. No amount of "voters' remorse" is going to help now.

The thing is, there was no talk of a deal before the referendum. The vote was simply Stay or Go, with the assumption being that we would simply fall back to WTO rules. All this talk of negotiating a deal came after the vote. In that sense, a No Deal Brexit is closer to what the people voted for than any deal. Contrary to "voters remorse", I know plenty of Brexit supporters who are celebrating the defeat of what they…

Oh, really? Here's the speech Michael Gove gave at the outset of the Vote Leave campaign: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/michael_gove_the_facts_o...

The key quote:

"There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will stay in this zone. The suggestion that Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine would stay part of this free trade area - and Britain would be on the outside with just Belarus - is as credible as Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP."

So here you have one of the two most senior politicians in the Vote Leave campaign, in a flagship speech, saying that after we vote to leave we will continue to enjoy free trade with Europe. Not WTO rules, not even a negotiated deal. He says we'll just "stay in this zone" as if it was a default.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#905

Post by hardlianotion »

ajuc wrote: post #861
bookbinder wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is ajuc's comment being downvoted?

Cause I was mistaken about young people turnout? Or just people don't like bashing them for voting populists :)

This is an emotive topic and there is a large amount of downvoting-is-disagreement going on.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#906

Post by XJOKOLAT »

Wildgoose wrote: post #801
boudin wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen anything in the Brexit campaign saying that the goal was to fall back to WTO rules between UK and EU.

That's because it's the default position after leaving the EU trading block.

Bollocks.

Is what I would have said.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#907

Post by C1sc0cat »

roenxi wrote: post #858
mirimir wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing against a strawman. So do you think that nations don't intervene covertly in other nations? What about the US in Iran (1953) or Chile (60s)? And so why is it so improbable that Russia is doing it? And recall the study by Prof. Igor Panarin (former KGB analyst) predicting that the US will fragment. Maybe it's more like a game plan.

Occam's Razor suggests that the people who voted for Brexit didn't think that they were receiving net benefits from the EU. I'm pretty sure the net financial transfer is Britain sends more money to the EU than they get back, so it is easy to see why a tax-paying voter might feel that way. There is an argument that this view is too simplistic and that the trade situation is complicated; but it seems a lot more plausib…

Its actually a tiny amount < £200 for me and I am well above the uk median wage - every one gets a yearly break down of where there tax gets spent

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#908

Post by crottypeter »

burfog wrote: post #775
justaguyhere wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU. 1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? 2. If the EU is that bad, why aren't other countries holding referendums and leaving the EU? Why is only the UK making so much noise? I am not European, so my knowledge on this matter is pretty small. Honestly curious, not being snarky etc.

The situation is certainly different for any country that uses the Euro. The UK could leave with far less trouble than Poland or Ireland could.

But Poland have the złoty, not the Euro.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#909

Post by pas »

growlist wrote: post #474
pas wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gangsterism could you explain that a bit?

The EU's plan from the start has been to make the process so painful as to dissuade anyone else from trying. Martin Selmayr was boasting that he has managed to trap the UK.

Hm, what's the definition of gangsterism then? It seems to me that the EU put up no fight about the UK leaving, the UK simply wanted in on the single market and customs union and also be outside of the regulations that are the single market and customs union, which is the exact definition of a contradiction.

The EU will carry on with a melancholic resignation if the UK does a no deal exit. It'll be just as painful for the EU to do all those border checks, Belfast will tense up again, the queue at Gibraltar will get longer, crossing at Dover and Calais will be simply silly long and all the unmentioned things are even more complicated by default. The EU has rules how to handle them and does it rutinely, the UK can probably dig up a few old rulebooks and then they'll throw them away and will probably start with the EU rules anyway, as those are relevant, contemporary, up to date, known, tested, tried and used already.

And the problem with slowly drifting away from the EU is that the EU ingress points won't know which rules the UK changed, or which new rules the UK forgot to adopt, so checks will have to be performed. Every port, airport, other ingress point will have to treat anybody and anything from the UK as outside EU. Full stop.

If the UK wants to avoid that it has to offer something to the EU to get that special treatment. (It always had special treatment, it had right to selectively implement directives and regulations, but it hadn't utilized that right except in a few important cases, like they opted out of the Eurozone, Schengen area, etc.)

So, all in all, the burden of treating the UK as an important close-to-EU-but-not-EU entity has to worth something to the UK, right? May and co. basically offered nothing except that we'll figure it out later.

All of the problems that the last 2 years of brexit negotiations wanted to "solve" are solved by an 'even closer cooperation'.

Re: Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament

#910

Post by AstralStorm »

gadders wrote: post #892
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…

I think there are multiple issues that have led to the UK being in the situation it is in: 1) The UK wanting to negotiate an amicable parting, but the EU actually wanting to punish the UK and negotiated in bad faith 2) Not starting No Deal preparations immediately. Standard negotiating tactic is to have a "BATNA" - best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Not beginning No Deal preparations prevented that. 3) Havin…

1) Not true, there were multiple good deals presented including this one which the Parliament voted against - provided Northern Ireland situation is solved in a satisfactory way. This specific point was the keystone and why many early proposals failed.

2) There was no plan and no negotiations before incoming the article or trying the referendum. If the were serious plans before, situation would be different.

3, 4) Yes, but apparently even having someone doing Leave is no good either. It is a mess. The most vocal and radical proponents of it have left the scene.

Post reply on HN