17 ms·

How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios

67 points by anne_veling 8y ago

tim_hutton 8y ago
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >The only winning move is not to play... That's a losing move too. The Leave voters would all label you 'undemocratic'. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well. Unfortunately, at this point there really are no "winning" moves. Probably just a few moves that might be less bad than other moves.
  - clubm8 8y ago
    >The Leave voters will all call you undemocratic. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well. This is the same country that has the queen give "consent" for all legislation, correct? What exactly is the point of the monarchy if they won't step in during this serious issue to act as the "adult in the room"?
    - Waterluvian 8y ago
      That's been symbolic for a long time. It would be a constitutional crisis if Her Majesty started getting involved.
      - presscast 8y ago
        I'm surprised you use the term "constitutional crisis" here. Isn't the UK one of those rare countries without a constitution?
        Waterluvian 8y ago
        Fair. I'm from Canada and am borrowing what I know about our system and what I know about theirs. We would call it that. Hmm. What do you call it in the UK? A crisis caused by the challenge of technically legal but completely unfounded government/monarchy actions.
        presscast 8y ago
        Right, this doesn't detract from your original point at all. I was just wondering if there was some technicality I was missing.
        lightbyte 8y ago
        Constitutional crisis is an appropriate term for the UK, it has happened twice before: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/house-of-lords-reform/overview/constitutionalcrisis/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis#United_K...
        M2Ys4U 8y ago
        The UK does have a constitution. It's just not all written down (lots of things work on 'convention'), and the bits that are written down aren't all written down in one document.
        presscast 8y ago
        Ah ok, that's definitely an important distinction. Practical question: how does one determine whether an action is unconstitutional? How does one refer to "case history" (or whatever) if it's not written down?
        foldr 8y ago
        It is all written down (in innumerable textbooks, court judgments, etc. etc.), just not in a single official document titled "The Constitution of the United Kingdom". Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :)
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      I guess I'm not familiar enough with the monarchical aspect of their government to know how (if?) that would go down? But you make a good point. Why can't their queen or whatever just say no we're not leaving? I'm not sure? I'm from the US. We don't have the whole monarchy thing going on.
      - mattmanser 8y ago
        Because the position (and power) is symbolic and the centuries old understanding is that the ruling monarch will never exercise it. Should they do so, especially in opposition to a full referendum of all things, it would spell the end of the monarchy. The last time royal assent was refused in the UK was in 1708: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill
        Latteland 8y ago
        What if the king or queen was a crazy bastard hell bent or just too stupid to do anything but destroy your normal democratic behaviors and support authoritarian practices? I think you've been lucky up to now, at least for the recent 100 years.
      - clubm8 8y ago
        She doesn't have to force them not to leave. Merely giving a televised speech that she respects the will of the people, but hopes they will take into consideration here years of experience and view it will be dreadfully harmful would have probably nudged a no. I know she normally does not comment on politics, but I also thought it's not out of the realm of possibility she'd pull a Silent Bob and speak up briefly when it is deeply needed. Again I ask: what is the point of the monarchy, if they do not step in as some sort of check on the legislative branch when things go off the rails?
    - KaiserPro 8y ago
      Because it would be the last official act they would do. It would cause a huge problem, as they have to sign off every law, and every large cheque. It would require an actual real constitution, which would be impossible give the current damp paper bags we have in parliament.
    - Someguywhatever 8y ago
      Why is the democratic decision to leave not an "adult" decision? To conduct the referendum and then not abide by the result would absolutely be undemocratic. The UK is already dragging it's heels on taking action WRT Brexit IMO. I think that they will drag it out so long that they say the mandate of the referendum has expired, and then re-rerun the referendum. They will rinse and repeat until they get the result they want. As an example Ireland voted not to join the EU the first time they did a referendum, they simply had more referendums until they got a yes. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ire...
      - Paianni 8y ago
        That article concerns the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland was already an EU member.
        d4rti 8y ago
        And indeed, Ireland’s concerns were addressed between the two referenda. One of these was the now defunct concern around abortion.
      - dalore 8y ago
        Well that's what you're meant to do with referendums. You have them to judge the peoples intent. And people's intents change over time and so you keep having them. Not to keep having them until you have the answer you want. You're making it a winner vs loser but it's not. All the brixteers saying to not have another referendum and that's it's not democratic is a cognitive dissonance. It's saying it's not the will of the people to ask the people if they want. Ireland as you said kept voting until they joined the referendum. So initially they didn't want to join, but then over time they did. Nothing is stopping them from having another referendum to leave the EU (like the UK did). And if the sentiment of the people show they do they, they will. If you go on about the will of the people, then having another referendum makes more sense. 2 years ago was a long time, and peoples opinion changes. That referendum 2 years ago was given as a NON-BINDING referendum, to see what people thought about and if they should actually look at is a valid option. People said yes. So now we've looked at it, we've seen what deals we can get and we know a bit more of what is involved (and the people managing it). So now would be a good idea to have a binding referendum on which deal, or even to remain. This would be the will of the people. It's like buying house, you make an offer first and then you get a survey. If the survey says something is bad that you missed, would you still buy the house at the same price? If we have another referendum and people think the deals suck we would rather remain, that is literally the will of the people. If really feels like the argument to not have another vote is that you're afraid it might go the other way (since it was so close anyway). But you shouldn't be. If we have another vote and we remain, the brexit people can continue the discussion and convince us that it would be better over time. Then when we have enough national support, have another referendum. You're meant to keep having referendum to judge peoples intent. For something as major as leaving the EU we shouldn't be rushing it and jumping the gun with no plan in place. We can stay, make our plans, present these plans to the people, get them to see it's the right move. Not jump in and saying 50% of people want to leave so we must leave, that creates a big wedge down the country of leave vs remain and no one gets along. A big change should come around slowly. This isn't a revolution.
    - dalore 8y ago
      The Queen (or let's say monarchy) is a check on parliamentary powers. They are like the USA president. It's not better or worse, it's just a different way of keeping powers in check. She has the power to dissolve the government and not pass those laws but the people would be up in arms. But if the politicians get locked she/they can fix it. Very rarely happens but it does (see Australia in the 1970s). The commonwealth countries are similar but instead of the Queen they have a governor general which is her representative. If she went and dissolved parliament now, during the Brexit negotiations everyone would rightly say she is interfering with democratic process.
    - grovehaw 8y ago
      Unlike the US which painstakingly separated powers into different branches of government, the UK habit of governance is to fuse powers together. This gives rise to the concept of the King or Queen in Parliament. That is to say absolute authority resides with the Monarch but is delegated to his/her parliament. Parliament then generates legislation to which the Sovereign assents. The Royal Assent has not happened in person since 1854.
  - DonaldFisk 8y ago
    My own position is that as the vote was about EU membership and nothing else, the UK should stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union, i.e. Norway+Turkey (Norway isn't in the Customs Union). This is the least damaging option, the Irish border problem evaporates, and it would be immediately accepted by the EU without any further negotiations. It would also have won had the referendum been conducted properly: with Remain, various Leave options, to be ranked in order of preference. We'd lose our MEPs but otherwise it would be business as usual. If it doesn't satisfy most Leave voters, I'd just tell them that we can have another referendum in a generation's time to decide whether to stay where we are, leave the SM&CU, or rejoin the EU, if there's any demand for one then.
- stenl 8y ago
  How about a nice game of chess?
Anderkent 8y ago
Gimme Scotland / Wales borders to play with too, that'd make for some funny pictures.
- anne_veling 8y ago
  Great idea! Then you would want to play with the scenario of Scotland (also) remaining aligned with the EU e.g.?
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Worth noting that Scotland was aligned with France in the "Auld Alliance" for rather a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Alliance
  - Anderkent 8y ago
    Well, the ability to make only Northern Ireland leave the EU was chuckle-inducing, so I'd probably play with things that way :P
    - anne_veling 8y ago
      haha excellent
feintruled 8y ago
Amusing, but facetious. The border problem as stated is indeed impossible to solve, but both Brexiter and EU strategy hinges up the idea that the other side will blink first, the EU betting that the Tories will fudge up a sea border, and the Brexiters that the EU will plump for any deal to avoid a no deal (as that would definitely have a hard border).
- Chestofdraw 8y ago
  Problem with the Tories not blinking is that they don't have a majority in parliament. They're currently being propped up (they have a confidence and supply arrangement) by the DUP who are very much against a sea border and would likely vote against a deal that had a sea border and doing so could bring down the government.
  - feintruled 8y ago
    Indeed! It is quite the game of chicken...
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    Ultimately there is no majority in parliament for any of the options, we are headed for either another election or a re-run of the referendum.
    - d4rti 8y ago
      Or indeed in the country: the “smartest” (sleaziest) thing the leave campaign did was to refuse to actually lay out any specific kind of brexit - knowing there was no unity on the brexit side.
- anne_veling 8y ago
  yeah there is definitely some last-minute negotiation tactics going on right now... Do think that some of the suggestions by the UK have internal inconsistencies that seem to get ignored somehow
seren 8y ago
There should be more options, like Republic of Ireland joining the United Kingdom. Or Scotland making a bid to join the EU.
- arethuza 8y ago
  There were a few ideas like "Scotdon" leaving the UK and staying in the EU: https://www.change.org/p/the-48-of-people-with-brains-who-voted-to-stay-in-the-eu-scotdon-a-new-country-entering-the-eu https://www.change.org/p/the-48-of-people-with-brains-who-vo...
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Or a "Greater Scotland": https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/scotland-vote-yes-scottish-independence https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/scotla...
- anne_veling 8y ago
  Good one. Yeah so many more options as I was programming it... Like the EU giving up on their "colony" Northern Ireland. Or France or the NL exiting the EU too...
  - siquick 8y ago
    Keep adding the options, this is great!
  - feintruled 8y ago
    Have you seen this? https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-pick-your-own-brexit/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-pick-your-own-brexit...
    - anne_veling 8y ago
      Ooh like it, did not see that one yet :)
  - 8y ago
bcoates 8y ago
This idea of "alignment" is absurd, countries have non-transitive border arrangements all the time. It might bring the always-questionable idea that the EU ever had a "single market" under scrutiny, but that's weird ideological posturing not a serious obstruction to Irish access to the UK market and vice versa.
- barrkel 8y ago
  Alignment is a mechanism to prevent beggar-thy-neighbour policies that lead to a race to the bottom, with everybody worse off. If you have a porous border without alignment, you get smuggling. The EU single market is a definitional concept, it exists by definition. Not all goods and services are in the single market, but the scope gradually increases over time. Necessarily, as the scope increases, the need for harmonization increases, and that's what often leads to accusations of loss of sovereignty.
- davidgay 8y ago
  IIUC, the EU does not allow that (no separate trade treaties fur individual EU members).
conanite 8y ago
Scotland and NI quit UK to form their own republic and rejoin EU together. Everyone happy. Maybe even republic of Scotland-Ireland.
- mishurov 8y ago
  Go ahead. We'll miss your funny northern accents.
- Y_Y 8y ago
  The Gaelic/Celtic Union is an idea that has been batted around for a while now. It might be political fantasy, but the populaces seem to be general amenable (not including, ironically, the various "unionists").
  - JimDabell 8y ago
    Honestly, the Brexit that would probably keep the most people happy is if England and Wales minus London left the UK, and the remainder of the UK plus London stayed in the EU. Scotland would have to become a special economic zone though.
    - Mankrik 8y ago
      I wouldn't. Mainly because being the latter half of a country name would be a slap in the face and a general embarrassment of the nation. All for just over half the population that for some reason didn't want money from the EU because most people here are that poor. Amazing really.
    - ng12 8y ago
      That aligns with a lot of pro-Brexit rhetoric, that is London does what's best for London and the rest of England can go pound sand.
      - JimDabell 8y ago
        Haven't you got that backwards? It would be the rest of England leaving, against London's wishes, while there's nothing but inaction on London's part. How have you got that turned around so that it's London forcing their will on the rest of England?
spicywings 8y ago
hacker news is a communism
- gthaman 8y ago
  absolutely. dont you enjoy these painfully long and out of breath explanations on why this inconvenient majority of voters must be further disenfranchised ? and all of the appeals to the authority of the EU's rules and regulations and why that makes it "impossible" ? what hogwash. we all played by the same rules which were agreed upon beforehand and now the economically well off (and isolated) minority seek to invalidate the vote. I think if the 'vote' is taken away from those who voted for Brexit then they'll do you one better and choose to ignore more fundamental aspects of our "social agreement", namely ones involving physical safety.
martythemaniak 8y ago
Brexit has definitely changed my mind on one thing - majority vote in a referendum is bad. Or rather, the percentage vote required should be proportional to the gravity of the question. Referendums are rare, so most votes should require well over 50%. I did not used to think this. In 2007 British Columbia had a referendum on switching to proportional representation from FPTP. The result was like 52% in favour, but the government had set a minimum of 55%,so it did not pass. I thought it was a a terrible idea at the time (the people had spoken! Democracy!), but I don't think so anymore. Another example is the 1995 Quebec independence referendum, which "stay" narrowly won, but afterwards the federal government passed an act making it much harder to pass a referendum. Basically, the bigger the question, the longer and larger implications it has, the more it has to be thought through, the more consensus there should be. The US constitution has features like this when it requires large majorities to pass amendments etc. As an engineering metaphor, having a fast-response system without any dampening can lead to out of control oscillations, which ultimately destroy your system.
- Kalium 8y ago
  California is a good example of what happens when pretty much any policy can be set by simple majority vote. The result is, to be kind about it, a lot of room for improvement.
  - isoskeles 8y ago
    It feels like the people here don't know that the state issuing "bonds" means it's taking on debt. I lived in San Francisco for a while, and I don't remember the numbers and I know you can look this up, but it felt like I was voting No on up to dozen different bond proposals every two years. Doesn't matter, they always pass. (To clarify, I also don't remember if these were always up to a majority vote, but they almost always pass unless it's for something Californians don't like for whatever reason.)
    - InitialLastName 8y ago
      > It feels like the people here don't know that the state issuing "bonds" means it's taking on debt. It more than feels like it; most people don't know that. As with other things, we can blame the total lack of financial education in our education system.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zimablue 8y ago
This is actually terrible, for one thing the bridges don't move independently, you click one and another moves, making it FEEL deceptive and not allowing you to easily work out the whole problem space or why. They should move independently and if the configuration doesn't make sense, tell you. For another thing, it conflates economic disalignment with having a hard border, the whole argument of the UK government is that you don't have to do that. It therefore makes no comment on the Checquers plan which even if you don't like it, is just deceptive. Checquers plan would be equivalent to a different kind of checkbetween NI and Ireland, not a hard border but the idea being (I think) that we check good on the way in for whether they're intended for consumption or export to the EU, if they're passing through to the EU we apply our own tariffs. On the EU side I think we don't put tariffs, then we don't have to do any checks on the way in or out on that border because the EU tariffs have been applied on the way in. Whether you think that's feasible, mixing up hard borders with economic alignment and completely ignoring the nuance of hard border vs tech border and the government's current proposal is gross.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  This map also completely ignores the Isle of Man. Seems like the same idle whinging that got them into the scenario w.r.t. negotiations.
- wlll 8y ago
  > For another thing, it conflates economic disalignment with having a hard border, the whole argument of the UK government is that you don't have to do that. This pretty much the case in the entire rest of the world. Political or economic misalignment == hard border, so people and goods can be checked and charged for. It's not so much a conflation as just becoming any other country outside the EU. The solution to this, a soft border managed by technology just doesn't exist, it's science fiction. Even if you believe it is possible, you've got 6 months to 1. Negotiate this between the UK and EU, 2. Get the UK political system to agree to it, 3. Create and test the system and 4. Deploy it. That's a tight timescale for any project of this size, let alone one that has so much required work that needs to be done beforehand.
Latteland 8y ago
The current situation is so depressing. The combined ongoing destruction in the uk and the us of many years of relative safety and peace while claiming it's all to protect us from change or something like that reminds me that the many poor leaders and failures of ancient countries making terrible decisions that lead to the end of their countries can happen now. What a run on sentence. At the same time, I'm extremely fortunate to have a great job and be part of the "programmer class". So many people in both countries have lost their economic confidence and a job that pays for a decent lifestyle.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  If you think it's all hot air, you are not paying close enough attention, or you live in a bubble. Frankly, the political ideas which are popular on Hacker News are laughably untenable, but to HNers seem highly plausible.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
arountheworld 8y ago
This presentation is biased. It doesn't take into account that the Northern Ireland is really a problem of the EU. There are soft borders in the EU for example Poland - Russia, where people can roam freely. EU is just not being flexible to make a "political point", which is pathetic. They shouldn't include a provision to leave the Union in the first place.
- wlll 8y ago
  > It doesn't take into account that the Northern Ireland is really a problem of the EU. As somoene who grew up in the UK with the IRA blowing up bits of the country, some rather close to me, I disagree. It's likely that the communities that would be split by a new border in Ireland would disagree too. The EU is negotiating in it's best interests, as is the UK. There aren't going to be any favours traded on either side.
  - arountheworld 8y ago
    If the UK doesn't put up a border then it is the EU that is causing a problem. There doesn't have to be a hard border, but EU insists that there should be.
    - wlll 8y ago
      > If the UK doesn't put up a border then it is the EU that is causing a problem. The UK is leaving the EU, borders are implicit in that, and bi-directional. You don't get to leave the EU and not leave the EU. Can you cite the Poland/Russia thing? I searched but couldn't find anything. edit You referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland%E2%80%93Russia_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland%E2%80%93Russia_border in another post. > Because Kaliningrad Oblast is small, homogeneous and an exclave within the European Union That's not the same as the NI situation. Regardless, the EU is negotiating in it's best interests, as anyone could predict it would. If I were French or German or whatever I'd want to get the best deal possible in the negotiations. No-one is going to give us any favours here, everything we want we've got to make happen ourselves. If the EU is using the Irish border as a bargaining position then that's what they should be doing, in the best interests of the citizens remaining in the EU.
billpg 8y ago
Looking forward to the pro-brexit commenters posting their realistic workable plans for leaving the EU that addresses these issues. I mean someone must have plan. You've been complaining about the EU for (checks notes) decades. Didn't you use any of that time to come up a plan? Want to call me a remoaner or other insults? That's fine, but maybe post your plan first and then call me a remoaner?

67 points by anne_veling 8y ago

tim_hutton 8y ago

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

bilbo0s 8y ago
>The only winning move is not to play... That's a losing move too. The Leave voters would all label you 'undemocratic'. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well. Unfortunately, at this point there really are no "winning" moves. Probably just a few moves that might be less bad than other moves.
- clubm8 8y ago
  >The Leave voters will all call you undemocratic. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well. This is the same country that has the queen give "consent" for all legislation, correct? What exactly is the point of the monarchy if they won't step in during this serious issue to act as the "adult in the room"?
  - Waterluvian 8y ago
    That's been symbolic for a long time. It would be a constitutional crisis if Her Majesty started getting involved.
    - presscast 8y ago
      I'm surprised you use the term "constitutional crisis" here. Isn't the UK one of those rare countries without a constitution?
      - Waterluvian 8y ago
        Fair. I'm from Canada and am borrowing what I know about our system and what I know about theirs. We would call it that. Hmm. What do you call it in the UK? A crisis caused by the challenge of technically legal but completely unfounded government/monarchy actions.
        presscast 8y ago
        Right, this doesn't detract from your original point at all. I was just wondering if there was some technicality I was missing.
      - lightbyte 8y ago
        Constitutional crisis is an appropriate term for the UK, it has happened twice before: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/house-of-lords-reform/overview/constitutionalcrisis/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis#United_K...
      - M2Ys4U 8y ago
        The UK does have a constitution. It's just not all written down (lots of things work on 'convention'), and the bits that are written down aren't all written down in one document.
        presscast 8y ago
        Ah ok, that's definitely an important distinction. Practical question: how does one determine whether an action is unconstitutional? How does one refer to "case history" (or whatever) if it's not written down?
        foldr 8y ago
        It is all written down (in innumerable textbooks, court judgments, etc. etc.), just not in a single official document titled "The Constitution of the United Kingdom". Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :)
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    I guess I'm not familiar enough with the monarchical aspect of their government to know how (if?) that would go down? But you make a good point. Why can't their queen or whatever just say no we're not leaving? I'm not sure? I'm from the US. We don't have the whole monarchy thing going on.
    - mattmanser 8y ago
      Because the position (and power) is symbolic and the centuries old understanding is that the ruling monarch will never exercise it. Should they do so, especially in opposition to a full referendum of all things, it would spell the end of the monarchy. The last time royal assent was refused in the UK was in 1708: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill
      - Latteland 8y ago
        What if the king or queen was a crazy bastard hell bent or just too stupid to do anything but destroy your normal democratic behaviors and support authoritarian practices? I think you've been lucky up to now, at least for the recent 100 years.
    - clubm8 8y ago
      She doesn't have to force them not to leave. Merely giving a televised speech that she respects the will of the people, but hopes they will take into consideration here years of experience and view it will be dreadfully harmful would have probably nudged a no. I know she normally does not comment on politics, but I also thought it's not out of the realm of possibility she'd pull a Silent Bob and speak up briefly when it is deeply needed. Again I ask: what is the point of the monarchy, if they do not step in as some sort of check on the legislative branch when things go off the rails?
  - KaiserPro 8y ago
    Because it would be the last official act they would do. It would cause a huge problem, as they have to sign off every law, and every large cheque. It would require an actual real constitution, which would be impossible give the current damp paper bags we have in parliament.
  - Someguywhatever 8y ago
    Why is the democratic decision to leave not an "adult" decision? To conduct the referendum and then not abide by the result would absolutely be undemocratic. The UK is already dragging it's heels on taking action WRT Brexit IMO. I think that they will drag it out so long that they say the mandate of the referendum has expired, and then re-rerun the referendum. They will rinse and repeat until they get the result they want. As an example Ireland voted not to join the EU the first time they did a referendum, they simply had more referendums until they got a yes. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ire...
    - Paianni 8y ago
      That article concerns the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland was already an EU member.
      - d4rti 8y ago
        And indeed, Ireland’s concerns were addressed between the two referenda. One of these was the now defunct concern around abortion.
    - dalore 8y ago
      Well that's what you're meant to do with referendums. You have them to judge the peoples intent. And people's intents change over time and so you keep having them. Not to keep having them until you have the answer you want. You're making it a winner vs loser but it's not. All the brixteers saying to not have another referendum and that's it's not democratic is a cognitive dissonance. It's saying it's not the will of the people to ask the people if they want. Ireland as you said kept voting until they joined the referendum. So initially they didn't want to join, but then over time they did. Nothing is stopping them from having another referendum to leave the EU (like the UK did). And if the sentiment of the people show they do they, they will. If you go on about the will of the people, then having another referendum makes more sense. 2 years ago was a long time, and peoples opinion changes. That referendum 2 years ago was given as a NON-BINDING referendum, to see what people thought about and if they should actually look at is a valid option. People said yes. So now we've looked at it, we've seen what deals we can get and we know a bit more of what is involved (and the people managing it). So now would be a good idea to have a binding referendum on which deal, or even to remain. This would be the will of the people. It's like buying house, you make an offer first and then you get a survey. If the survey says something is bad that you missed, would you still buy the house at the same price? If we have another referendum and people think the deals suck we would rather remain, that is literally the will of the people. If really feels like the argument to not have another vote is that you're afraid it might go the other way (since it was so close anyway). But you shouldn't be. If we have another vote and we remain, the brexit people can continue the discussion and convince us that it would be better over time. Then when we have enough national support, have another referendum. You're meant to keep having referendum to judge peoples intent. For something as major as leaving the EU we shouldn't be rushing it and jumping the gun with no plan in place. We can stay, make our plans, present these plans to the people, get them to see it's the right move. Not jump in and saying 50% of people want to leave so we must leave, that creates a big wedge down the country of leave vs remain and no one gets along. A big change should come around slowly. This isn't a revolution.
  - dalore 8y ago
    The Queen (or let's say monarchy) is a check on parliamentary powers. They are like the USA president. It's not better or worse, it's just a different way of keeping powers in check. She has the power to dissolve the government and not pass those laws but the people would be up in arms. But if the politicians get locked she/they can fix it. Very rarely happens but it does (see Australia in the 1970s). The commonwealth countries are similar but instead of the Queen they have a governor general which is her representative. If she went and dissolved parliament now, during the Brexit negotiations everyone would rightly say she is interfering with democratic process.
  - grovehaw 8y ago
    Unlike the US which painstakingly separated powers into different branches of government, the UK habit of governance is to fuse powers together. This gives rise to the concept of the King or Queen in Parliament. That is to say absolute authority resides with the Monarch but is delegated to his/her parliament. Parliament then generates legislation to which the Sovereign assents. The Royal Assent has not happened in person since 1854.
- DonaldFisk 8y ago
  My own position is that as the vote was about EU membership and nothing else, the UK should stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union, i.e. Norway+Turkey (Norway isn't in the Customs Union). This is the least damaging option, the Irish border problem evaporates, and it would be immediately accepted by the EU without any further negotiations. It would also have won had the referendum been conducted properly: with Remain, various Leave options, to be ranked in order of preference. We'd lose our MEPs but otherwise it would be business as usual. If it doesn't satisfy most Leave voters, I'd just tell them that we can have another referendum in a generation's time to decide whether to stay where we are, leave the SM&CU, or rejoin the EU, if there's any demand for one then.
stenl 8y ago
How about a nice game of chess?

Anderkent 8y ago

Gimme Scotland / Wales borders to play with too, that'd make for some funny pictures.

anne_veling 8y ago
Great idea! Then you would want to play with the scenario of Scotland (also) remaining aligned with the EU e.g.?
- arethuza 8y ago
  Worth noting that Scotland was aligned with France in the "Auld Alliance" for rather a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Alliance
- Anderkent 8y ago
  Well, the ability to make only Northern Ireland leave the EU was chuckle-inducing, so I'd probably play with things that way :P
  - anne_veling 8y ago
    haha excellent

feintruled 8y ago

Amusing, but facetious. The border problem as stated is indeed impossible to solve, but both Brexiter and EU strategy hinges up the idea that the other side will blink first, the EU betting that the Tories will fudge up a sea border, and the Brexiters that the EU will plump for any deal to avoid a no deal (as that would definitely have a hard border).

Chestofdraw 8y ago
Problem with the Tories not blinking is that they don't have a majority in parliament. They're currently being propped up (they have a confidence and supply arrangement) by the DUP who are very much against a sea border and would likely vote against a deal that had a sea border and doing so could bring down the government.
- feintruled 8y ago
  Indeed! It is quite the game of chicken...
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  Ultimately there is no majority in parliament for any of the options, we are headed for either another election or a re-run of the referendum.
  - d4rti 8y ago
    Or indeed in the country: the “smartest” (sleaziest) thing the leave campaign did was to refuse to actually lay out any specific kind of brexit - knowing there was no unity on the brexit side.
anne_veling 8y ago
yeah there is definitely some last-minute negotiation tactics going on right now... Do think that some of the suggestions by the UK have internal inconsistencies that seem to get ignored somehow

seren 8y ago

There should be more options, like Republic of Ireland joining the United Kingdom. Or Scotland making a bid to join the EU.

arethuza 8y ago
There were a few ideas like "Scotdon" leaving the UK and staying in the EU: https://www.change.org/p/the-48-of-people-with-brains-who-voted-to-stay-in-the-eu-scotdon-a-new-country-entering-the-eu https://www.change.org/p/the-48-of-people-with-brains-who-vo...
- arethuza 8y ago
  Or a "Greater Scotland": https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/scotland-vote-yes-scottish-independence https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/scotla...
anne_veling 8y ago
Good one. Yeah so many more options as I was programming it... Like the EU giving up on their "colony" Northern Ireland. Or France or the NL exiting the EU too...
- siquick 8y ago
  Keep adding the options, this is great!
- feintruled 8y ago
  Have you seen this? https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-pick-your-own-brexit/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-pick-your-own-brexit...
  - anne_veling 8y ago
    Ooh like it, did not see that one yet :)
- 8y ago

bcoates 8y ago

This idea of "alignment" is absurd, countries have non-transitive border arrangements all the time. It might bring the always-questionable idea that the EU ever had a "single market" under scrutiny, but that's weird ideological posturing not a serious obstruction to Irish access to the UK market and vice versa.

barrkel 8y ago
Alignment is a mechanism to prevent beggar-thy-neighbour policies that lead to a race to the bottom, with everybody worse off. If you have a porous border without alignment, you get smuggling. The EU single market is a definitional concept, it exists by definition. Not all goods and services are in the single market, but the scope gradually increases over time. Necessarily, as the scope increases, the need for harmonization increases, and that's what often leads to accusations of loss of sovereignty.
davidgay 8y ago
IIUC, the EU does not allow that (no separate trade treaties fur individual EU members).

conanite 8y ago

Scotland and NI quit UK to form their own republic and rejoin EU together. Everyone happy. Maybe even republic of Scotland-Ireland.

mishurov 8y ago
Go ahead. We'll miss your funny northern accents.
Y_Y 8y ago
The Gaelic/Celtic Union is an idea that has been batted around for a while now. It might be political fantasy, but the populaces seem to be general amenable (not including, ironically, the various "unionists").
- JimDabell 8y ago
  Honestly, the Brexit that would probably keep the most people happy is if England and Wales minus London left the UK, and the remainder of the UK plus London stayed in the EU. Scotland would have to become a special economic zone though.
  - Mankrik 8y ago
    I wouldn't. Mainly because being the latter half of a country name would be a slap in the face and a general embarrassment of the nation. All for just over half the population that for some reason didn't want money from the EU because most people here are that poor. Amazing really.
  - ng12 8y ago
    That aligns with a lot of pro-Brexit rhetoric, that is London does what's best for London and the rest of England can go pound sand.
    - JimDabell 8y ago
      Haven't you got that backwards? It would be the rest of England leaving, against London's wishes, while there's nothing but inaction on London's part. How have you got that turned around so that it's London forcing their will on the rest of England?

spicywings 8y ago

hacker news is a communism

gthaman 8y ago
absolutely. dont you enjoy these painfully long and out of breath explanations on why this inconvenient majority of voters must be further disenfranchised ? and all of the appeals to the authority of the EU's rules and regulations and why that makes it "impossible" ? what hogwash. we all played by the same rules which were agreed upon beforehand and now the economically well off (and isolated) minority seek to invalidate the vote. I think if the 'vote' is taken away from those who voted for Brexit then they'll do you one better and choose to ignore more fundamental aspects of our "social agreement", namely ones involving physical safety.

martythemaniak 8y ago

Brexit has definitely changed my mind on one thing - majority vote in a referendum is bad. Or rather, the percentage vote required should be proportional to the gravity of the question. Referendums are rare, so most votes should require well over 50%. I did not used to think this. In 2007 British Columbia had a referendum on switching to proportional representation from FPTP. The result was like 52% in favour, but the government had set a minimum of 55%,so it did not pass. I thought it was a a terrible idea at the time (the people had spoken! Democracy!), but I don't think so anymore. Another example is the 1995 Quebec independence referendum, which "stay" narrowly won, but afterwards the federal government passed an act making it much harder to pass a referendum. Basically, the bigger the question, the longer and larger implications it has, the more it has to be thought through, the more consensus there should be. The US constitution has features like this when it requires large majorities to pass amendments etc. As an engineering metaphor, having a fast-response system without any dampening can lead to out of control oscillations, which ultimately destroy your system.

Kalium 8y ago
California is a good example of what happens when pretty much any policy can be set by simple majority vote. The result is, to be kind about it, a lot of room for improvement.
- isoskeles 8y ago
  It feels like the people here don't know that the state issuing "bonds" means it's taking on debt. I lived in San Francisco for a while, and I don't remember the numbers and I know you can look this up, but it felt like I was voting No on up to dozen different bond proposals every two years. Doesn't matter, they always pass. (To clarify, I also don't remember if these were always up to a majority vote, but they almost always pass unless it's for something Californians don't like for whatever reason.)
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    > It feels like the people here don't know that the state issuing "bonds" means it's taking on debt. It more than feels like it; most people don't know that. As with other things, we can blame the total lack of financial education in our education system.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

zimablue 8y ago

This is actually terrible, for one thing the bridges don't move independently, you click one and another moves, making it FEEL deceptive and not allowing you to easily work out the whole problem space or why. They should move independently and if the configuration doesn't make sense, tell you. For another thing, it conflates economic disalignment with having a hard border, the whole argument of the UK government is that you don't have to do that. It therefore makes no comment on the Checquers plan which even if you don't like it, is just deceptive. Checquers plan would be equivalent to a different kind of checkbetween NI and Ireland, not a hard border but the idea being (I think) that we check good on the way in for whether they're intended for consumption or export to the EU, if they're passing through to the EU we apply our own tariffs. On the EU side I think we don't put tariffs, then we don't have to do any checks on the way in or out on that border because the EU tariffs have been applied on the way in. Whether you think that's feasible, mixing up hard borders with economic alignment and completely ignoring the nuance of hard border vs tech border and the government's current proposal is gross.

microcolonel 8y ago
This map also completely ignores the Isle of Man. Seems like the same idle whinging that got them into the scenario w.r.t. negotiations.
wlll 8y ago
> For another thing, it conflates economic disalignment with having a hard border, the whole argument of the UK government is that you don't have to do that. This pretty much the case in the entire rest of the world. Political or economic misalignment == hard border, so people and goods can be checked and charged for. It's not so much a conflation as just becoming any other country outside the EU. The solution to this, a soft border managed by technology just doesn't exist, it's science fiction. Even if you believe it is possible, you've got 6 months to 1. Negotiate this between the UK and EU, 2. Get the UK political system to agree to it, 3. Create and test the system and 4. Deploy it. That's a tight timescale for any project of this size, let alone one that has so much required work that needs to be done beforehand.

Latteland 8y ago

The current situation is so depressing. The combined ongoing destruction in the uk and the us of many years of relative safety and peace while claiming it's all to protect us from change or something like that reminds me that the many poor leaders and failures of ancient countries making terrible decisions that lead to the end of their countries can happen now. What a run on sentence. At the same time, I'm extremely fortunate to have a great job and be part of the "programmer class". So many people in both countries have lost their economic confidence and a job that pays for a decent lifestyle.

microcolonel 8y ago
If you think it's all hot air, you are not paying close enough attention, or you live in a bubble. Frankly, the political ideas which are popular on Hacker News are laughably untenable, but to HNers seem highly plausible.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

arountheworld 8y ago

This presentation is biased. It doesn't take into account that the Northern Ireland is really a problem of the EU. There are soft borders in the EU for example Poland - Russia, where people can roam freely. EU is just not being flexible to make a "political point", which is pathetic. They shouldn't include a provision to leave the Union in the first place.

wlll 8y ago
> It doesn't take into account that the Northern Ireland is really a problem of the EU. As somoene who grew up in the UK with the IRA blowing up bits of the country, some rather close to me, I disagree. It's likely that the communities that would be split by a new border in Ireland would disagree too. The EU is negotiating in it's best interests, as is the UK. There aren't going to be any favours traded on either side.
- arountheworld 8y ago
  If the UK doesn't put up a border then it is the EU that is causing a problem. There doesn't have to be a hard border, but EU insists that there should be.
  - wlll 8y ago
    > If the UK doesn't put up a border then it is the EU that is causing a problem. The UK is leaving the EU, borders are implicit in that, and bi-directional. You don't get to leave the EU and not leave the EU. Can you cite the Poland/Russia thing? I searched but couldn't find anything. edit You referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland%E2%80%93Russia_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland%E2%80%93Russia_border in another post. > Because Kaliningrad Oblast is small, homogeneous and an exclave within the European Union That's not the same as the NI situation. Regardless, the EU is negotiating in it's best interests, as anyone could predict it would. If I were French or German or whatever I'd want to get the best deal possible in the negotiations. No-one is going to give us any favours here, everything we want we've got to make happen ourselves. If the EU is using the Irish border as a bargaining position then that's what they should be doing, in the best interests of the citizens remaining in the EU.

billpg 8y ago

Looking forward to the pro-brexit commenters posting their realistic workable plans for leaving the EU that addresses these issues. I mean someone must have plan. You've been complaining about the EU for (checks notes) decades. Didn't you use any of that time to come up a plan? Want to call me a remoaner or other insults? That's fine, but maybe post your plan first and then call me a remoaner?