9 ms·

Iberia claims it is part of a department store to avoid Brexit shutdown

78 points by ValentineC 8y ago

qwerty456127 8y ago
Why is it so hard to just cancel Brexit now as so many people have re-evaluated it?
- elliekelly 8y ago
  I suspect at least partially due to the sunk cost fallacy.
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    Also, some variant of the Chicken game [0], I would suppose. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_%28game%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_%28game%29
- notahacker 8y ago
  Because 52% of people voted for it, and apparently any future votes on the subject would be "undemocratic".
  - Piskvorrr 8y ago
    That's going to backfire, though. The Scottish seem to think that when seceding from a Union is a legitimate option, and if a referendum can trigger a secession from the European Union, then, well, what about those 1707 Acts of Union with England? I believe this will happen come April, and that the current pro-brexit crowd will promptly label it undemocratic and unpatriotic - after all, breaking free from the yoke of Brussels is Something Completely Different than rejecting the friendly rule of Westminster. Right? Madness, I tell you, with only more madness in sight.
    - spuz 8y ago
      To give more detail on this issue: If we were to accept May's deal as it was in December, the UK would leave the EU but remain entirely within the custom's union. Afterwards, plans would be made for NI to stay within the custom's union and the rest of the UK to leave. However, there is a term in the 1800 amendment of the the 1707 Acts of Union that says: “that in all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.” If this term is broken, it reverts all the countries of the UK back to individual states - i.e. Scotland would be independent by default and there is a good chance they would not vote for an amendment to the Acts of Union because they would prefer to stay in the EU. That leaves politicians with two options: Either keep the UK in the custom's union indefinitely, or break up the United Kingdom. https://www.thenational.scot/news/16989865.this-is-why-westminsters-choice-is-between-brexit-and-the-union/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/16989865.this-is-why-westm...
      - Piskvorrr 8y ago
        That, too. I don't see any deal as likely, however - Tories seem to be steering for a hard Brexit, and Labour only presents token effort against. Hard Brexit forecast, with showers of martial law likely.
        spuz 8y ago
        By hard Brexit, do you mean "no-deal"? Because they are very different things. I think no-deal is looking like the most likely outcome at the moment. I can't see any chance of the tories putting forward a harder version of the May's deal before March 19th.
        Piskvorrr 8y ago
        I see. It's...complicated. Thanks for the clarification.
    - faissaloo 8y ago
  - meddlepal 8y ago
    I dunno about undemocratic, but definitely tainted by the smell of "keep voting until we get the right result", which has its own problems.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - tzmudzin 8y ago
      Sure. At the same time there is a difference in voting on a vague concept and voting on a specific agreement.
    - Piskvorrr 8y ago
      So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change? Oh. How come the 1975 referendum is invalid then, and a new one was needed? Smells like "keep voting etc" ;o)
      - coldtea 8y ago
        There were 43 years in between. If you do a new one before you even enforce the decision of the previous referendum it's hardly democracy, it's "keep voting".
        Piskvorrr 8y ago
        Looking at how the prospect of Brexit changed from "we'll bring you Empire 3000 and a pony" through "meh, it was all lies, but we won, nyah nyah" to "at least it won't be much worse than the Blitz...we hope," I believe that the conditions have changed enough. But whatever, let the British drive off a cliff if they so fervently desire their Splendid Isolation. Indeed, as you say, who am I to tell them "that's patently idiotic," even if I do think so.
      - krapp 8y ago
        >So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change? Yes. That's the entire premise of a voting process. The will of the people who vote, at the time the vote is taken, is binding even if they change their minds later.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    The vote was an advisory one and you would not make changes to the rules or other major changes on 50% + 1 for your local village allotment society.
  - georgeecollins 8y ago
    It does run the risk of seeming undemocratic. Let's say that Brexit now looses because 52% of the people vote against it. Do you let it rest there? Are you just taking votes until you get the right answer? As an aside, while Brexit seems to be getting less popular, there is still a big constituency for it. https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-polls-show-britain-wants-to-remain-in-eu-2018-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-polls-show-britain-wa...
    - notahacker 8y ago
      I don't see why Brexiters should be silenced forever if they lose the next vote, no. We repeat other votes on a regular basis, and sometimes when the facts change, politicians and the people change their minds. Something as complicated as Brexit seems like a particularly bad idea to make an exception for. If a subsequent Remain vote resulted in a similar situation where any real world option to remain in the EU would be regarded as a betrayal worse than leaving by a large fraction of the people that voted for it, I'd think another vote was actually necessary...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - philbarr 8y ago
    Having another referendum now we know what the actual options for leaving are seems democratic to me. But you won't get people, including politicians, that want a no-deal brexit to agree to it. And even though Farage himself said, "if the referendum was 52/48 to remain then in would not be the end of the matter"
    - Silhouette 8y ago
      Having another referendum now we know what the actual options for leaving are seems democratic to me. I am wary of the assumption that we really do know what the actual options are for leaving now. In particular, there is at least one other avenue that has not been seriously explored so far even though it's probably the one that had most potential to achieve (or, being more blunt, any realistic possibility of achieving) some of the major changes that attracted Leave votes in the first place while still having significantly closer relations with our neighbours than just crashing out. It's also the one that many of the Brexiteers among our elected representatives have been openly advocating for some time, contrary to the various stereotypes about how the don't have any alternatives to propose. There is a lot of political rhetoric at the moment, particularly the whole "this deal or no deal" dichotomy from the EU, but we surely wouldn't expect them to say anything else in the current context, would we? However, it doesn't take much reading between the lines to predict that if we do end up leaving with no big formal deal in March then lots of small alternative arrangements will be made very quickly and both sides will talk further about making more comprehensive and permanent arrangements down the line.
- gpm 8y ago
  I'm not British, but I don't see any evidence that people have re-evaluated it. The political elite, sort of people you see on HN, and press have been screaming about it from the start. The polls haven't really changed a whole lot [0]. As far as I can tell canceling it would just be saying "we don't have to listen to referendums we don't like". [0] https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/ https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referen...
  - arethuza 8y ago
    "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." Nigel Farage Of course he was talking about a result the other way but, for once, I find myself agreeing with Nigel.
  - jahnu 8y ago
    The crux of the problem is there is no majority opinion, nationwide, for any of the possible options. The 52% voted for something that in reality doesn't meet the expectations of those people. There are plenty of surveys showing that opinions differ from the original result depending on what the terms of exit are. You need more complex questions like these: "Imagine that, at the next general election, the Conservatives supported going ahead with Brexit, whilst Labour and the Liberal Democrats [SCOTLAND: "and the SNP", WALES: "and Plaid Cymru"] supported a public vote on whether or not to go ahead with Brexit. How would you then vote if there was another general election" https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5v5qj2t7c8/PVResults_181214_Brexit_w.pdf https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/docume... Let's go absurd to illustrate how difficult the issue is. Public vote for A or B. 52% choose A A third of B accept the result. It is later revealed that option A will cost you a finger. One third of A voters are ok with that and say it's worth the cost. Another third are uneasy and say we should be able to convice provider of A that a finger should not be needed but said provider are unwilling to change their minds having stated from the very begining that this is the price. The final third are sure that no finger will be collected and in fact the provider will throw in a free finger in the end anyway. And if they don't who cares. Roughly 1/3 of A voters who still fancy some idealised version of A accept that it's not on the table right now or maybe never so join 2/3s of B voters saying we should decide again in the face of the new information. Because there is still no absolute majority in favour of any one of the real possibilities. Back to reality: > "we don't have to listen to referendums we don't like". It's not that at all. to quote Dave Allen Green: "A referendum result either is democratic or it is irreversible, but it cannot both. Any democracy should be able to change its mind, at any time. Just as no parliament can bind another, no electorate can bind another."
- pavlov 8y ago
  Actually it isn't. The EU Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally stop the process known as "Article 50" and stay in the Union. (Previously it was unclear whether Britain could stay in without reapplying for membership.) All it takes is a vote by Parliament and the political will to admit that it was an insanely stupid idea to ask people to vote on a deal that didn't exist yet. Countries that have previously held referendums on joining the EU have done so after negotiations were 100% completed. Britain should have done the same when leaving: negotiate a complete Brexit deal first, then vote on that.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > The EU Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally stop the process known as "Article 50" and stay in the Union Shouldn’t every member constantly threaten exit, then, whenever it wants more goodies?
    - JeremyBanks 8y ago
      They're not being offered more goodies, just to remain under the existing terms. The ongoing negotiations are about the terms if they do leave, where there will certainly be a net loss of goodies.
      - Neracked 8y ago
        > Just to remain under the existing terms Except they have already lost two major European agencies (European Medicines Agency and European Banking Authority) that are being relocated to Amsterdam and Paris. [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/10/17/relocation-of-european-medicines-agency-and-european-banking-authority-agreement-on-the-legal-text/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018...
        n4r9 8y ago
        > The two agencies are currently based in London, in the UK, and need to be relocated in the context of the UK's withdrawal from the EU (Brexit). This is a proposal for relocation if Brexit goes ahead. If it doesn't go ahead, there's no point relocating.
- duxup 8y ago
  And maybe throw them a token "we will renegotiate some stuff".
- DrNuke 8y ago
  Post referendum hysteria, politicians serving their own interests and deferring responsibilities, national pride in having one word and sticking to it, a drone-esque Prime Minister incapable of statesmanship, a drone-esque EU bureaucracy sticking to small numbers instead of vision.
- simias 8y ago
  I can think of a few reasons. While the polls show that the remain vote would probably win if the referendum was held today, there's still a very large portion of the electorate who still favors brexit (even in a no-deal scenario). Clearly this portion of the electorate would (IMO rightfully) feel cheated if the UK backtracked. As a European I do not favor Brexit but I'm also a democrat. Cancelling Brexit would send a very bad signal IMO, the populists would be able to claim that the EU is un-democratic and that it doesn't respect the will of the people. How could you contradict them? France made the same mistake with the referendum on the European constitution almost 15 years ago (which was rejected, only to be effectively replaced by the Treaty of Lisbon a few years later), it left some scars and is often cited as an example of european un-democraticness by eurosceptics. An other possibility would be a 2nd referendum but then you sort of have the same democratic problem (you can't keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want) and on top of that you'd probably need three options if you held a referendum today: no brexit, soft brexit with the current proposal or hard brexit. I don't think any of these three options could get an absolute majority so I don't really see how you'd deal with the outcome of such a vote, whatever it may be. I guess the lesson to all the democracies in the world is that you shouldn't ask a question if you're not able to deal with all the potential outcomes. Cameron held the referendum because he fully expected "remain" to win and he quit as soon as he lost. Since then it's a shitshow because nobody can agree on what "brexit" means exactly. At this point I think we should all brace ourselves for a hard brexit scenario, a big jump into the unknown for everyone involved.
  - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
    > you can't keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want …Yes you can. A general election is always the same question, and sometimes we come up with different results.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Which we enforce for 4 years or more. We don't just drop them and redo the elections if we don't like the winning party.
- collyw 8y ago
  Because we have rather shit politicians running the show.
- barrkel 8y ago
  I'm a Remainer. I'm Irish - Ireland is one of the most pro-EU nations - and I live and own a house in London. I think, despite my own interests, that the UK probably needs to leave the EU in order to resolve the splits in society and for the UK to figure out its place in the world. The fact is that Brexit divisions have settled in in the country, becoming more part of people's political identity than political party. There's a complete lack of political leadership, with May saying what she thinks majority Tory supports want to hear, and Corbyn saying as little as possible to try and avoid making any decisions on Brexit, hoping May pushes Brexit through so that Tories can be blamed for any downside. Functionally, that means the two main parties are pro-Brexit, Tories vocally, Labour passively. With FPTP voting, there can only be two parties without vote splitting, so there's no functional political opposition to Brexit. If Brexit does happen, well, Brexit won't be over; it's going to grind on for decades of negotiations trying to replace and replicate what the EU already did. Hopefully, that ultimately means coming back to the EU. Why do I think Brexit probably needs to happen, though, even though I don't want it and it's not in my interest? Leavers won't understand the folly of Brexit until after it has happened. If it doesn't happen, it will poison politics for decades, and the UK would be even more obstructionist than it's been to date. There hasn't been a positive identity-based case made for Remain. Everything has been framed as economic arguments, and in particular economic harm from leaving. Free movement - a reciprocal right of EU citizens - has been misleadingly framed as immigration. The history of UK joining the EEC has been rewritten and misremembered as joining a simple trade area that got out of hand. It's too late to turn these sentiments around, and there's no leadership trying to do it. In fact quite the opposite: because Tory membership is so pro-leave, Tory leadership contenders are all out-doing one another in EU-bashing. None of the political leadership is thinking of the good of the country, everything is on the basis of party politics. It's the kind of thing that helps you understand why world wars get started.
  - spuz 8y ago
    > The fact is that Brexit divisions have settled in in the country, becoming more part of people's political identity than political party. I wish people wouldn't see Brexit as the ultimate test of British values. It's just a thing that roughly 50% of the country are on different sides of - like milk in tea or marmite on toast. That doesn't mean they fundamentally disagree on every other political issue. Even if as you suggest we go ahead with Brexit and somehow come out better off, do you think we won't find something else to divide us again? Whether you support Brexit or not says nothing about whether you support immigration rights, free trade and regulation and those political issues say nothing about what your values are as a person. If this makes little sense to you then try this experiment, find a friend who is opposed to your view on Brexit and then try to find out whether or not they actually share the same fundamental values as you. I'm willing to bet that you have a lot more in common than you think.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  To answer that it helps to understand what Brexit is and isn’t. What it started out as was a platform for a marginal party, the BNP, later (essentially) rebranded as UKIP of Nigel Farrage fame. The problem is that some Tories (Jacob Rees-Mogg and the rest of the European Research Group) along with UKIP were causing a lot of infighting within the Tory party. So in walks our bum-faced catastrophe of a “hero” named David Cameron, who decides to use a brilliant political power play to shut down both UKIP and the Tory euroskeptics. That plan was a referendum on leaving the UK, which was expected to crash and burn horribly, thus giving political cover to Cameron and friends who could say “stop whining, the people have spoken.” Then Cameron more or less sat on his thumbs while Rome burned, or in this case, Boris and Farrage ran around with torches (or a bus in Boris’ case.) As the US would learn shortly after, the power of shamelessly lying to pander to xenophobes is still very effective. In reaction Cameron and the remain crowd, confronted with people buying up ridiculous lies about vast savings and nonexistent trade deals, some dog whistles about Nazis... well the Remainers freaked out and tried to fight bullshit with bullshit. We know what happened next, and Cameron wasted no time resigning with a skip and a hum. Literally. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bprjHYY90lo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bprjHYY90lo That left a power vacuum into which the insanely ambitious tore each other to sheds while Theresa May watched and stirred a cauldron of baby seals and rendered hummingbird fat. When the scrum ended, the only person who hadn’t burned every bridge necessary for their colleagues to support was... Theresa May, originally for Remain, but happy to pull a complete 180 for power. Now instead of Cameron bludgeoning UKIP and his own defectors with the “people’s will” it’s the Leavers who have that. Their position has finally evolved from lies and blandishments, to this one thing, “the people have spoken, even if they’re saying we need to slit our own throats.” Whoever tries to stop this will be ending their political career, and while history may appreciate their choice in the long the run, it would be a miserable retirement. As a result we have a hardcore fanatical group led by Rees-Mogg who want the hardest Brexit possible, you have Boris just chasing power and willing to say or do anything, and the opposition is Jeremy Corbin. Whatever you think of his positions, his political skills are amateurish, and besides, he’s actually a Leaver too! So... it’s a slow march off a cliff because the people in charge are too afraid to blink.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Have they? Or is just those that were against it from the start still cannot accept it?
- InclinedPlane 8y ago
  Because the UK's government is rabid and dysfunctional? It's a common ailment these days (see also: US, Brazil, Italy, the Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia...)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- petre 8y ago
  This is just like New Caledonia voting every two years if they want to stop being a part of France d'outre-mer.
Cyph0n 8y ago
I'm surprised that Iberia considered this whole Brexit situation back in 2011. Smart move, but the EU could still just ruin the plan...
- simonvc 8y ago
  ICAO Air law rules date from 1949. Airlines are super aware of these treaties/rules whenever ownership changes hands. It's not like they thought about brexit as a particular scenario, it's more like, lets make sure the airline we're buying is actually embedded legally before stumping up the cash for it.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    I imagine the notional Spanish control was originally intended more to protect their status as a Spanish company under Spanish law...
arethuza 8y ago
For a consideration of some alternative Brexit scenarios I can heartily recommend this discussion: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/11/brexit-means-brexit.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/11/brexit-m... I rather like the "surrender to the Republic of Ireland" option - if for no other reason than the effect it would have on the DUP.
- theoh 8y ago
  I'm not sure there are any unresolved disputes between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. There's the constitutional claim on the 32 counties, I suppose. The most significant formal dispute between the states was a trade war in the 30s, discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relatio... The conflict in Northern Ireland has had only very minor and indirect connections to the governments in Dublin and London, which are both a long way from the situation on the ground. Any central government intervention on either side of that conflict would have been strictly unofficial.
  - Fordec 8y ago
    There is still an unresolved dispute over Lough Foyle and a semi-resolved dispute over Rockall
    - theoh 8y ago
      But "surrendering to the Irish" on those issues wouldn't exactly be a big deal. I was talking about substantive disputes.
  - scarmig 8y ago
    The Anglo-Irish Peace Treaty of 1921 was negotiated between an illegitimate/unrecognized state and the British government. Given such, it's intrinsically invalid, as an entity cannot negotiate on behalf of itself if it doesn't exist, and treaties can't be made with it as there's no partner to sign the treaty with. As such, the whole of Ireland is still part of the UK, but the majority of it is occupied by EU forces. As part of peace negotiations, the EU and the UK should negotiate reasonable boundaries, such that Ireland, Scotland, and Greater London remain part of the EU, and the rest can form a rump UK Independent State. Makes as much sense as May's deal.
chrismeller 8y ago
Seems like they have followed the rules, if not the spirit of them, since well before Brexit became a thing. Given that even the popular airports in the UK are owned, in large part, by a variety of non-EU interests I’m not sure how anyone can really argue the point from a legal perspective. Edit: typo
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Whilst 100% of the ‘economic rights’ to Iberia’s revenue and profitability are owned by IAG, it turns out that 50.01% of Iberia’s ‘political rights’ are owned by the El Corte Ingles department store chain. Does the EU have a legal concept akin to beneficial ownership [1] or control? Iberia seems to claim it is economically owned by IAG but that El Corte Ingles has a majority of its voting rights. At face, that would seem to solve the EU’s issue with a no -EU owner. Whether ECI can veto anything IAG wants to do is the real question. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership
- jrudolph 8y ago
  Yes, and it's used all over the place in EU corporate law. In most cases I've seen it applied (as a EU-based founder) to money laundering, taxation etc. I'd be curious to see how this construction pans out. I bet it's been a good deal for the lawyers involved. They surely got paid well for figuring this out initially and will get paid again for testing it in the courts. So much for growing future revenue potential.
officialchicken 8y ago
The subject of this story - El Corte Ingles [0] - is the the most diverse store I've every been in... they have everything from designer clothing to BBQ's. Think Amazon but with groceries, banking, travel agents, books for school, insurance, etc. Many goods and services you wouldn't find in a Walmart (some possibly at Costco). And their "house brands" aren't too bad they're fairly decent quality especially for the price. [0] https://www.elcorteingles.es/ https://www.elcorteingles.es/
- SyneRyder 8y ago
  > Think Amazon... Interesting analogy, since Amazon also has its own airline (albeit for cargo rather than passengers) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Air
- bassman9000 8y ago
  They even have their own IT consulting firm: https://www.iecisa.com/en/digital-solutions/ https://www.iecisa.com/en/digital-solutions/
kodablah 8y ago
> Only airlines which have 50.1% EU ownership have ‘flying rights’ to operate between two airports within the EU. Forgive my ignorance towards this law. One wonders if this is economic protectionism or for security (I am aware of similar situations in other countries/regions). So I couldn't have a majority-Norwegian-owned airline that did Germany to France stops? One wonders if all countries are happy with such policies or if this type of protectionism is more justification for self-determinism for the countries that disagree. Also, could this be another way to look at it: you no longer have to be a majority-EU-owned airline to fly between UK and EU country. I.e. UK would not be subject to such EU rules. Of course companies with many avenues for revenue are going to conform to the most strict of them to get all business when reasonable. That doesn't always make it best for citizens.
- dsr_ 8y ago
  Most countries have a distinction between "domestic" airlines and "international" airlines that both protects the domestic airlines and regulates them more closely. If you consider the entire EU one country from an airline perspective, this makes sense.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Sure, I acknowledged the "most countries" aspect specifically to avoid these comparisons and focus on the content. I wonder, in current times, if the policies remain more for security or economic reasons. Regardless, my comment is less about that these laws exist and more about lack of country-level sovereignty for those that disagree (regardless of how you consider the EU) and whether it can also be beneficial to the UK to be free of such a law.
- adambyrtek 8y ago
  As you mentioned yourself, similar regulations exist in most other countries, so it's not something specific to the EU. In fact the EU opened up the airline market and contributed to the spectacular growth of low-cost carriers like Ryanair or easyJet that could easily operate across the whole region (and hire where labour costs are lower), which was not possible before.
ynniv 8y ago
From El Pais: Garanair has no economic rights over Iberia, and is itself nearly worthless (its 7,000 shares are worth one euro). Some European M&A lawyer just had a heart attack. I bet this structure looked great to when no one was paying attention... Let's see how well it holds up under the gaze of ten thousand lawyers trying to re-unite $15B in market cap with a "worthless" parent company. British Airways may find it's been a wholy owned subsidary of El Corte Ingles this whole time.

78 points by ValentineC 8y ago

qwerty456127 8y ago

Why is it so hard to just cancel Brexit now as so many people have re-evaluated it?

elliekelly 8y ago
I suspect at least partially due to the sunk cost fallacy.
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  Also, some variant of the Chicken game [0], I would suppose. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_%28game%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_%28game%29
notahacker 8y ago
Because 52% of people voted for it, and apparently any future votes on the subject would be "undemocratic".
- Piskvorrr 8y ago
  That's going to backfire, though. The Scottish seem to think that when seceding from a Union is a legitimate option, and if a referendum can trigger a secession from the European Union, then, well, what about those 1707 Acts of Union with England? I believe this will happen come April, and that the current pro-brexit crowd will promptly label it undemocratic and unpatriotic - after all, breaking free from the yoke of Brussels is Something Completely Different than rejecting the friendly rule of Westminster. Right? Madness, I tell you, with only more madness in sight.
  - spuz 8y ago
    To give more detail on this issue: If we were to accept May's deal as it was in December, the UK would leave the EU but remain entirely within the custom's union. Afterwards, plans would be made for NI to stay within the custom's union and the rest of the UK to leave. However, there is a term in the 1800 amendment of the the 1707 Acts of Union that says: “that in all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.” If this term is broken, it reverts all the countries of the UK back to individual states - i.e. Scotland would be independent by default and there is a good chance they would not vote for an amendment to the Acts of Union because they would prefer to stay in the EU. That leaves politicians with two options: Either keep the UK in the custom's union indefinitely, or break up the United Kingdom. https://www.thenational.scot/news/16989865.this-is-why-westminsters-choice-is-between-brexit-and-the-union/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/16989865.this-is-why-westm...
    - Piskvorrr 8y ago
      That, too. I don't see any deal as likely, however - Tories seem to be steering for a hard Brexit, and Labour only presents token effort against. Hard Brexit forecast, with showers of martial law likely.
      - spuz 8y ago
        By hard Brexit, do you mean "no-deal"? Because they are very different things. I think no-deal is looking like the most likely outcome at the moment. I can't see any chance of the tories putting forward a harder version of the May's deal before March 19th.
        Piskvorrr 8y ago
        I see. It's...complicated. Thanks for the clarification.
  - faissaloo 8y ago
- meddlepal 8y ago
  I dunno about undemocratic, but definitely tainted by the smell of "keep voting until we get the right result", which has its own problems.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzmudzin 8y ago
    Sure. At the same time there is a difference in voting on a vague concept and voting on a specific agreement.
  - Piskvorrr 8y ago
    So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change? Oh. How come the 1975 referendum is invalid then, and a new one was needed? Smells like "keep voting etc" ;o)
    - coldtea 8y ago
      There were 43 years in between. If you do a new one before you even enforce the decision of the previous referendum it's hardly democracy, it's "keep voting".
      - Piskvorrr 8y ago
        Looking at how the prospect of Brexit changed from "we'll bring you Empire 3000 and a pony" through "meh, it was all lies, but we won, nyah nyah" to "at least it won't be much worse than the Blitz...we hope," I believe that the conditions have changed enough. But whatever, let the British drive off a cliff if they so fervently desire their Splendid Isolation. Indeed, as you say, who am I to tell them "that's patently idiotic," even if I do think so.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change? Yes. That's the entire premise of a voting process. The will of the people who vote, at the time the vote is taken, is binding even if they change their minds later.
- walshemj 8y ago
  The vote was an advisory one and you would not make changes to the rules or other major changes on 50% + 1 for your local village allotment society.
- georgeecollins 8y ago
  It does run the risk of seeming undemocratic. Let's say that Brexit now looses because 52% of the people vote against it. Do you let it rest there? Are you just taking votes until you get the right answer? As an aside, while Brexit seems to be getting less popular, there is still a big constituency for it. https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-polls-show-britain-wants-to-remain-in-eu-2018-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-polls-show-britain-wa...
  - notahacker 8y ago
    I don't see why Brexiters should be silenced forever if they lose the next vote, no. We repeat other votes on a regular basis, and sometimes when the facts change, politicians and the people change their minds. Something as complicated as Brexit seems like a particularly bad idea to make an exception for. If a subsequent Remain vote resulted in a similar situation where any real world option to remain in the EU would be regarded as a betrayal worse than leaving by a large fraction of the people that voted for it, I'd think another vote was actually necessary...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- philbarr 8y ago
  Having another referendum now we know what the actual options for leaving are seems democratic to me. But you won't get people, including politicians, that want a no-deal brexit to agree to it. And even though Farage himself said, "if the referendum was 52/48 to remain then in would not be the end of the matter"
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    Having another referendum now we know what the actual options for leaving are seems democratic to me. I am wary of the assumption that we really do know what the actual options are for leaving now. In particular, there is at least one other avenue that has not been seriously explored so far even though it's probably the one that had most potential to achieve (or, being more blunt, any realistic possibility of achieving) some of the major changes that attracted Leave votes in the first place while still having significantly closer relations with our neighbours than just crashing out. It's also the one that many of the Brexiteers among our elected representatives have been openly advocating for some time, contrary to the various stereotypes about how the don't have any alternatives to propose. There is a lot of political rhetoric at the moment, particularly the whole "this deal or no deal" dichotomy from the EU, but we surely wouldn't expect them to say anything else in the current context, would we? However, it doesn't take much reading between the lines to predict that if we do end up leaving with no big formal deal in March then lots of small alternative arrangements will be made very quickly and both sides will talk further about making more comprehensive and permanent arrangements down the line.
gpm 8y ago
I'm not British, but I don't see any evidence that people have re-evaluated it. The political elite, sort of people you see on HN, and press have been screaming about it from the start. The polls haven't really changed a whole lot [0]. As far as I can tell canceling it would just be saying "we don't have to listen to referendums we don't like". [0] https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/ https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referen...
- arethuza 8y ago
  "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." Nigel Farage Of course he was talking about a result the other way but, for once, I find myself agreeing with Nigel.
- jahnu 8y ago
  The crux of the problem is there is no majority opinion, nationwide, for any of the possible options. The 52% voted for something that in reality doesn't meet the expectations of those people. There are plenty of surveys showing that opinions differ from the original result depending on what the terms of exit are. You need more complex questions like these: "Imagine that, at the next general election, the Conservatives supported going ahead with Brexit, whilst Labour and the Liberal Democrats [SCOTLAND: "and the SNP", WALES: "and Plaid Cymru"] supported a public vote on whether or not to go ahead with Brexit. How would you then vote if there was another general election" https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5v5qj2t7c8/PVResults_181214_Brexit_w.pdf https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/docume... Let's go absurd to illustrate how difficult the issue is. Public vote for A or B. 52% choose A A third of B accept the result. It is later revealed that option A will cost you a finger. One third of A voters are ok with that and say it's worth the cost. Another third are uneasy and say we should be able to convice provider of A that a finger should not be needed but said provider are unwilling to change their minds having stated from the very begining that this is the price. The final third are sure that no finger will be collected and in fact the provider will throw in a free finger in the end anyway. And if they don't who cares. Roughly 1/3 of A voters who still fancy some idealised version of A accept that it's not on the table right now or maybe never so join 2/3s of B voters saying we should decide again in the face of the new information. Because there is still no absolute majority in favour of any one of the real possibilities. Back to reality: > "we don't have to listen to referendums we don't like". It's not that at all. to quote Dave Allen Green: "A referendum result either is democratic or it is irreversible, but it cannot both. Any democracy should be able to change its mind, at any time. Just as no parliament can bind another, no electorate can bind another."
pavlov 8y ago
Actually it isn't. The EU Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally stop the process known as "Article 50" and stay in the Union. (Previously it was unclear whether Britain could stay in without reapplying for membership.) All it takes is a vote by Parliament and the political will to admit that it was an insanely stupid idea to ask people to vote on a deal that didn't exist yet. Countries that have previously held referendums on joining the EU have done so after negotiations were 100% completed. Britain should have done the same when leaving: negotiate a complete Brexit deal first, then vote on that.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > The EU Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally stop the process known as "Article 50" and stay in the Union Shouldn’t every member constantly threaten exit, then, whenever it wants more goodies?
  - JeremyBanks 8y ago
    They're not being offered more goodies, just to remain under the existing terms. The ongoing negotiations are about the terms if they do leave, where there will certainly be a net loss of goodies.
    - Neracked 8y ago
      > Just to remain under the existing terms Except they have already lost two major European agencies (European Medicines Agency and European Banking Authority) that are being relocated to Amsterdam and Paris. [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/10/17/relocation-of-european-medicines-agency-and-european-banking-authority-agreement-on-the-legal-text/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018...
      - n4r9 8y ago
        > The two agencies are currently based in London, in the UK, and need to be relocated in the context of the UK's withdrawal from the EU (Brexit). This is a proposal for relocation if Brexit goes ahead. If it doesn't go ahead, there's no point relocating.
duxup 8y ago
And maybe throw them a token "we will renegotiate some stuff".
DrNuke 8y ago
Post referendum hysteria, politicians serving their own interests and deferring responsibilities, national pride in having one word and sticking to it, a drone-esque Prime Minister incapable of statesmanship, a drone-esque EU bureaucracy sticking to small numbers instead of vision.
simias 8y ago
I can think of a few reasons. While the polls show that the remain vote would probably win if the referendum was held today, there's still a very large portion of the electorate who still favors brexit (even in a no-deal scenario). Clearly this portion of the electorate would (IMO rightfully) feel cheated if the UK backtracked. As a European I do not favor Brexit but I'm also a democrat. Cancelling Brexit would send a very bad signal IMO, the populists would be able to claim that the EU is un-democratic and that it doesn't respect the will of the people. How could you contradict them? France made the same mistake with the referendum on the European constitution almost 15 years ago (which was rejected, only to be effectively replaced by the Treaty of Lisbon a few years later), it left some scars and is often cited as an example of european un-democraticness by eurosceptics. An other possibility would be a 2nd referendum but then you sort of have the same democratic problem (you can't keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want) and on top of that you'd probably need three options if you held a referendum today: no brexit, soft brexit with the current proposal or hard brexit. I don't think any of these three options could get an absolute majority so I don't really see how you'd deal with the outcome of such a vote, whatever it may be. I guess the lesson to all the democracies in the world is that you shouldn't ask a question if you're not able to deal with all the potential outcomes. Cameron held the referendum because he fully expected "remain" to win and he quit as soon as he lost. Since then it's a shitshow because nobody can agree on what "brexit" means exactly. At this point I think we should all brace ourselves for a hard brexit scenario, a big jump into the unknown for everyone involved.
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  > you can't keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want …Yes you can. A general election is always the same question, and sometimes we come up with different results.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Which we enforce for 4 years or more. We don't just drop them and redo the elections if we don't like the winning party.
collyw 8y ago
Because we have rather shit politicians running the show.
barrkel 8y ago
I'm a Remainer. I'm Irish - Ireland is one of the most pro-EU nations - and I live and own a house in London. I think, despite my own interests, that the UK probably needs to leave the EU in order to resolve the splits in society and for the UK to figure out its place in the world. The fact is that Brexit divisions have settled in in the country, becoming more part of people's political identity than political party. There's a complete lack of political leadership, with May saying what she thinks majority Tory supports want to hear, and Corbyn saying as little as possible to try and avoid making any decisions on Brexit, hoping May pushes Brexit through so that Tories can be blamed for any downside. Functionally, that means the two main parties are pro-Brexit, Tories vocally, Labour passively. With FPTP voting, there can only be two parties without vote splitting, so there's no functional political opposition to Brexit. If Brexit does happen, well, Brexit won't be over; it's going to grind on for decades of negotiations trying to replace and replicate what the EU already did. Hopefully, that ultimately means coming back to the EU. Why do I think Brexit probably needs to happen, though, even though I don't want it and it's not in my interest? Leavers won't understand the folly of Brexit until after it has happened. If it doesn't happen, it will poison politics for decades, and the UK would be even more obstructionist than it's been to date. There hasn't been a positive identity-based case made for Remain. Everything has been framed as economic arguments, and in particular economic harm from leaving. Free movement - a reciprocal right of EU citizens - has been misleadingly framed as immigration. The history of UK joining the EEC has been rewritten and misremembered as joining a simple trade area that got out of hand. It's too late to turn these sentiments around, and there's no leadership trying to do it. In fact quite the opposite: because Tory membership is so pro-leave, Tory leadership contenders are all out-doing one another in EU-bashing. None of the political leadership is thinking of the good of the country, everything is on the basis of party politics. It's the kind of thing that helps you understand why world wars get started.
- spuz 8y ago
  > The fact is that Brexit divisions have settled in in the country, becoming more part of people's political identity than political party. I wish people wouldn't see Brexit as the ultimate test of British values. It's just a thing that roughly 50% of the country are on different sides of - like milk in tea or marmite on toast. That doesn't mean they fundamentally disagree on every other political issue. Even if as you suggest we go ahead with Brexit and somehow come out better off, do you think we won't find something else to divide us again? Whether you support Brexit or not says nothing about whether you support immigration rights, free trade and regulation and those political issues say nothing about what your values are as a person. If this makes little sense to you then try this experiment, find a friend who is opposed to your view on Brexit and then try to find out whether or not they actually share the same fundamental values as you. I'm willing to bet that you have a lot more in common than you think.
toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
To answer that it helps to understand what Brexit is and isn’t. What it started out as was a platform for a marginal party, the BNP, later (essentially) rebranded as UKIP of Nigel Farrage fame. The problem is that some Tories (Jacob Rees-Mogg and the rest of the European Research Group) along with UKIP were causing a lot of infighting within the Tory party. So in walks our bum-faced catastrophe of a “hero” named David Cameron, who decides to use a brilliant political power play to shut down both UKIP and the Tory euroskeptics. That plan was a referendum on leaving the UK, which was expected to crash and burn horribly, thus giving political cover to Cameron and friends who could say “stop whining, the people have spoken.” Then Cameron more or less sat on his thumbs while Rome burned, or in this case, Boris and Farrage ran around with torches (or a bus in Boris’ case.) As the US would learn shortly after, the power of shamelessly lying to pander to xenophobes is still very effective. In reaction Cameron and the remain crowd, confronted with people buying up ridiculous lies about vast savings and nonexistent trade deals, some dog whistles about Nazis... well the Remainers freaked out and tried to fight bullshit with bullshit. We know what happened next, and Cameron wasted no time resigning with a skip and a hum. Literally. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bprjHYY90lo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bprjHYY90lo That left a power vacuum into which the insanely ambitious tore each other to sheds while Theresa May watched and stirred a cauldron of baby seals and rendered hummingbird fat. When the scrum ended, the only person who hadn’t burned every bridge necessary for their colleagues to support was... Theresa May, originally for Remain, but happy to pull a complete 180 for power. Now instead of Cameron bludgeoning UKIP and his own defectors with the “people’s will” it’s the Leavers who have that. Their position has finally evolved from lies and blandishments, to this one thing, “the people have spoken, even if they’re saying we need to slit our own throats.” Whoever tries to stop this will be ending their political career, and while history may appreciate their choice in the long the run, it would be a miserable retirement. As a result we have a hardcore fanatical group led by Rees-Mogg who want the hardest Brexit possible, you have Boris just chasing power and willing to say or do anything, and the opposition is Jeremy Corbin. Whatever you think of his positions, his political skills are amateurish, and besides, he’s actually a Leaver too! So... it’s a slow march off a cliff because the people in charge are too afraid to blink.
coldtea 8y ago
Have they? Or is just those that were against it from the start still cannot accept it?
InclinedPlane 8y ago
Because the UK's government is rabid and dysfunctional? It's a common ailment these days (see also: US, Brazil, Italy, the Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia...)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
petre 8y ago
This is just like New Caledonia voting every two years if they want to stop being a part of France d'outre-mer.

Cyph0n 8y ago

I'm surprised that Iberia considered this whole Brexit situation back in 2011. Smart move, but the EU could still just ruin the plan...

simonvc 8y ago
ICAO Air law rules date from 1949. Airlines are super aware of these treaties/rules whenever ownership changes hands. It's not like they thought about brexit as a particular scenario, it's more like, lets make sure the airline we're buying is actually embedded legally before stumping up the cash for it.
- notahacker 8y ago
  I imagine the notional Spanish control was originally intended more to protect their status as a Spanish company under Spanish law...

arethuza 8y ago

For a consideration of some alternative Brexit scenarios I can heartily recommend this discussion: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/11/brexit-means-brexit.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/11/brexit-m... I rather like the "surrender to the Republic of Ireland" option - if for no other reason than the effect it would have on the DUP.

theoh 8y ago
I'm not sure there are any unresolved disputes between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. There's the constitutional claim on the 32 counties, I suppose. The most significant formal dispute between the states was a trade war in the 30s, discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relatio... The conflict in Northern Ireland has had only very minor and indirect connections to the governments in Dublin and London, which are both a long way from the situation on the ground. Any central government intervention on either side of that conflict would have been strictly unofficial.
- Fordec 8y ago
  There is still an unresolved dispute over Lough Foyle and a semi-resolved dispute over Rockall
  - theoh 8y ago
    But "surrendering to the Irish" on those issues wouldn't exactly be a big deal. I was talking about substantive disputes.
- scarmig 8y ago
  The Anglo-Irish Peace Treaty of 1921 was negotiated between an illegitimate/unrecognized state and the British government. Given such, it's intrinsically invalid, as an entity cannot negotiate on behalf of itself if it doesn't exist, and treaties can't be made with it as there's no partner to sign the treaty with. As such, the whole of Ireland is still part of the UK, but the majority of it is occupied by EU forces. As part of peace negotiations, the EU and the UK should negotiate reasonable boundaries, such that Ireland, Scotland, and Greater London remain part of the EU, and the rest can form a rump UK Independent State. Makes as much sense as May's deal.

chrismeller 8y ago

Seems like they have followed the rules, if not the spirit of them, since well before Brexit became a thing. Given that even the popular airports in the UK are owned, in large part, by a variety of non-EU interests I’m not sure how anyone can really argue the point from a legal perspective. Edit: typo

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Whilst 100% of the ‘economic rights’ to Iberia’s revenue and profitability are owned by IAG, it turns out that 50.01% of Iberia’s ‘political rights’ are owned by the El Corte Ingles department store chain. Does the EU have a legal concept akin to beneficial ownership [1] or control? Iberia seems to claim it is economically owned by IAG but that El Corte Ingles has a majority of its voting rights. At face, that would seem to solve the EU’s issue with a no -EU owner. Whether ECI can veto anything IAG wants to do is the real question. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership

jrudolph 8y ago
Yes, and it's used all over the place in EU corporate law. In most cases I've seen it applied (as a EU-based founder) to money laundering, taxation etc. I'd be curious to see how this construction pans out. I bet it's been a good deal for the lawyers involved. They surely got paid well for figuring this out initially and will get paid again for testing it in the courts. So much for growing future revenue potential.

officialchicken 8y ago

The subject of this story - El Corte Ingles [0] - is the the most diverse store I've every been in... they have everything from designer clothing to BBQ's. Think Amazon but with groceries, banking, travel agents, books for school, insurance, etc. Many goods and services you wouldn't find in a Walmart (some possibly at Costco). And their "house brands" aren't too bad they're fairly decent quality especially for the price. [0] https://www.elcorteingles.es/ https://www.elcorteingles.es/

SyneRyder 8y ago
> Think Amazon... Interesting analogy, since Amazon also has its own airline (albeit for cargo rather than passengers) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Air
bassman9000 8y ago
They even have their own IT consulting firm: https://www.iecisa.com/en/digital-solutions/ https://www.iecisa.com/en/digital-solutions/

kodablah 8y ago

> Only airlines which have 50.1% EU ownership have ‘flying rights’ to operate between two airports within the EU. Forgive my ignorance towards this law. One wonders if this is economic protectionism or for security (I am aware of similar situations in other countries/regions). So I couldn't have a majority-Norwegian-owned airline that did Germany to France stops? One wonders if all countries are happy with such policies or if this type of protectionism is more justification for self-determinism for the countries that disagree. Also, could this be another way to look at it: you no longer have to be a majority-EU-owned airline to fly between UK and EU country. I.e. UK would not be subject to such EU rules. Of course companies with many avenues for revenue are going to conform to the most strict of them to get all business when reasonable. That doesn't always make it best for citizens.

dsr_ 8y ago
Most countries have a distinction between "domestic" airlines and "international" airlines that both protects the domestic airlines and regulates them more closely. If you consider the entire EU one country from an airline perspective, this makes sense.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Sure, I acknowledged the "most countries" aspect specifically to avoid these comparisons and focus on the content. I wonder, in current times, if the policies remain more for security or economic reasons. Regardless, my comment is less about that these laws exist and more about lack of country-level sovereignty for those that disagree (regardless of how you consider the EU) and whether it can also be beneficial to the UK to be free of such a law.
adambyrtek 8y ago
As you mentioned yourself, similar regulations exist in most other countries, so it's not something specific to the EU. In fact the EU opened up the airline market and contributed to the spectacular growth of low-cost carriers like Ryanair or easyJet that could easily operate across the whole region (and hire where labour costs are lower), which was not possible before.

ynniv 8y ago

From El Pais: Garanair has no economic rights over Iberia, and is itself nearly worthless (its 7,000 shares are worth one euro). Some European M&A lawyer just had a heart attack. I bet this structure looked great to when no one was paying attention... Let's see how well it holds up under the gaze of ten thousand lawyers trying to re-unite $15B in market cap with a "worthless" parent company. British Airways may find it's been a wholy owned subsidary of El Corte Ingles this whole time.