4 ms·

Of course a dismissal of parliament is nothing out of the ordinary, but you are ignoring the context. The government is dismissing the parliament not because t

Of course a dismissal of parliament is nothing out of the ordinary, but you are ignoring the context. The government is dismissing the parliament not because they want to solicit the voters' input in the form of new elections, but rather because they want to shut down the voters' objections against the no-deal Brexit (which arguably wasn't even on the ballot in the first place!) and paralyze the parliament until they can't prevent it anymore. And expecting journalists or historians not to draw comparisons across successful or attempted end runs around a relatively democratic system is a little strange.

tomatocracy 7y ago
For 'the voters' I think you mean MPs. The voters haven't had a vote either way on this point and opinion polling has not exactly been either consistent or reliable on it. The MPs who are upset at this seem not to want an election for some reason. Also, they're not dismissing parliament, but suspending it.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  I don't know any poll where "No Deal" had a majority. Do you? The voters now have a lot more information. They know the NHS claims were lies. They know which billionaires funded Leave. They know Putin had a hand in it. They know that the EU won't agree to the pie-in-the-sky one sided fairy-deal the Leave-voters have been promised for a few years now. Why not hold a new referendum with more information and more precise choices?
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    We all know the answer to that question though, rich powerful people getting richer and more powerful don't want plebs getting in the way of their plans.
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      I suspect the "rich and powerful" people will actually get hurt. Not as much as the less rich, but still. The UK government doesn't have any of its ducks in a row, deal or no deal. They almost certainly will have a recession, they will almost certainly lose a good chunk of their financial industry. It's just a fact of life if you are on an island and suddenly choke your ports. The alternative to virtually closing those ports (for lack of resources in screening) is to do no screening and just accept the EU standards. Now without having a say in those standards. Good luck...
nailer 7y ago
> against the no-deal Brexit (which arguably wasn't even on the ballot in the first place!) The ballot: "Leave" or "remain". "The government will implement what you decide" The government must be able to keep all options on the table, including no-deal, to get a good deal. If you have to take a job, and don't have the option of walking away, your employer will give you the worst deal possible.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  In practice, though, I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin. And then the leave voters believed the BS about the NHS too. The Referendum was ill posed and the voters were ill-informed, mostly through the fault of the government, the Leave Campaign, Billionaire donors and even Putin's involvement.
  - nailer 7y ago
    > I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin. A no deal must be possible to get a deal. Likewise the EU wants to sell its dairy, prosecco, and cars to the UK but wouldn't dream of accepting a terrible deal for the EU. It's possible the a punitive EU might sacrifice the EU and UK economy by refusing to provide a deal for a few months until the pain becomes too much. UK needs to plan for that. > the BS about the NHS too. The UK does send 300M to the EU. We get 150M back to spend as the EU desires, the rest is used by the EU outside the UK. Nobody disputes that, it depends whether you think it's OK that we get half it back, or that it's not OK the EU determines how we spend our money. --- Edit: rate limited, but to reply to the person below: > Apparently some people flag/down-vote me because they don't like the facts. Complaining about moderation should be done via email to thee admins and not comments per the HN guidelines. But OK, let's go through your facts. > It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any circumstances. Yep agreed. It still needs to be on the table, as it does from the EU side. > Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal presupposes that they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen. Yep agreed. Long term I don't think the EU or the UK wants mutually assured destruction. > The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-country status is even more absurd It's consistent with some of the angrier statements from Jean Claude Juncker and other EU leaders. > because that presupposes that the EU has no significant disadvantages from withholding a deal Agreed, the EU has significant disadvantages from withholding a deal. That does not mean the EU will behave rationally or put the EUs (the organisation) self interest ahead of EU member states who wish to keep selling their product in one of the world's largest markets. > rendering the "leverage" of the no-deal option void. That doesn't follow. The EU wouldn't agree to a deal that harmed the EU, so they'd also prefer WTO if that was all Britain offered. Likewise the opposite. > And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a no-deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation Why? How can you negotiate a desirable outcome if you cannot walk away and must agree to any deal offered? > and even with the no-deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the deal they wanted, proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or outright liers. Is that determined yet? Negotiation is still ongoing. > And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back. Yep agreed. > They explicitly stated, time and time again "let's put that money into the NHS". Which was impossible back then and oh, look! it's still not possible today. It would be possible to put the entire 300M into to the NHS, as the UK would control how the money is spent. But it would not be desirable to. > But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all those options. Is this is a fact?

tomatocracy 7y ago

For 'the voters' I think you mean MPs. The voters haven't had a vote either way on this point and opinion polling has not exactly been either consistent or reliable on it. The MPs who are upset at this seem not to want an election for some reason. Also, they're not dismissing parliament, but suspending it.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
I don't know any poll where "No Deal" had a majority. Do you? The voters now have a lot more information. They know the NHS claims were lies. They know which billionaires funded Leave. They know Putin had a hand in it. They know that the EU won't agree to the pie-in-the-sky one sided fairy-deal the Leave-voters have been promised for a few years now. Why not hold a new referendum with more information and more precise choices?
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  We all know the answer to that question though, rich powerful people getting richer and more powerful don't want plebs getting in the way of their plans.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    I suspect the "rich and powerful" people will actually get hurt. Not as much as the less rich, but still. The UK government doesn't have any of its ducks in a row, deal or no deal. They almost certainly will have a recession, they will almost certainly lose a good chunk of their financial industry. It's just a fact of life if you are on an island and suddenly choke your ports. The alternative to virtually closing those ports (for lack of resources in screening) is to do no screening and just accept the EU standards. Now without having a say in those standards. Good luck...

nailer 7y ago

> against the no-deal Brexit (which arguably wasn't even on the ballot in the first place!) The ballot: "Leave" or "remain". "The government will implement what you decide" The government must be able to keep all options on the table, including no-deal, to get a good deal. If you have to take a job, and don't have the option of walking away, your employer will give you the worst deal possible.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
In practice, though, I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin. And then the leave voters believed the BS about the NHS too. The Referendum was ill posed and the voters were ill-informed, mostly through the fault of the government, the Leave Campaign, Billionaire donors and even Putin's involvement.
- nailer 7y ago
  > I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin. A no deal must be possible to get a deal. Likewise the EU wants to sell its dairy, prosecco, and cars to the UK but wouldn't dream of accepting a terrible deal for the EU. It's possible the a punitive EU might sacrifice the EU and UK economy by refusing to provide a deal for a few months until the pain becomes too much. UK needs to plan for that. > the BS about the NHS too. The UK does send 300M to the EU. We get 150M back to spend as the EU desires, the rest is used by the EU outside the UK. Nobody disputes that, it depends whether you think it's OK that we get half it back, or that it's not OK the EU determines how we spend our money. --- Edit: rate limited, but to reply to the person below: > Apparently some people flag/down-vote me because they don't like the facts. Complaining about moderation should be done via email to thee admins and not comments per the HN guidelines. But OK, let's go through your facts. > It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any circumstances. Yep agreed. It still needs to be on the table, as it does from the EU side. > Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal presupposes that they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen. Yep agreed. Long term I don't think the EU or the UK wants mutually assured destruction. > The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-country status is even more absurd It's consistent with some of the angrier statements from Jean Claude Juncker and other EU leaders. > because that presupposes that the EU has no significant disadvantages from withholding a deal Agreed, the EU has significant disadvantages from withholding a deal. That does not mean the EU will behave rationally or put the EUs (the organisation) self interest ahead of EU member states who wish to keep selling their product in one of the world's largest markets. > rendering the "leverage" of the no-deal option void. That doesn't follow. The EU wouldn't agree to a deal that harmed the EU, so they'd also prefer WTO if that was all Britain offered. Likewise the opposite. > And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a no-deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation Why? How can you negotiate a desirable outcome if you cannot walk away and must agree to any deal offered? > and even with the no-deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the deal they wanted, proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or outright liers. Is that determined yet? Negotiation is still ongoing. > And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back. Yep agreed. > They explicitly stated, time and time again "let's put that money into the NHS". Which was impossible back then and oh, look! it's still not possible today. It would be possible to put the entire 300M into to the NHS, as the UK would control how the money is spent. But it would not be desirable to. > But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all those options. Is this is a fact?