9 ms·

No-deal Brexit opponents defeat government

99 points by petewailes 7y ago

bencollier49 7y ago
Looks like we'll have an election now as a proxy second referendum.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Wasn’t there already an election? Can you explain why there is a second proxy referendum and what the two outcomes would be? I assume it’s Wait for Deal Brexit or Doing It Now Brexit, ya?
  - thecosas 7y ago
    I believe the idea here is that people would vote for MPs who are for/against Brexit rather than voting directly for/against Brexit themselves.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    In parliamentary democracies there aren't any formal barriers to having elections as often as people feel like it. It's unusual but far from unheard of for countries to have several in a year during difficult times.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    There was one over who should carry out the negotiations, the result of which was that the tories lost most of their advantage. There hasn’t been any election that is close to being about the actual leave conditions, on account of the only concrete deal being written down in spring this year.
  - bencollier49 7y ago
    There are now a fairly large number of MPs who are no longer aligned to the policies of their party, or who have moved party. An election should shake all of that out. This, combined with the speaker's constitutional innovations have led to a situation where we have a government which can't govern. Again, an election should sort this (and may allow the removal of an activist speaker as well). And yes, it will be about voting for a party which matches your preferred strategy. Tory = no deal. Libs = remain. Labour = ??? + radical socialism.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    They are suggesting that an election, which currently seems likely to happen soon, will be a "proxy referendum". I. e.: that will be the decisive factor for peoples votes. Presumably, the conversion would be "brexit party" = hard, (no deal) brexit; tory = "I have no fucking idea, but I don't like immigrants, either". LibDems = "no brexit". Labor = "soft brexit".
  - RafiqM 7y ago
    The recent election was an internal party election, similar to the Republican or Democratic National Congress. This is because in a general election in the UK, the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people - they vote for a party, and the leader of that party can change at any time, which is what happened when Theresa May stepped down.
- lordnacho 7y ago
  Corbyn just said he wont allow it (and they need him due to the FTPA) unless they vote for blocking no-deal first. This is starting to be like one of those trading card games like Magic the Gathering or Pokemon. Special ability: Prorogue. Interrupt with special session. FTPA.
  - bencollier49 7y ago
    Boris can allow the blocking bill and still has time to repeal it if he wins the election.
    - lordnacho 7y ago
      No idea if you follow British politics, but a few years ago the Cons and LibDems went into coalition, and one of the things that was meant to help was the FTPA. Under that the government cannot just call an election, it needs the support of 2/3 of parliament or a vote of no confidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_201...
      - bencollier49 7y ago
        They can sidestep that with a simple bill which just says "Notwithstanding the FTPA, there will be an election on date x", passed with a simple majority. Would need to go through the Lords though. The FTPA was a terrible piece of legislation. Regardless, the point is that Boris can accede to Corbyn's demands, hold an election, and still leave on Oct 31st. If he wins.
      - reubeniv 7y ago
        Technically it can pass a short bill that requires just a majority, but it then has to go through lords and is open to amendments https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/early-election https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/early-e...
- nailer 7y ago
  Proxy /third/ referendum. - We had the Brexit referendum. - We had the EU elections, by which (according to the BBC) pro Brexit parties including the Tories came out overwhelmingly on top. - We can have an election now as a proxy third referendum. Honestly, as a former remainer, I'm tired of this. The vote was to Leave, by about 1.5 million people. People who don't like the result are trying to thwart it and weakening the UK's negotiating position. If I want to buy your startup, and some MPs decide you must make a deal, I'm going to offer you next to nothing for all your equity. Don't like that? Well you should have had no deal on the table.
  - QuesnayJr 7y ago
    How can they weaken their negotiating position? The UK is already at zero. If the people really want a no-deal Brexit (which is what they are going to get at the end of October), then they can vote for it.
    - nailer 7y ago
      The US can weaken their negotiating position by having to agree to any deal, as mentioned in the comment you're replying to. The UK isn't at zero. The EU export to the UK. Surely you know this?
      - QuesnayJr 7y ago
        The UK doesn't have any negotiating leverage. It's May's Withdrawal Agreement, or no deal. Boris Johnson is pantomiming negotiations with the EU, but there's no basis on which to negotiate. Surely you know this?
  - eloff 7y ago
    This is true, but the UK has very little leverage to begin with even without no deal of the table. So it's the difference between a bad deal and a worse deal. That's just how it is negotiating with a major power imbalance.
    - 7y ago
jxcl 7y ago
Is there any chance of Brexit being stopped, instead of just delayed?
- Spearchucker 7y ago
  In a word, yes. Would require another postponement and then followed by the election as a proxy second referendum. Which could lead to scrapping Brexit alltogether.
Causality1 7y ago
I wish my high school had covered parliamentary systems. So many things about it seem batshit insane. The government can expel MPs who vote against it? The prime Minister can seize power by suspending the entire parliament?
- itcrowd 7y ago
  No two parliamentary systems are really the same. And the British system is uniquely erratic.
- mjw1007 7y ago
  They're expelled from their political party, not from parliament. In fact he probably can't even do that in all cases, as the local party branches might not let him.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  I found it interesting that while everyone says it’s a democracy and the Queen is an entirely symbolic position... she suspended parliament which happens a lot but not lately and the timing was unusual, IDK! So it seems like a Democracy With Assistance, but also some sort of Revokable Representative like you said? I’m with you man, makes no sense to me.
  - edh649 7y ago
    The Queen has to give her permission to suspend parliament (as it is 'her' government), however it was not her decision about whether to say yes or no. She acts on the advice of her Prime Minister, and must do as they say. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49495575 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49495575
    - mjw1007 7y ago
      But it can't be as simple as that. If a prime minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament for a year, she wouldn't approve it. I think how it works is the Queen will always deny having had any discretion. If she ever has to reject the 'advice' of her Prime Minister she will say she has been advised that the advice was unconstitutional and therefore she had no option but to reject it.
tanilama 7y ago
Wow...The drama just keeps getting wilder...
busterarm 7y ago
The people voted for it. Just give it to them. If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences...for everyone. Hope they vote better the next time...if you feel that it was the wrong choice. The amount of contempt being expressed, from many sides, for democratic process is disgusting.
- gambiting 7y ago
  The argument here is that I literally don't believe anyone in this country has voted for a no deal brexit. I fully accept the result and I don't even care about remaining anymore - but leaving on WTO terms has no mandate, that's not what anyone has voted for and while the government has the responsibility to implement the will of the people it also has the responsibility to not wreck the country in the process.
  - nailer 7y ago
    The ballot question was: > Do you want Britain to remain or leave the EU? With the accompanying pamphlet stating: > The government will implement what you decide. This includes the government negotiating with the EU. If the government must accept any deal the EU offers (because someone dislikes No Deal being on the table) then the EU will offer the worst deal possible, and has done so (the current deal has been rejected by parliament three times).
    - gambiting 7y ago
      As someone else already pointed out - a "no deal" in reality means "no deal until any deal is reached". UK cannot be on WTO terms with the EU forever, but by going on them in the first place the economy is taking a hit until something else is negotiated. And that negotiation will be exactly the same as now - backstop, immigrants, EU regulations - none of those issues disappear with a no deal. They just get delayed a little bit. It feels like a no deal is hitting your own face out of spite for the other side.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      "The government will implement what you decide." Well there's your problem! That's a vague reference. To a lawyer, it might obviously refer to the voter's decision with respect to the immediately preceding question. To the average UK voter, it might also refer to her decision that she wants blue skies, decent food, and a personal unicorn pony for everyone. It's hard to vote against unicorn ponies. [EDIT:] Apparently parent just pointlessly made up something, to which I credulously responded. Sorry for the distraction.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
In reality, if the UK does not have a trade deal in place by the time it leaves the EU, it will still need to get one later and it will still contain the same requirements on respecting existing commitments to the the Irish Border. And this also happens to be a condition of getting a US trade deal through. No Deal Brexit, is in fact, No Deal until utterly desperate for Any Deal. The idea that the UK could just not have to ever agree to a trade deal with the EU is the purest of fantasies, and the idea that leaving first and kicking the can down the road will strengthen the UK's negotiating position is almost as delusional.
- nailer 7y ago
  Conversely, the EU wishes to continue selling its goods to the UK - dairy, cars, prosecco, and everything else. This is a bilateral trade agreement. They want a deal. But if the UK can't walk away, the EU give us the worst deal possible as it is in the EU's interest to do so.
  - kadoban 7y ago
    The EU can much more easily absorb the loss, and has more reason to care about the terms of the deal in terms of it matching the trade agreements with other partners of various levels. It also has more to lose if it gives the UK a sweetheart deal. Not a great bargaining position, really.
    - nailer 7y ago
      Indeed. Why weaken the UK's position any further by making the UK having to accept any deal?
- faissaloo 7y ago
  I see a very simple solution to the Irish Backstop: Give Ireland back.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    The hitch with that is that the Conservative government doesn't have a majority without the support of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, and the DUP's central, defining issue is that Northern Ireland is and should always remain part of the UK. So the government can't yield an inch on Ireland, because the minute they do the DUP will withdraw its support and the government will promptly collapse.
mumblemumble 7y ago
It seems like it's well past time for a 2nd referendum. And I don't buy this hogwash about undercutting democracy and the people having spoken. If my partner and I decide together to buy a car, and then find out later that we can only get financing at 20%, then it is no way disingenuous to have another talk about whether we really need a new car. On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and blithely signed a 20% loan for a car without further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this."
- busterarm 7y ago
  > On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and signed a 20% loan for a car without soliciting further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this, and 20% is all the dealer was willing to offer." Losing an election does not equate to not having a say.
  - eloff 7y ago
    Having a say before understanding the deal on offer is another matter though.
    - busterarm 7y ago
      That's the thing about any change in governance though...you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side. Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either. That's the nature of change. We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it.
      - jibal 7y ago
        "you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side" This is a baseless and false claim. "Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either" Even if true, this isn't relevant ... it cherry picks extremely chaotic changes to shore up a completely invalid argument. "That's the nature of change." No, it isn't ... well understood, predictable changes are executed all the time. "We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it." Not relevant.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
justaguyhere 7y ago
I guess the only good thing that could come out of this whole drama is - if any other country wants to leave the EU, they'll think twice (hopefully). At minimum there'll be a good discussion, instead of a bunch of asshats lying to the public and the public taking their vote casually.
- busterarm 7y ago
  The same could be said for countries thinking of joining the EU.
  - jibal 7y ago
    Lots of things can be said when one doesn't care about logic or sense. What you responded to was a valid point.
    - busterarm 7y ago
      I flatly reject the notion that it is just a matter of common sense to be a part of the EU versus not. Giving up a little bit of sovereignty to the EU has both benefits and costs. I am merely affirming my OPs point in that actions have consequences. I'm just suggesting that it's possible that joining the EU may come with consequences that a country won't be willing to bare. 52% of the voting populace of the UK stated as much.
      - jevgeni 7y ago
        That's not true. 52% of the population went with the false premises fed by leavers.
- hanoz 7y ago
  I could not disagree more. The most awful result of all this would be for the people of Europe to reach the logical conclusion that if Britian can't leave then none of them can ever hope to.
edh649 7y ago
Both sides are now at a point where they feel like the other is trying to stage a coup. The remainers believe it is a coup that the PM has suspended parliament seemingly in an effort to bring the country closer to a no-deal Brexit. The leavers believe it is a coup that there is a bill with a very real chance of passing that would make leaving without a deal illegal, therefore leading closer to not leaving the EU at all.
- gweinberg 7y ago
  I'd phrase it slightly differently: The leavers believe ignoring the results of the referendum is essentially a coup. The remainers think respecting the results of the referendum is essentially a coup.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I'd phrase it this way: The remainers think that bypassing Parliament in order to implement the results of the referendum is essentially a coup.
enitihas 7y ago
One thing I don't understand out of this entire process is, since it is very clear the British parliament will not allow the government to go with a no-deal, how much leverage will the Government even have in any negotiation? Since the EU knows that the UK has to have a deal, can't they get away with offering not the best deal possible, since there is no EU wide similar law binding the EU to stay away from no deal. Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied?
- GVIrish 7y ago
  > Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied? You have succinctly described one of the devastating flaws in the Brexit idea. The UK has very little leverage and the EU has a lot of incentive to make it very painful for the UK, as a warning to other would be EU deserters.
  - beaner 7y ago
    When you put it that way it makes it sound like an organization that just strongarms others into joining it, rather than it maybe actually being in their best interest.
    - amerine 7y ago
      “Just strongarms” feels an awful lot like you are coming with your own perspectives. I definitely did not read it that way.
    - GVIrish 7y ago
      It's not quite that in my opinion. At the time the original union was thought to have big benefits for all members, and it did. Strongarming wasn't driving things as much as perceived mutual benefit. But now with one of the biggest countries in the union looking to leave, it threatens the entire idea. Kinda like if the United States actually left NATO. In both cases it is in the alliance's best interests to 'keep the band together'. Brexit was sold to voters with the promise that somehow the UK could work out a comparably favorable trade deal with the EU without having to agree to freedom of movement, EU regulations, payments to the EU, etc. If EU gave them such a deal, why should any other country abide by the requirements of the union?
vr46 7y ago
This the funniest stuff I have seen in Parliament. The PM lost his first vote, his majority, control of parliament and now they’ve withdrawn the whip from 21 of their own MPs. All because of two political geniuses who decided to prorogue parliament. Brilliant. ORDER!
novaRom 7y ago
Thanks to the demolition job performed by David Cameron, Theresa May, and finally by Boris Johnson, British society no longer believes in much of anything or takes anything seriously.
- klwejchkwejrhc 7y ago
  Tony Blair probably didn't help by joining the US' lies-based Iraq war.
klwejchkwejrhc 7y ago
Too many people in this thread are downvoting because they disagree with a comment rather than because they think the comment is of low quality.

99 points by petewailes 7y ago

bencollier49 7y ago

Looks like we'll have an election now as a proxy second referendum.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Wasn’t there already an election? Can you explain why there is a second proxy referendum and what the two outcomes would be? I assume it’s Wait for Deal Brexit or Doing It Now Brexit, ya?
- thecosas 7y ago
  I believe the idea here is that people would vote for MPs who are for/against Brexit rather than voting directly for/against Brexit themselves.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  In parliamentary democracies there aren't any formal barriers to having elections as often as people feel like it. It's unusual but far from unheard of for countries to have several in a year during difficult times.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  There was one over who should carry out the negotiations, the result of which was that the tories lost most of their advantage. There hasn’t been any election that is close to being about the actual leave conditions, on account of the only concrete deal being written down in spring this year.
- bencollier49 7y ago
  There are now a fairly large number of MPs who are no longer aligned to the policies of their party, or who have moved party. An election should shake all of that out. This, combined with the speaker's constitutional innovations have led to a situation where we have a government which can't govern. Again, an election should sort this (and may allow the removal of an activist speaker as well). And yes, it will be about voting for a party which matches your preferred strategy. Tory = no deal. Libs = remain. Labour = ??? + radical socialism.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  They are suggesting that an election, which currently seems likely to happen soon, will be a "proxy referendum". I. e.: that will be the decisive factor for peoples votes. Presumably, the conversion would be "brexit party" = hard, (no deal) brexit; tory = "I have no fucking idea, but I don't like immigrants, either". LibDems = "no brexit". Labor = "soft brexit".
- RafiqM 7y ago
  The recent election was an internal party election, similar to the Republican or Democratic National Congress. This is because in a general election in the UK, the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people - they vote for a party, and the leader of that party can change at any time, which is what happened when Theresa May stepped down.
lordnacho 7y ago
Corbyn just said he wont allow it (and they need him due to the FTPA) unless they vote for blocking no-deal first. This is starting to be like one of those trading card games like Magic the Gathering or Pokemon. Special ability: Prorogue. Interrupt with special session. FTPA.
- bencollier49 7y ago
  Boris can allow the blocking bill and still has time to repeal it if he wins the election.
  - lordnacho 7y ago
    No idea if you follow British politics, but a few years ago the Cons and LibDems went into coalition, and one of the things that was meant to help was the FTPA. Under that the government cannot just call an election, it needs the support of 2/3 of parliament or a vote of no confidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_201...
    - bencollier49 7y ago
      They can sidestep that with a simple bill which just says "Notwithstanding the FTPA, there will be an election on date x", passed with a simple majority. Would need to go through the Lords though. The FTPA was a terrible piece of legislation. Regardless, the point is that Boris can accede to Corbyn's demands, hold an election, and still leave on Oct 31st. If he wins.
    - reubeniv 7y ago
      Technically it can pass a short bill that requires just a majority, but it then has to go through lords and is open to amendments https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/early-election https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/early-e...
nailer 7y ago
Proxy /third/ referendum. - We had the Brexit referendum. - We had the EU elections, by which (according to the BBC) pro Brexit parties including the Tories came out overwhelmingly on top. - We can have an election now as a proxy third referendum. Honestly, as a former remainer, I'm tired of this. The vote was to Leave, by about 1.5 million people. People who don't like the result are trying to thwart it and weakening the UK's negotiating position. If I want to buy your startup, and some MPs decide you must make a deal, I'm going to offer you next to nothing for all your equity. Don't like that? Well you should have had no deal on the table.
- QuesnayJr 7y ago
  How can they weaken their negotiating position? The UK is already at zero. If the people really want a no-deal Brexit (which is what they are going to get at the end of October), then they can vote for it.
  - nailer 7y ago
    The US can weaken their negotiating position by having to agree to any deal, as mentioned in the comment you're replying to. The UK isn't at zero. The EU export to the UK. Surely you know this?
    - QuesnayJr 7y ago
      The UK doesn't have any negotiating leverage. It's May's Withdrawal Agreement, or no deal. Boris Johnson is pantomiming negotiations with the EU, but there's no basis on which to negotiate. Surely you know this?
- eloff 7y ago
  This is true, but the UK has very little leverage to begin with even without no deal of the table. So it's the difference between a bad deal and a worse deal. That's just how it is negotiating with a major power imbalance.
  - 7y ago

jxcl 7y ago

Is there any chance of Brexit being stopped, instead of just delayed?

Spearchucker 7y ago
In a word, yes. Would require another postponement and then followed by the election as a proxy second referendum. Which could lead to scrapping Brexit alltogether.

Causality1 7y ago

I wish my high school had covered parliamentary systems. So many things about it seem batshit insane. The government can expel MPs who vote against it? The prime Minister can seize power by suspending the entire parliament?

itcrowd 7y ago
No two parliamentary systems are really the same. And the British system is uniquely erratic.
mjw1007 7y ago
They're expelled from their political party, not from parliament. In fact he probably can't even do that in all cases, as the local party branches might not let him.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
I found it interesting that while everyone says it’s a democracy and the Queen is an entirely symbolic position... she suspended parliament which happens a lot but not lately and the timing was unusual, IDK! So it seems like a Democracy With Assistance, but also some sort of Revokable Representative like you said? I’m with you man, makes no sense to me.
- edh649 7y ago
  The Queen has to give her permission to suspend parliament (as it is 'her' government), however it was not her decision about whether to say yes or no. She acts on the advice of her Prime Minister, and must do as they say. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49495575 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49495575
  - mjw1007 7y ago
    But it can't be as simple as that. If a prime minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament for a year, she wouldn't approve it. I think how it works is the Queen will always deny having had any discretion. If she ever has to reject the 'advice' of her Prime Minister she will say she has been advised that the advice was unconstitutional and therefore she had no option but to reject it.

tanilama 7y ago

Wow...The drama just keeps getting wilder...

busterarm 7y ago

The people voted for it. Just give it to them. If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences...for everyone. Hope they vote better the next time...if you feel that it was the wrong choice. The amount of contempt being expressed, from many sides, for democratic process is disgusting.

gambiting 7y ago
The argument here is that I literally don't believe anyone in this country has voted for a no deal brexit. I fully accept the result and I don't even care about remaining anymore - but leaving on WTO terms has no mandate, that's not what anyone has voted for and while the government has the responsibility to implement the will of the people it also has the responsibility to not wreck the country in the process.
- nailer 7y ago
  The ballot question was: > Do you want Britain to remain or leave the EU? With the accompanying pamphlet stating: > The government will implement what you decide. This includes the government negotiating with the EU. If the government must accept any deal the EU offers (because someone dislikes No Deal being on the table) then the EU will offer the worst deal possible, and has done so (the current deal has been rejected by parliament three times).
  - gambiting 7y ago
    As someone else already pointed out - a "no deal" in reality means "no deal until any deal is reached". UK cannot be on WTO terms with the EU forever, but by going on them in the first place the economy is taking a hit until something else is negotiated. And that negotiation will be exactly the same as now - backstop, immigrants, EU regulations - none of those issues disappear with a no deal. They just get delayed a little bit. It feels like a no deal is hitting your own face out of spite for the other side.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    "The government will implement what you decide." Well there's your problem! That's a vague reference. To a lawyer, it might obviously refer to the voter's decision with respect to the immediately preceding question. To the average UK voter, it might also refer to her decision that she wants blue skies, decent food, and a personal unicorn pony for everyone. It's hard to vote against unicorn ponies. [EDIT:] Apparently parent just pointlessly made up something, to which I credulously responded. Sorry for the distraction.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

In reality, if the UK does not have a trade deal in place by the time it leaves the EU, it will still need to get one later and it will still contain the same requirements on respecting existing commitments to the the Irish Border. And this also happens to be a condition of getting a US trade deal through. No Deal Brexit, is in fact, No Deal until utterly desperate for Any Deal. The idea that the UK could just not have to ever agree to a trade deal with the EU is the purest of fantasies, and the idea that leaving first and kicking the can down the road will strengthen the UK's negotiating position is almost as delusional.

nailer 7y ago
Conversely, the EU wishes to continue selling its goods to the UK - dairy, cars, prosecco, and everything else. This is a bilateral trade agreement. They want a deal. But if the UK can't walk away, the EU give us the worst deal possible as it is in the EU's interest to do so.
- kadoban 7y ago
  The EU can much more easily absorb the loss, and has more reason to care about the terms of the deal in terms of it matching the trade agreements with other partners of various levels. It also has more to lose if it gives the UK a sweetheart deal. Not a great bargaining position, really.
  - nailer 7y ago
    Indeed. Why weaken the UK's position any further by making the UK having to accept any deal?
faissaloo 7y ago
I see a very simple solution to the Irish Backstop: Give Ireland back.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  The hitch with that is that the Conservative government doesn't have a majority without the support of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, and the DUP's central, defining issue is that Northern Ireland is and should always remain part of the UK. So the government can't yield an inch on Ireland, because the minute they do the DUP will withdraw its support and the government will promptly collapse.

mumblemumble 7y ago

It seems like it's well past time for a 2nd referendum. And I don't buy this hogwash about undercutting democracy and the people having spoken. If my partner and I decide together to buy a car, and then find out later that we can only get financing at 20%, then it is no way disingenuous to have another talk about whether we really need a new car. On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and blithely signed a 20% loan for a car without further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this."

busterarm 7y ago
> On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and signed a 20% loan for a car without soliciting further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this, and 20% is all the dealer was willing to offer." Losing an election does not equate to not having a say.
- eloff 7y ago
  Having a say before understanding the deal on offer is another matter though.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    That's the thing about any change in governance though...you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side. Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either. That's the nature of change. We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it.
    - jibal 7y ago
      "you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side" This is a baseless and false claim. "Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either" Even if true, this isn't relevant ... it cherry picks extremely chaotic changes to shore up a completely invalid argument. "That's the nature of change." No, it isn't ... well understood, predictable changes are executed all the time. "We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it." Not relevant.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

justaguyhere 7y ago

I guess the only good thing that could come out of this whole drama is - if any other country wants to leave the EU, they'll think twice (hopefully). At minimum there'll be a good discussion, instead of a bunch of asshats lying to the public and the public taking their vote casually.

busterarm 7y ago
The same could be said for countries thinking of joining the EU.
- jibal 7y ago
  Lots of things can be said when one doesn't care about logic or sense. What you responded to was a valid point.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    I flatly reject the notion that it is just a matter of common sense to be a part of the EU versus not. Giving up a little bit of sovereignty to the EU has both benefits and costs. I am merely affirming my OPs point in that actions have consequences. I'm just suggesting that it's possible that joining the EU may come with consequences that a country won't be willing to bare. 52% of the voting populace of the UK stated as much.
    - jevgeni 7y ago
      That's not true. 52% of the population went with the false premises fed by leavers.
hanoz 7y ago
I could not disagree more. The most awful result of all this would be for the people of Europe to reach the logical conclusion that if Britian can't leave then none of them can ever hope to.

edh649 7y ago

Both sides are now at a point where they feel like the other is trying to stage a coup. The remainers believe it is a coup that the PM has suspended parliament seemingly in an effort to bring the country closer to a no-deal Brexit. The leavers believe it is a coup that there is a bill with a very real chance of passing that would make leaving without a deal illegal, therefore leading closer to not leaving the EU at all.

gweinberg 7y ago
I'd phrase it slightly differently: The leavers believe ignoring the results of the referendum is essentially a coup. The remainers think respecting the results of the referendum is essentially a coup.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I'd phrase it this way: The remainers think that bypassing Parliament in order to implement the results of the referendum is essentially a coup.

enitihas 7y ago

One thing I don't understand out of this entire process is, since it is very clear the British parliament will not allow the government to go with a no-deal, how much leverage will the Government even have in any negotiation? Since the EU knows that the UK has to have a deal, can't they get away with offering not the best deal possible, since there is no EU wide similar law binding the EU to stay away from no deal. Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied?

GVIrish 7y ago
> Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied? You have succinctly described one of the devastating flaws in the Brexit idea. The UK has very little leverage and the EU has a lot of incentive to make it very painful for the UK, as a warning to other would be EU deserters.
- beaner 7y ago
  When you put it that way it makes it sound like an organization that just strongarms others into joining it, rather than it maybe actually being in their best interest.
  - amerine 7y ago
    “Just strongarms” feels an awful lot like you are coming with your own perspectives. I definitely did not read it that way.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    It's not quite that in my opinion. At the time the original union was thought to have big benefits for all members, and it did. Strongarming wasn't driving things as much as perceived mutual benefit. But now with one of the biggest countries in the union looking to leave, it threatens the entire idea. Kinda like if the United States actually left NATO. In both cases it is in the alliance's best interests to 'keep the band together'. Brexit was sold to voters with the promise that somehow the UK could work out a comparably favorable trade deal with the EU without having to agree to freedom of movement, EU regulations, payments to the EU, etc. If EU gave them such a deal, why should any other country abide by the requirements of the union?

vr46 7y ago

This the funniest stuff I have seen in Parliament. The PM lost his first vote, his majority, control of parliament and now they’ve withdrawn the whip from 21 of their own MPs. All because of two political geniuses who decided to prorogue parliament. Brilliant. ORDER!

novaRom 7y ago

Thanks to the demolition job performed by David Cameron, Theresa May, and finally by Boris Johnson, British society no longer believes in much of anything or takes anything seriously.

klwejchkwejrhc 7y ago
Tony Blair probably didn't help by joining the US' lies-based Iraq war.

klwejchkwejrhc 7y ago

Too many people in this thread are downvoting because they disagree with a comment rather than because they think the comment is of low quality.