SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Brexit vote: What just happened and what comes next?
With only approximately two more months before a default no-deal "hard Brexit," the British Parliament has decisively rejected Prime Minister May's proposed plan for leaving the European Union.
There is a no confidence vote in works which, if successful, will dissolve the government and force another general election.
See also: Live: Latest as MPs debate no confidence vote
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British Parliament Rejects (Only) Brexit Plan
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:26PM (19 children)
If the main concern were that the EU was undemocratic, then why did so much of the rhetoric center around immigration?
Also, if the problem was undemocratic institutions, why was the proposed solution to cut off all connections to the continent rather than, say, a concerted push for more power going to the elected European Parliament at the expense of the unelected Council of the EU or the unelected European Commission?
Because the impression I get is that a lot of the concern was "We need to stop those damn foreigners coming here to Britain, changing our culture, and taking our jobs!" Which is no more informed or intelligent than the "Dey tuk er jerbs!" rhetoric in the US, even if it's said in a classy-sounding British RP accent.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:37PM (8 children)
I believe that the lack of democracy is an underlying cause. I don't think that anyone in the British government has identified this problem, but that it is key underlying issue that causes all of the other issues surrounding Brexit.
For example, no one is arguing against the lage UK aid budget (1% GDP IIRC), but the EU money is a big deal.
For example, no one is arguing to limit immigration from Asia or Africa, but immigration from EU is a big deal.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dr Spin on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:56PM (6 children)
I believe that the lack of democracy is an underlying cause. So you would prefer rule by Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson to rule by elected Euro-MPs? You want longer working hours, higher roaming charges, and bring back the lb weight and pounds, shillings and pence?
The EU money is big, but its tiny compared to what it buys in benefits. Immigration from the EU is large numbers, but so is migration from the UK to Europe.
One real problem is people whose last visit to Europe was in 1945, or who have never been, but heard about it from an uncle who was there on D-day (in his dreams).
The main advantage of Brexit is that we will starve until people come to there senses. Not great in my opinion.
The main cause for people voting for Brexit is abject poverty, brought about by kow-towing to to "financial institutions" which are largely criminal gangs, and operating the social security system as a Ponzi scheme for the last 70 years. The fact that both major political parties are hell bent on causing housing scarsity - the conservatives because their voters want house prices to rise, and Labour because their voters want social housing has not helped anyone. Giving more "sovereignty" to this kind of scum will help no one but them.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:17PM (5 children)
> The main advantage of Brexit is that we will starve until people come to there senses. Not great in my opinion.
If (nodeal) brexit is as bad as predicted, we'll be rejoining the EU in 2022, with a LibDem/Green landslide with EU membership as a manifesto commitment. This will allow us to benefit from Schengen too
That's based on
1) The population has already changed it's mind and no longer wants to leave, which is why quitters don't want a "are you want to continue"
2) People starving will be the old and poor, who were more likely to vote brexit, they won't be able to vote when they've died
3) Rationing will be tiresome by then
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:10PM (3 children)
By "we" you might mean just England and Wales. By then Northern Ireland could have made its escape from the disaster by reunifying with the Republic (and hence rejoining the EU) and Scotland may be independent and in the process of joining the EU as a sovereign state. I'm sure the EU would assist financially with Irish Reunification.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:58PM (2 children)
Northern Ireland likely doesn't want to reunify, but in any case even if it did on the whole, a large number (those that voted DUP for instance) certainly don't, and that's not a good thing to be happening.
The Good Friday agreement was an amazing pan-spectrum solution to the problem. Sadly Theresa May is determined to throw that away for political gain, and will hopefully get her comeuppance in the Hague fairly soon.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:48PM (1 child)
The last time I spoke to people from Northern Ireland they were far more open to the idea of reunification now as a result of the Brexit farce. BBC Newsnight also traveled across Northern Ireland and spoke to many people. The hard-core DUP types are a very small minority now. Things have moved on.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday January 18 2019, @12:12AM
It’s possible. If brexit occurs the sensible thing would be to have a referendum for independence in Scotland and test the waters on one for unification in NI.
In Scotland especially the facts have changed since 2014, a major reason for the no vote was the uncertainty of remaining part of the EU
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:15PM
But will the UK still meet the economic criteria for joining the EU?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:06PM
When someone is complaining about a lack of democracy, they usually mean that the democracy isn't doing what they want it to do. For example, in the UK democracy, pro-Brexit MPs have never even come close to holding a majority, ergo the problem isn't a lack of European democracy, it's either a lack of UK democracy or it's that the ideas of the pro-Brexit folks just aren't that popular.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:30PM (9 children)
Because we're talking about democracy at a scale that makes sense. I'm sure if put to a simple majority vote in the U.N., "Should the United States divide a couple trillion dollars between the rest of the world's countries?", that question would easily pass.
Or for your example, let's instead phrase it "Should a bunch of people in mainland Europe decide our immigration policy instead of us?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:32PM
Whether that's the real reason people are pro-Brexit is a different matter, but widening the scope of democracy doesn't solve all problems.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:22AM (7 children)
"Should a bunch of people in London decide our immigration policy instead of us here in Lincolnshire?"
"Should a bunch of people in Lincoln decide our immigration policy instead of us here in Scunthorpe?"
"Should a bunch of people in city hall decide our immigration policy instead of us here in this particular neighborhood?"
"Should a bunch of people in a neighborhood council decide our immigration policy instead of us here on this block?"
"Should a bunch of people in a block council decide our immigration policy, instead of just me doing whatever I feel like to immigrants?"
At some point, somebody, ideally chosen via a method that shows signs that most of the governed consent to what's going on, has to make the decision. My experience is that complaining that the wrong bunch of people are making the decisions is in direct proportion to the level of disagreement with the decisions being made.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by julian on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:13AM
This is the best comment here.
People complaining that the EU isn't "democratic enough" always conveniently demarcate democracy at a level which would happen to produce the result they prefer. Imagine that. Democracy doesn't mean your preferences are always reflected in policy at all levels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:50PM
Indeed. And in this specific case: in Scotland a majority doesn't want to leave the EU but is overruled by England.
Around the time of the referendum I read the suggestion somewhere that the UK shouldn't leave the EU but England and other parts that want to leave the EU should leave the UK. I don't think the English would accept that, but to me it seems to be one of the most sensible suggestions I heard during this mess.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:22PM (4 children)
That might be true for most people that are busy being preoccupied with their own lives and so only pay attention when politics affects them in a direct (usually negative) way. If you care about improving democracy, then not so much.
Yes, but the larger the number of people they preside over, the less power over their society each of those people has. Their vote becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the total in an election as the population rises. This effect can be mitigated somewhat by having more seats in a parliament but then each seat has less influence when they vote also. In the case of the EU, the effect is magnified because citizens of any one member state can only elect a small number of MEPs and citizens cannot vote for European presidents, so the people have very little control over any legislation that may get imposed upon their state. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:25PM (3 children)
True. Which is why we have national governments, regional governments, municipal governments, etc.
More to the point, what's your alternative method of making things work well enough that the national governments and their citizens more-or-less get along? We've tried what amounts to anarchy, where each nation answers to none of the others in a constantly shifting set of alliances, treaties, etc and the end result of that was a couple of worldwide wars. We've tried what amounted to near-monarchy over the whole of Europe (the monarch being that Buonaparte upstart), and that was another big mess that got a lot of people killed. We've tried a theocratic feudal structure where the Pope more-or-less functioned as an overlord of the various rival kings and the end result of that was the Protestant Reformation and a lot of people killed.
I'll take a trans-national government in charge of the approximately 525 million European citizens and at least somewhat answerable to those citizens over any of those options any day of the week. I'm sure there will be grumbling and complaining about that government's decisions, because there's grumbling and complaining about every government's decisions, but I'd much rather that than see another Battle of Verdun. Like all democracies, as Winston Churchill put it, it's the worst form of government, except for all the others.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:49PM (2 children)
The problem is overreach. Your goal of preventing wars is an important one and it would be great if the EU was only involved in actions that were strictly necessary to achieve that aim. It's probably impossible to identify exactly what is and is not necessary for that. Ideally organizations like the UN and NATO should be responsible for that but maybe that's a case of too much stick and not enough carrot?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:58PM (1 child)
So take the freedom of movement issue: Is it strictly necessary to prevent wars? No. But it sure is extremely convenient for EU citizens who want to be able to travel around, take on new job opportunities in another country, do business, date somebody across national borders (this doesn't even have to be a long-distance thing: there are cities in Belgium less than 30 minutes from cities in the Netherlands, for instance), or otherwise interact with other Europeans. And while it's not strictly necessary to prevent wars, it does help, because it's hard to believe nationalistic propaganda about another country when you were just there a few months ago and it's nothing like what some power-hungry maniac said.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:53PM
Do not be so sure. When the subjects have the option of just getting up and walking away from a local crazy-in-chief, converting them into cannon fodder is MUCH harder than when conveniently trapped within national borders.