
Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament - johnny313
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/world/europe/brexit-vote-theresa-may.html
======
yholio
The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you
cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the
reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would
want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are
favorable to them, leading the EU to implode.

Somebody needs to own up to that lie and accept that a "no deal" outcome,
which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver.
Instead, they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal that keeps
Britain shackled to the EU for a number of years while losing all of the
(substantial) influence it had over the way EU works. That's an anti-Brexit,
the exact opposite of the independence and prosperity promised by brexiters.
It was a bad deal and it's good that it failed.

~~~
justaguyhere
This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute
before voting. At least _try_ to understand what you're voting on. We can
blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't
deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election -
voters need to take at least some responsibility. No amount of "voters'
remorse" is going to help now.

~~~
dTal
I can deny it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum)

Of particular interest is where the massive pile of cash that funded the Leave
campaign actually came from.

~~~
asabjorn
It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by
Russia, and any opponent of the progressivism pushing for this is obviously an
racist/sexist/bigot.

It is interesting how all the yellow jackets, the maga folks, and the
brexiters are all brutes easily influenced by nepharious forces against their
own good. Especially when others manipulate their sometimes violent primitive
tendencies.

It is interesting that all opposition to the predominant narrative really
should be better informed, and listen to the ones that know better.

~~~
mirimir
You're arguing against a strawman.

So do you think that nations don't intervene covertly in other nations? What
about the US in Iran (1953) or Chile (60s)? And so why is it so improbable
that Russia is doing it?

And recall the study by Prof. Igor Panarin (former KGB analyst) predicting
that the US will fragment. Maybe it's more like a game plan.

~~~
asabjorn
I am just observing. It’s very impressive for Russia to be the essential force
behind all major opposition movements that apparently are not rooted in
legitimate concerns.

~~~
tomlock
It isn't so impressive or surprising if you observe that a KGB man is in
charge of Russia and the three letter agencies in America tasked with
countering him have been tied up with other tasks since the the eleventh of
september 2001 for some reason.

~~~
mirimir
And not just a "KGB man". Much of Putin's family died in the siege of
Leningrad. And, as his key assistant, he watched Yeltsin sink into alcoholism
and depression, as the Soviet Union fell apart, and Russia was humiliated.

So he's recreated the KGB.[0]

0) [https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/21/putin-has-finally-
reinc...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/21/putin-has-finally-reincarnated-
the-kgb-mgb-fsb-russia/)

Edit: That is, I think that it's personal, for him. A matter of honor.

~~~
mirimir
Also, see this for context: [https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-s-a-solid-man-
declassified-mem...](https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-s-a-solid-man-declassified-
memos-offer-window-into-yeltsin-clinton-relationship/29462317.html)

------
rtkwe
The issue with the referendum since the beginning was leave was such a
nebulous cloud for the entire range of Brexit from barely-there-Brexit to
Britian-stands-alone(-get-those-people-out)-Brexit while remain had a very
definite meaning. Because of that everyone could pour all their displeasure at
anything wrong into leave and think the deal would take care of it. That's why
I'm always annoyed at the 'another referendum would tarnish democracy' line,
it wouldn't be another nebulous question it would be a direct vote on an
actual deal giving people the chance to make an actual choice on the future of
the UK.

> Instead, they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal that
> keeps Britain shackled to the EU for a number of years while losing any say
> it had over the way EU works.

I don't think Brexit as it was formulated was ever possible if the EU was
wanting to be extremely generous because one of the main gripes was all the
regulations on products coming from the EU parliament. Ultimately if the UK
was going to have access to the EU market at all pretty much all of those
regulations would still apply because to sell into that market they'd have to
comply with the regulations of the EU market!

~~~
growlist
Edit: I got a bit carried away.

~~~
andybak
> all calls for a second referendum would be treated with utter contempt

Yes but it's symmetrical.

If result A then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side B

If result B then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side A

So no conclusion can be drawn by the fact that people are partisan. The
question of whether a second referendum is a good idea is independent of the
result of the first referendum.

~~~
sievebrain
Let's phrase it like this.

There would be nobody in parliament or government talking about a second
referendum if remain had won. In fact it'd have been taken as a mandate to
immediately pass more powers to Brussels, see the PESCO.

~~~
tim333
Dunno. BBC from 2016:

> The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview
> with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be
> unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to
> one-third that ends it."

~~~
sievebrain
Farage isn't an MP and parliament is dominated by remainers loyal to Labour or
the Tories. You make my point for me.

------
SolaceQuantum
I'll be the first to admit: I'm an American. I fundamentally do not understand
Brexit.

I understand the following timeline:

1\. A largely disseminated, nation-wide vote occurs, bolstered by nationalist
sentiment, that the EU is bad for the UK. This vote results in a conclusion
that UK should leave the EU.

2\. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not
desiring to leave the EU, but not voting as such individually. Some portions
of the UK, itself a Union, are strongly aganst this voting result.

3\. May, a woman of great importance in the UK government, chooses to try and
make a deal with the EU for favorable leaving conditions for UK.

4\. Nothing May is presenting is considered acceptable by anyone.

On its face, this makes no sense to me. Why is May being held responsible for
this? Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not
supporting May? What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid
and that the UK gov't is not going to do it?

EDIT: Thank you all for your excellent responses. I'm now under the impression
this is like when a significant portion of a dev team with (actual,
hypotehtical) equal or flat hierarchy believe that code needs to be refactored
to a serious degree, but no majority of devs can decide on what the refactored
code will look like. (Extremely simplified!). If this is largely incorrect
please let me know.

~~~
RafiqM
> _What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the
> UK gov 't is not going to do it_

Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the
people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU.

With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good:

1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous)

2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad while also not
really exiting)

3) Declare it a bad idea and just don't do it (political suicide for everyone
involved & creates distrust in democratic process)

4) Hold another referendum where it's going to have to be a decision between
staying in or exiting with no deal (also political suicide & creates
distrust).

There's no way for anyone to win here. I think the best option is for the PM
to "take one for the team" (i.e. the country) and take option 3/4, knowing
that it will be the end of her and her party.

~~~
tim333
I don't get how going back to the people is political suicide and creates
distrust. I mean the first question was do you want to leave and the vote was
yes. The second would be that now we know the facts were not entirely as
advertised do you still want to go ahead? Not sure how that is betrayal,
political suicide and the like - it seems fairly fair and sensible.

~~~
RafiqM
Think about practically any political issue, in the US or elsewhere. "Fair"
and "sensible" are rarely anywhere near the primary considerations, are they?

I do think what you suggest would be fair and sensible. I do not believe the
voters will see it so reasonably.

I'm from Ireland, where we had something similar happen. People still talk
about how the govt will just hold multiple referendums till they get the
answer they want on an issue. This is in reference to referendums that
happened 10 and 20 years ago. It doesn't matter that these decisions have
proven positive for the country - there's still resentment and bitterness, and
this was an issue with far less emotional weight than brexit.

~~~
rusk
I remember these referendums and in at least one case there was no explanation
of the the referendum was the first time around. We were just expected to
rubber stamp it. Also on one or other of them concessions were gained on the
second time round. So it wasn’t just like the _”keep voting til you get the
right result”_ thing that you hear people spouting ... does anyone actually
believe we’re that soft?

~~~
RafiqM
Well that's what I'm saying - this is what you hear people spouting, it
doesn't matter that there were good reasons for everything, you just have the
distrust of the democratic process left at the end of the day.

~~~
rusk
Distrust not without good reason I’d say!

------
pseudolus
One of the effects of Brexit that is overlooked by people outside of the UK is
the effect that it will have on the Union itself. In 2014 during the Scottish
independence referendum those favouring remaining in the UK prevailed by about
11%. One of the strongest arguments made by those who favoured remaining was
that an independent Scotland would not accede to the EU automatically,
according to the EU itself, but would have to apply as a new member (in part
the fear was that other regions of Europe such as Catalonia would follow
Scotland's example). Now in 2019 the Scots who favoured remaining in the UK so
as to maintain EU membership are being told they'll have a hard exit. If
there's a replay of the 2014 referendum in the future there's no assurance
that Scots will choose to remain, with Brexit increasing the possibility of a
disintegration of the Union with only England, Wales and Northern Ireland
remaining. Over the horizon it's even possible that Northern Ireland (given
the appropriate demographic changes) will peel off and join up with the Irish
Republic.

~~~
solidsnack9000
By _Union_ what is meant here is, the United Kingdom?

~~~
pseudolus
Yes, the union of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom: England,
Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The union between England and Wales
dates back to 1536, Scotland became part of the Union in 1707 (Scotland,
England and Wales comprising Great Britain), and Northern Ireland (1922).
There was a union with all 32 counties of Ireland in 1801.

------
simonbarker87
I voted remain but I spend a lot of time with group of people who voted leave.
Some of them have realised the leave campaigners basically had no evidence to
back up their claims and so feel lied to but, sadly, the others are just angry
- and I mean really angry.

They want out at all costs because the “EU is telling us what to do”. Revoking
article 50 would be a bad idea for civil stability but going through with it
seems to me, to be economic suicide (ask any small business owner or retailer
how it’s going at the moment and they’d say the process has already started).
A bad deal (like this) really did seem the best of an awful situation to me -
it reflected the vote, 48/52\. Half the country (probably more since a million
or so people have now become old enough to vote who couldnt before) didn’t
want to do this so perhaps it should be an awkward compromise that gives both
sides a bit of what they want.

~~~
itissid
> the others are just angry - and I mean really angry.

Out of curiosity, how has "EU is telling us what to do" affected these people
to make them so angry?

~~~
PaulRobinson
This is a complicated topic, but a short and overly basic version:

There are many people in the UK - as in the US, as in most of the West,
actually - for whom neoliberalism has not been kind.

They see immigrants getting jobs and struggle to make ends meet and have been
told via various right wing media outlets (in the UK, principally the Daily
Mail, Daily Express, Sun, Telegraph and Times newspapers), that there are two
causes: uncontrolled freedom of movement in Europe and the political classes
that are taking their marching orders from an unelected European Commission.

This view misses out important details. Firstly, it's not accurate in the
slightest. It also doesn't reflect the fact the sort of people who are the
root cause are the rich globalists who don't pay tax, such as people who own
the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Sun, Telegraph and Times newspapers, for
example.

However, the view has been built up over entire lifetimes. There are
sprinklings of truth about sovereignty (akin to the fact that States have
limited powers in the US), inefficiencies in how the European Union does its
business (c.f. the Strasbourg/Brussels move and split), and so on.

However the UK gets far more economic benefit than it spends, and the poorest
of communities like South Wales have had far more spent on it in targeted
social programmes by the EU than has ever been spent by Westminster.

Let me give you a direct example: Lincolnshire is a farming community that had
seen declining populations for decades. A large number of farming labour jobs
have been filled by people from Europe - particularly Eastern Europe - because
they are prepared to do work locals are not, at a price that locals will not
consider.

Lincolnshire is a hard Leave area. Boston is IIRC the highest Leave vote in
the country. When you ask there people why, one of their favourite anecdotes
is the strain the Europeans put on local services.

They sit in an A&E unit waiting hours to be seen, and are surrounded by
Eastern Europeans. They think "all these people here are the reason my waiting
time is so long, they're using services I pay for! If we got rid of them, I'd
have been seen by now!"

The context they are missing is that multiple A&E units in that county were
slated for closure. The reason they remain open is because of high demand -
from Eastern Europeans.

If we block freedom of movement, they would not be seen quicker. The unit
would not exist. It would be closed. But that's not how they see it.

The real culprit as to why waiting times are so high is not because of the
Eastern Europeans waiting with them, but because the government has cut
funding, because tax receipts are lower than they could be, because certain
rich businessmen have lobbied for tax breaks and then told the editors of the
papers they own to blame the foreigners...

So there is a huge amount of anger built out of lies and misdirection that
will take generations to undo. And they are so convinced of these lies, they
are prepared to cause chaos. One of them before the last referendum murdered
an MP (a woman called Jo Cox), and that will be but the first of many.

~~~
djmobley
As you say, it's a complicated topic.

> However the UK gets far more economic benefit than it spends, and the
> poorest of communities like South Wales have had far more spent on it in
> targeted social programmes by the EU than has ever been spent by
> Westminster.

The UK contributes more to the EU budget than it receives back. Ceteris
paribus, the UK could fund all the same programmes, and have huge buckets of
cash left over.

> A large number of farming labour jobs have been filled by people from Europe
> - particularly Eastern Europe - because they are prepared to do work locals
> are not, at a price that locals will not consider.

If locals don't want to do the work for the going rate, and there aren't
foreign nationals willing to undercut them, the going rate will rise.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Or the jobs will disappear.

------
hanoz
The deal was the worst of all worlds and deliberately designed to fail. The
whole project since the referendum has been to work towards the palatable
introduction of a second referendum whilst spending the intervening time
demonstrating the impossibility of a good deal and the awfulness of no deal.

We will now proceed to run down the clock towards the no deal 'cliff edge' and
as the precipice looms go to the EU asking for an extension. The EU will say
you can only have an extension for a second referendum, which we will hold and
remain will win.

~~~
ganeshkrishnan
Absolutely this. The day brexit was being voted, I said I would eat my socks
if brexit goes thru. The voters did vote for "leave" and my colleagues were
wondering if I would really eat my socks. However, I told them this would
never get passed thru the parliament. They will dilly dally, drag it along and
dump it in the end saying it's too complicated.

To solve any equation, just follow the money. Big business stand to lose a lot
of money; therefore brexit won't happen.

~~~
ohtwenty
Big money is already losing some money, AFAIK. I'm in Amsterdam and there's
news every other week of a big company or organization moving to Amsterdam
_already_, just in case brexit goes through.

------
rdm_blackhole
I guess one thing that many people are missing is why the "leave" vote won in
the first place.

If Europe is so great why did some people had the desire to leave it?

Surely they were not all brainwashed or lobotomized?

The EU is now trying to make the UK pay an extraordinary price in order to
warn the other countries that leaving the EU is not a choice to be taken
lightly.

This kind of technique is known as bullying and that's as simple as it gets.

If the EU leaders were smart they would have used this opportunity to try to
reform the EU and make it into what they promised their citizens.

There was a time when politicians said that the EU was going to bring
prosperity, safety and so on and so forth?

Where are all those promises now?

The EU has had low economic growth for the last 15 years, high unemployment,
flooded by migrants, non-stop terrorist attack, an ever smaller middle class,
and ever-increasing taxes that are used to pay the salaries of technocrats
like Juncker who was one of the guys who organized fiscal evasion on a scale
never imagined.

Who is this guy by the way? He is not even fucking elected yet somehow he
represents Europe?

Europe is not the democratic utopia that was sold to the people.

It certainly has not delivered on its promises and now it faces a backlash
from its citizens.

I hope Brexit happens because if it succeeds it will show that another way is
possible.

European technocrats can eat my shorts!

~~~
madaxe_again
Flooded by migrants, eh? Did they come in a wave? A tsunami? Did their little
beady rat-like eyes and their smell offend you?

Dress it up all you like, but you’ve just broadcast “I’m a xenophobe” loud and
proud.

~~~
marliechiller
thats quite a stance. Like it or not, there is a huge influx of migrants into
the EU. Acknowledging this does not make one a xenophobe and labelling someone
with that opinion causes all sorts of divisions and further issues. In fact,
your rhetoric is actually one of the main drivers spurring vote leave. People
with valid opinions being labelled as racist only further entrenches their
beliefs that they are not being listened to

~~~
madaxe_again
So, what’s your objection to migrants then? Is it the fallacy that they take
jobs by having a strong work ethic, or is it the fallacy that they sponge off
the state because they’re lazy? Or is it just because they’re different?

------
PaulRobinson
Here's what happens next:

\- A motion of no confidence has been tabled and will be debated and voted on
tomorrow

\- If the motion carries (i.e. the Government loses):

1\. Theresa May must resign as Prime Minister

2\. There can be a 14 day window in which a new government is formed, which
must be approved by a motion of confidence. This is likely to be waived

3\. There will be a general election. Theresa May will remain leader of the
Tories. The Tories will lose

4\. Corbyn will then seek a deal that retains customs union. This is likely to
take time, so he will likely seek a delay from Parliament on Article 50 for
such a deal to be agreed

5\. We leave with a customs union probably in Autumn of 2019

\- Most Tories know this, so will support the PM in a vote of no confidence,
and the Government may win it. In that scenario:

1\. Theresa May stays Prime Minister

2\. She will go back to the EU and demand a new deal, likely with a hard time
limit on the NI backstop, the main issue that caused tonight's defeat

3\. At the same time, she will ask "senior Parliamentarians" what they would
need if that were not possible

4\. The only thing that will carry a vote in Parliament right now other than a
customs union deal (which she has personally refused to engage with), is a
second referendum

5\. If the backstop isn't removed, it's therefore quite likely Article 50 is
rescinded and a new referendum happens this Summer. It's likely such a
referendum will have two questions: Do you wish to leave or remain?; and, in
the event of a vote towards leave, would you accept the backstop or would you
prefer "No Deal".

6\. This will either result in a Remain vote and possibly a civil war (no,
seriously), or a Leave vote that risks breaking up the UK with the NI needing
to align with the Republic and, so, a civil war but contained to NI, or a
Leave deal with support for "No Deal" and a default position of WTO rules

All outcomes have downsides. There is no winning here, and there is no
situation in which we get to revoke Article 50 and the UK remains in the EU
and all is well. It will leave 17m people in an absolute rage, and they have
already murdered one MP. It'll get worse.

~~~
mattlondon
17m people might be in a rage, but the other 16m are equally in a rage, but
I've not seen any civil war here yet. With respect, I think you are grossly
over-reacting by mentioning civil war.

If it goes to a second referendum and remain win, then that is the "will of
the people", not politicians/Westminster elite/EU telling people how to live
their lives, it's the fellow man and woman on the street making the decisions
just like it was the first time.

Resorting to violence is extremely unlikely. There are always nutbags around
but I can't see this turning into anything more.

...and if it did I would remind those considering violence that the vast
majority of the remain vote were young and healthy adults, while the leave
vote was predominantly from those aged over 54 (1). Every year more and more
leavers die, yet the remain ranks just get stronger and stronger as more kids
turn 16. No amount of rose-tinted blitz spirit is going to help with those
gammy-knees, dicky-tickers, and bad-backs if it comes to the rough stuff.

1 - [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-36616028](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028)

~~~
growlist
Ageism: one of the few remaining socially acceptable types of hate!

~~~
mattlondon
Not ageism - the facts are older people were more likely to have voted for
Brexit.

As for how effective a 18 year old Vs a 65 year old would be (all other things
being equal) in a fight I guess could be considered ageist, and for that I
apologise.

------
chasing
"The people have voted to shoot themselves in the foot. Parliament rejects
proposal to shoot themselves in the right foot, but proposal to shoot
themselves in the left foot also seems destined for failure."

~~~
chasing
"If Parliament is unable to decide which foot should be shot, then the default
option of shooting themselves in the head will be enacted."

------
cryptonector
Article 50 exists. The UK can leave on WTO terms and the EU cannot stop it.
The EU has some incentives (money) to give the UK some other deal than WTO
terms, and it has some incentives (avoiding a rush to the exits) to give the
UK nothing more than WTO terms. As it happens the UK is wealthier than other
EU countries that might head for the exits if they thought they could get as
good a deal as the UK, but no one thinks that Poland can get the same terms as
the UK, so fear of a rush to exit is not a reason to give the UK nothing. It's
not at all clear that May tried to get a better deal than the one she
presented to Parliament -- the brexiteers in her previous cabinet were
sidelined and ignored, and no attempt was made to make clear that the EU would
not yield (if that was the problem).

~~~
notahacker
Anybody that has made even the slightest attempt to follow events knows that
May tried alternative attempts to get a deal (including a framework signed off
by all the Brexiters in her Cabinet) and the EU repeatedly rejected them.

Anybody that has a solid grasp of the facts knows that the issue is not that
the EU "offered the UK nothing" but that the Irish government will veto any
agreement which implies the creation of a customs border between Northern
Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and May's critics are equally adamant
that the UK, including NI, must have a different customs regime from the ROI.
It's not an issue of give and take, it's a matter of mutually incompatible red
lines.

~~~
tim333
If May wasn't in a coalition with the DUP then N Ireland could have remained
in customs union with the EU as it is now and the mainland could have gone
Canada+. Not really happening at the moment though.

~~~
notahacker
Agree that the issue would have had a lot less salience if the government and
media were largely free to ignore the DUP and Northern Ireland in general,
though I imagine those ERG Brexiters who seem to want to find any excuse not
to have a deal could have still made it a sticking point. And tbf, the
unionists probably have as legitimate a point that a separate customs regime
violates their idea of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement as the
republicans, though a customs border at [air]ports is obviously less
disruptive than one between socially and economically integrated regions on
the Irish mainland.

~~~
tim333
I had a look at wikipedia on the Good Friday Agreement and it doesn't seem to
say much about trade and customs. Already NI has some different laws to the
mainland (gay marriage) and some trade restrictions (cattle). If brexit just
"violates their idea of the spirit of"... then I think we can maybe live with
that.

------
blowski
It feels like the country is roughly divided into 3 equal bits:

* Leave EU quickly, at any cost

* Don’t really mind either way, as long as economy is stable

* Stay in EU

The one in the middle doesn’t trust either of the others. So nobody can get a
majority, whether we have another referendum or a general election. So this
shitstorm will just go on and on.

~~~
crooked-v
Of course, the only way to get the "economy is stable" result in the short
term is to stay in the EU, or to make a deal that's effectively "stay in the
EU, but also lose all political power in the EU".

~~~
growlist
Or, the EU starts thinking pragmatically and offers a proper deal.

~~~
crooked-v
The shitty deal _is_ pragmatic for the EU, as it makes it obvious to all the
countries involved that they can't get the benefits of the EU without being
part of (and paying money into the governance of) the EU.

~~~
growlist
Clearly it wasn't that smart as it raises the chance of no deal, which would
hurt the EU more than the UK. Barnier was certainly looking a bit frazzled
today! Theresa May's mistake was to think she could negotiate with the EU in a
civilised manner, when the only thing it understands is brutality.

------
hacker_9
To be honest this is just a repeat of two years ago, apart from now it's May
not getting her way instead of Cameron. The whole thing is such a colossal
failure that they need to just to give up and stop acting like this is the
'will of the people' \- as if people don't change their mind when presented
with the facts or something.

~~~
DanBC
"Tea?"

"OK, go on."

"There's no kettle so I'm burning the house down to heat water."

"Now wait a…"

"Shut up, I've a clear mandate for tea."

[https://twitter.com/LouiseJJohnson/status/829617043582369792](https://twitter.com/LouiseJJohnson/status/829617043582369792)

~~~
mattmanser
There's elsewhere in the thread where people discuss knowing Leave voters and
just how strongly they feel about it. Some comments are even talking about
civil war on the mainland if we back out of it.

I feel the British media have gone back to hiding significant swathes of the
UK from being shown on screen or print/online, so us more liberal types are
deluding ourselves that there's some sort of consensus about a 2nd referendum.

I still remember sitting there the day after the referendum and thinking
"these people on TV are like they're from my home town. I've never seen people
like this on TV before".

I haven't seen them again.

~~~
dijit
It’s almost comical (if it wasn’t so pathetically sad) how divided and
polarised the country is.

My mother and her entire extended friend circles are aggressively pro-leave,
even tofting sound-bites at me.

A little further south/east (mum lives in Coventry) in Kettering my friend is
pro-leave, but not aggressively so, his soon-to-be wife is remain, but they
tout their points and agree to disagree. Further south in London people are so
pro-remain it’s unfathomable that anyone would leave, if you want to leave
then you’re probably very stupid.

I’m pro-remain (although I started as pro-leave before I tried to look into
arguments to support me and found - very clearly - that I was wrong) but the
country is so passionately divided that I can’t help but think that there
really is going to be some kind of rioting in the near future.

~~~
woodpanel
But only if Brexit isn’t being done, right?

Not living in the UK, but I would guess that as stupid as Remainers might
think Brexit is and Brexiters are, it‘s a whole other ballgame to assume that
because they are stupid you are entitled to nullify a vote.

And because of that, even though a lot in the EU are rooting for it, I doubt a
second referendum is going to take place.

Even die-hard remainers would ask themselves: Is being part of the EU, is
being ecomically better off (or at least more stable in the near-term) worth
to taint our democracy (or as you point out even go to riots and worse)?

~~~
pjc50
Let them riot. Then we'll see how many of the alleged people actually exist.

(There are not going to be pro Brexit riots outside the existing far right EDL
and other small groups.)

~~~
mattmanser
The irony that you're replying to my original premise that "these people are
deliberately ignored to make it seem like they don't exist" is not lost on me.

Do you really think that 52% of the UK is just alleged to exist?

~~~
pjc50
52% of the population voted for some ill specified leave two years ago. Only a
very tiny fraction of that will riot if they now don't get it.

I agree that far too much of the UK is marginalized, but Brexit is not going
to un-marginalize them!

------
altairiumblue
The best position on Brexit that I've heard coming out of a British
politician. Well worth the listen.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XEj64IFzQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XEj64IFzQ8)

~~~
794CD01
It's easy to make nice-sounding speeches when you're not accountable for
delivering any results.

------
duxup
Are there British politicians brave enough and capable of becoming PM ... and
willing to say "This is a bad idea and I won't do it?"

~~~
notahacker
No

~~~
AnimalMuppet
However, there _might_ be a British politician brave enough to say "This is a
bad idea, let's not do it", who, _on the basis of saying that_ , might some
time later become PM. They won't become PM this year, though.

~~~
duxup
It seems like things almost have to hit rock bottom before the locals realize
that this deal is not going to be having cake and eating it too.

Hopefully after it finally hits that point the EU is smart enough to throw
them a bone or two on a "deal" that makes it look like they got something form
the EU... but still way short of total chaos.

------
dv_dt
At this point a no deal Brexit looks substantially different from the
possible-Brexit that was voted upon. Shouldn't there be a new referendum of
basically a new question of a no deal Brexit vs Remain? I know very little of
British politics, is there some other dynamic at work that pushes to what
seems like a strongly economically destructive no deal Brexit?

~~~
hardlianotion
I can never understand why no-deal v remain appears to be a reasonable
position. A normal response to a closely contested referendum carried out the
way this one was would be to find some consensus within parliament for how
brexit could be delivered, _then_ enact article 50 to withdraw.

The current prime minister not only kept all opposition parties away from
deliberations on how to proceed, but kept her own ministers in the dark while
formulating her own policy, which she pursued largely in secret.

So why should the electorate be cheated in this manner? Even now, forms of
brexit based on remaining in the EEA have a great chance of having
parliamentary support.

~~~
dv_dt
> Even now, forms of brexit based on remaining in the EEA have a great chance
> of having parliamentary support.

But that's not the deal with the EU and there is no time left to negotiate
this I thought. Can you perhaps explain more?

Is it that you think May actually cheated the electorate that wanted Brexit? I
though she was essentially on the side of Brexit?

~~~
lozenge
"Our UK friends need to say what they want, instead of asking us to say what
we want, and so we would like within a few weeks our UK friends to set out
their expectations for us, because this debate is sometimes nebulous and
imprecise and I would like clarifications," \- 14 December

If the UK will offer something new, such as staying in the single market, then
the EU is willing to reopen negotiations, extend article 50 etc. If the UK
just says "this isn't good, we want something better" \- then the EU won't
renegotiate.

She voted Remain, and decided that implementing Leave was the only way to be
Prime Minister and it was worth it. Also, she has such a thin majority, the
Brexiters will topple her unless she toes to their line (restricting
immigration, avoiding ECJ etc).

~~~
hardlianotion
This thinking is narrow. There is a parliamentary majority, and a majority
within her own party, for an EEA-style solution.

~~~
dragonwriter
> There is a parliamentary majority, and a majority within her own party, for
> an EEA-style solution.

But is there unanimous support among the remaining EU members? Because, I
mean, every single UK politician (or citizen) could agree on an EEA-style
solution, and it still wouldn't be a real option without that required support
in the EU.

~~~
hardlianotion
The problem is the possible need for an extension, and it is late. I believe
that this would be given the time it needs. Nobody wants a crisis and even
now, the UK is not an international pariah.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Nobody wants a crisis

“Nobody wants a crisis” is a far cry from “everyone supports this as a
mitigation of the otherwise pending crisis”.

~~~
hardlianotion
I understand that. Nevertheless, I believe this is the likely outcome.

------
anigbrowl
Perhaps now there will be a reckoning with the blatant illegality (in addition
to the ordinary level of rampant political dishonesty) of the Leave campaign.
A pragmatic recognition that the UK cannot haul anchor and sail off to some
other latitude would not hurt either.

------
usgroup
Ahhhh fudge ...

People’s vote ... it might just happen.

May now has to chat with the opposition, understand what it’d take to vote yes
, take that to Europe, bring back a compromise ... vote again, get that
accepted.

People’s vote is starting to look like the more likely outcome... had she lost
by say 50 or 100 votes ... ok but 432 vs 202 ?! 230 votes to claw back somehow
.

~~~
hacker_9
I wonder what it's like being her sometimes, where you have, and will continue
to fail at everything you do for years on end, in the most public and
embarrassing way possible. I can't quite figure out if she is driven by just
really wanting brexit, or it's just a power grab.

~~~
Sharlin
I don't understand her endgame either. Or how she can handle the stress. Her
predecessor basically ordered the biggest bowl of shit [1] in the recent
history and then bailed out. Now May's job is to eat it all. Masochistic.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzqO6UOPFQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzqO6UOPFQ)

------
pkaye
Don't fully understand UK government structure but is it possible for the
labor party to take over leadership and revoke article 50 before the deadline?

~~~
tunesmith
Isn't the labor party also against revoking article 50? Corbyn at least? I
thought it was only the liberal party that has been consistent in arguing for
revoking it.

~~~
SiempreViernes
brexit did win a referendum, which is probably the main reason labor has been
cautious, but Corbyn himself isn’t a great fan of the EU, that’s true.

~~~
blibble
> Corbyn himself isn’t a great fan of the EU

this is somewhat of an understatement

he voted against its creation, and against every single transfer of power to
it

prior to being elected Labour leader he would denounce it at every possible
opportunity (alongside his mentor Tony Benn)

------
csense
The best thing for Britain would be to just give up, accept that there will be
no deal, and spend the remaining time making as many preparations as possible,
and piecemeal deals on smaller subjects.

~~~
thebokehwokeh2
or a second referendum.

------
Animats
There's not much time left. Brexit happens March 29th. The EU countries are
hiring more customs inspectors. Shippers are planning new shipping routes to
avoid transit through the UK. The UK's financial services sector takes a huge
hit. UK financial services have already moved US$1 trillion in assets out of
the UK, and that's picking up as the deadline approaches.

The City of London will be much less important soon.

~~~
cm2187
The city is actually unlikely to be affected significantly. Large banks
already have subsidiaries in the EU or are in the process of setting them up.
They will move a limited number of people (as few as they can get away with).
A lot of the 1 trillion number will be back-to-back to the UK.

The impact on trading goods I think will also be limited. Past the initial
logistical disruption, EU tariffs aren't massive outside of a few products,
and this is nothing that cannot be offset with a weaker pound.

I think where a hard Brexit will hurt the most is small service companies,
which aren't large enough to have operations within the EU, and which won't be
able to cover the EU from the UK.

------
xoa
The New York Times also had an article yesterday [1] looking at some of the
regular pro-Brexit people who just plain do not believe any warnings about no-
deal. One quote though really jumped out at me since it was related to one of
the earliest projects I ever did, working on a small bit of the Y2K problem,
and I think it really serves as an example of a fundamental difficulty when
dealing with public facing threats:

> _Mr. Ridley compared the anticipation mounting before the Brexit deadline to
> the run-up to forestall the Millennium Bug, also known as Y2K, in which
> companies worldwide scrambled to avert technical breakdowns when digital
> systems switched from 1999 to 2000._

> _“It’ll be like Y2K,” he said. “Remember that one? They were like panic,
> panic, panic, the world’s going to end, the electric grid’s going to go
> down,” Mr. Ridley said. “None of it is going to happen.”_

I knew that this was the impression left with the general public after that,
but it's really unfortunate because in my recollection Y2K is quite possibly
one of the most unified, successful responses to a serious tech problem our
industry has ever managed to pull off. Yeah, it didn't amount to much... after
hundreds of thousands to millions of man YEARS of work. I know people who had
gone full time digging through ancient code bases back by 1998 or so, wouldn't
be surprised if some had started in 97. Initial issues began bubbling up well
before 00 after all, stuff like credit card expiration dates that were a few
years in the future. Enormous amounts of resources were sunk into working on
it, sometimes for clean fixes and sometimes for hacks [2], and overall it
worked. But of course then we ended up with "well what was the point of all
the hype or effort, everything was fine!" and the public taking literally the
opposite lesson.

I can't remember if there is a technical term for this class of problem
(beyond "life in ops"), where it's like air, the general "success" state is
"nobody even thinks about it most of the time" but the failure state is
catastrophic. It's an issue with security too of course. Ops and security are
non-revenue generating, but their absence can certainly be revenue destroying.
It's hard to get budget support there.

It seems like a really hard problem, particularly when future testing isn't
available and results are irreversible.

\----

1: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/world/europe/no-deal-
brex...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/world/europe/no-deal-brexit-
britain-uk.html)

2: Old systems are still in service that are still using 2-digit dates, but
just were patches so that 00 to 30 were assumed to be 2000s while >30 were
1900s, so there is actually still lurking remnants of Y2K that will come up
again if not dealt with by 2030 or so. And of course there is the 32-bit unix
time issue for 2038, examples of which have also cropped up a few times
already too.

~~~
tomp
The more proximal cause of "not believing warnings about no-deal" is that
there were very similar warnings for the Brexit vote itself, and approximately
none of them came true.

Personally, I just can't see any big issues. Obviously UK's not going to ban
the workers it needs or the imports it needs. Obviously other countries will
still want to sell to a rich country like the UK. Sure, there might be a year
or two of worse economic prospects as businesses and laws adjust, but really
it's the long-term prospects that matter; and maybe it's better that UK
unshackles itself to the EU which doesn't seem capable of thinking long-term
and solving it's most pressing problems (democracy deficit, current account
imbalances, immigration)...

------
mstade
I’ve heard a lot of people make the point that it’d be political suicide if
the government declares brexit a bad idea and then backtracks, ignoring the
referendum and thus remain in the EU after all, that it’d feed into the hand
of the nationalists – but I’ve got hard time understanding why? Doesn’t this
assume that people are just dumb? That hey believe the government has been
sitting on their hands in trying to get a deal done, and not really, I mean
really tried?

Isn’t there an argument to be made that they did try, and here are the
results, and because of that they’ve concluded that it’s a bad idea? Is it
really so hard to believe that a majority of the UK voters wouldn’t accept
this, when it was such a contested referendum result in the first place?

Especially so when the referendum question was only discussing leaving the EU,
rather than promising any particular outcomes?

I’m having a hard time believing that a majority of people in the UK are so
entrenched that they can’t possibly change their minds given the light of new
facts, hat everyone will turn to nationalistic agendas, and that the
referendum result of two and a half years ago is still a valid gauge of
popular sentiment.

~~~
cryptonector
The electoral map of the UK is more hard-brexit than the popular vote. There
are many seats where brexit won 60+% or even 70+%. That means that there are a
lot of MPs who, though they may wish to Remain, also wish to remain as _MPs_,
and that means they cannot be overtly Remain.

~~~
mstade
_Is_ more or _was_ more? The referendum was two and a half years ago and
people now have more information at hand, which is my point – why is reneging
on brexit automatically political suicide? Because it's not what the people
want? Maybe it is today, given what we now know? Would love to see some data
sources, if you have any links?

~~~
cryptonector
Except for a few, most Remainer tories in brexit districts aren't coming out
in favor of a second referendum or abandoning brexit without even a second
vote. That tells you what you need to know about what they think of popular
opinion in their districts. Same for Remainer labour MPs in brexit districts.

~~~
mstade
Do you have sources for this?

------
twblalock
The problem with referendums is you can't have just one.

The losers will always want another referendum, and they will always be able
to point out problems with the previous one and/or argue that significant
things have changed since it was held. The results of the previous referendum
will never seem legitimate unless it was passed by an overwhelming majority of
voters.

Just don't have referendums. They open a wound that will never heal.

------
tunesmith
The whole thing seems like a slow motion train wreck, except with the
potentially and arguably happy outcome of them remaining in the EU.

~~~
Someone1234
Just to be clear, article 50 hasn't been revoked, the UK will still leave the
EU with no deal on March 30th.

This vote is very damaging to the government's position, but as it stands
there's been no move, assurance, or guarantees, to stop article 50.

If article 50 is activated it starts a two year countdown as the UK slowly
moves out of the EU.

Even if the government loses the no confidence vote, there's still no implied
action on article 50.

~~~
tunesmith
What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote
can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on,
and the public has become more educated as to what the true effects of Brexit
will be. Even leaving aside the question of how dishonest the pro-Brexit
arguments were. It just seems reasonable to have another vote.

~~~
severino
And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold
a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the
last one was not the genuine one.

~~~
aurailious
Replace "should" with "could" and you'd be right. Each vote would be genuine
if its conudcted according to law.

~~~
sparkie
If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the
point of voting then?

Kids learn at an early age that when you lose, you lose. They usually grow out
of "best of 3" or "best of 5" before age 10.

Even a 5 year old knows that "best of 2" doesn't work.

~~~
stordoff
It's not best of 2 - it's a new vote. It supersedes the old one, and when you
lose, you don't lose _permanently_ - in any functioning democracy, there's
_always_ another vote.

------
gonvaled
A good take on how the negotiation was squandered, and why the EU has run out
of patience:

[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-deal-
theres...](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-deal-theresa-may-
withdrawal-agreement-eu-negotiations-a8728771.html)

------
malchow
You can be for or against Brexit. The saddest thing is the gulf between the
governing class and Britons. The former cannot effectuate a strong existential
roar from the people they represent.

That’s worse than this vote, and worse than the original vote for Brexit. (If
you even think that was bad.)

------
pete_b
Everyone has a plan right now in the UK parliament. Probably over half of
parliament is hoping to push the UK into a 'cancel Brexit' scenario, despite
claiming they respect the referendum result. Possibly a third of parliament
have given up on the prospect of a reasonable deal with the EU and are holding
out for a no-deal WTO exit. A minority are still seeking a last-minute deal
that everyone can agree on.

It has always been my belief that a good trade deal between the UK and the EU
is only possible if the UK is actually willing to go no-deal WTO first. Simply
because the EU _never_ concedes anything in good faith when it comes to
negotiations.

------
jayalpha
The UK was the sick man of Europe. Then, basically around the same time:

1\. Thatcher made economic reforms

2\. Oil was found in the sea (UK oil production correlates a lot with the
rising UK economy)

3\. The UK joined the EU (EC)

The Oil is gone and they want to leave the EU. Let's see how it goes.

------
wpdev_63
This will kill the high end of the housing market in the U.K. as the cost of
everything will go up. It will also help shore up some jobs that were exported
to cheaper labor in the EU.

That's my take on it anyways.

------
jpster
IMO the UK has very little negotiating leverage with the EU.

For its preservation, the EU leaders know they must make an example of the UK.

A new referendum will take time - if it ever happens.

And if it does, the country may remain as divided as ever.

They need to secure an extension from the EU. With no extension, a disruptive,
hard Brexit will happen in just 10 weeks and the UK is not at all prepared.

I just don’t understand what the UK MPs are thinking, and I don’t understand
why David Cameron opened this Pandora’s Box in the first place.

------
throwaway_fjmr
It bewilders me that people, including elected MPs, don't want to understand
how electoral/representative democracies should work. The will of the People,
yeah, right. It's like pub talk on a Friday. Grab a lukewarm ale and a bag of
crisps, and cry about how great the empire once was. MPs should represent the
best interest, not the lunatic dreams of their voters.

------
jacknews
I see the headlines are trumpeting how sterling rose (0.05% !!) after the
results (hinting that the result is good news), but this looks like a clear
case of short-covering to me - short speculation earlier in the day (possibly
anticipating a decline if the vote passed), covered when the actual results
came out.

------
skykooler
> The environment secretary, Michael Gove, was equally dramatic in a morning
> radio interview, warning lawmakers that “if we don’t vote for this deal
> tonight, in the words of Jon Snow, winter is coming,” a reference to “Game
> of Thrones.”

Err, that was Ned Stark who said that, not Jon Snow.

~~~
DFHippie
Don't all the Starks say that? Those are their "words".

------
anuraj
UK is staring at supply chain and financial disruptions post Brexit. In the
multi polar world - UK is not a heavy weight any more. Without the collective
bargaining power of EU - UK would have tough time rebuilding economy in an
uber competitive global economic context.

------
atombender
Other thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18914290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18914290).

------
ohiovr
Why was a simple majority used for the brexit decision? Are there issues in
the U.K. that require a bigger passing percentage?

------
fixermark
So what is the worst-case scenario if the UK comes up with no clear legal plan
for Brexit on their end before the EU deadline?

~~~
laurentoget
Major recession, food and medicine shortage, 1 million british citizen
deported back to the UK, 3 million EU citizen leaving the UK and civil war in
Northern Ireland is what the most alarmist have predicted.

~~~
RugnirViking
A more realistic but important to note still on the worse end of outcomes for
a no deal would be something like: Major recession, large queues on motorways
for a while, slighty rising unemployment in the longer term.

The bank of england would probably manage to smooth over the worst of the
effects, messing with the pound to insulate buisnesses trading internationally
(note that right now their main problem is the pound being too _high_ , so it
might sort itself out naturally)

------
rayiner
I’m cautiously optimistic. Brexit is about national sovereignty. You need look
no further than the US to see that mega-states don’t work. The EU was supposed
to be a trade confederacy, but is beginning to co-opt the sovereignty of the
constituent states. That, as the US experience has shown, may lead to economic
success, but also leads to people who feel disenfranchised and dissatisfied
with a distant, ever-expanding government.

~~~
fastball
Mega-states _can_ work as long as you have your priorities in order and
understand the need for decentralized governance. But unfortunately, both
parties in the US have been gunning for a bigger and bigger federal government
for the past couple decades.

------
buboard
i m under the impression that the UK elites are in favor of brexit. Or rather
that the elites are not in favor of remain, and they are not going to mobilize
for that. The UK people, despite apparent polarization, does not expect major
changes in their lives any way.

------
andy_ppp
Stewart Lee on Brexit, very funny:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek9_GQa1lgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek9_GQa1lgc)

------
75dvtwin
Teresa May was a 'remain'.

Subjective, but...

It was never a question in my mind, that May would sabotage the negotiations
to the point that the skeptics of the exit, would proclaim 'I told you so'.

Never believed that she could perform her duty honestly. What a stain she is,
on the fabric of trust of the British people.

------
nimonian
Jacob Rees-Morgan:

"Chaos is a ladder."

------
davidw
I loved the comparison to a submarine made of cheese:
[https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?l...](https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?lang=en)

~~~
qfq
>Theresa May was initially against building a submarine out of cheese,
obviously. Because it’s a completely insane thing to do.

Leaving the EU is not a completely insane thing to do.

The UK (and many other countries) have legitimate grievances about some things
the EU is foisting on them (immigration for example) and the EU is giving them
the cold shoulder and fining them if they don't comply. Labelling people who
are against that as "insane" isn't going to help anybody.

~~~
roywiggins
If you want access to the single market, you have to sign up to freedom of
movement. The UK was never going to be able to have one without the other
because it's a fundamental principle of the EU as an institution. It's a
package deal.

~~~
blibble
> If you want access to the single market, you have to sign up to freedom of
> movement.

> ...

> It's a package deal.

how do you explain the existence of the EU-Canada deal where Canada has
essentially complete tariff free access to the EU's Single Market without
freedom of movement?

here's the commission's factsheet on it:
[http://ec.europa.eu/trade/images/infographics/ceta-
explained...](http://ec.europa.eu/trade/images/infographics/ceta-explained-
in-60-seconds.jpg)

~~~
roywiggins
CETA is not a customs union- there are still customs controls between Canada
and the EU. If you don't have EU regulations enforced in Canada, those
controls do it at the border with the EU. That works. But if you want into the
customs union (and therefore being allowed to just walk things across the
border to the EU, no checks) you have to sign up to pretty much all the EU
regulations. And that's the point that the four freedoms kick in, and you have
to take freedom of movement.

If you have a Canada-style deal, you need customs controls, which could be
built at Dover, but the sticking point is, and probably always will be, the
Northern Ireland border. Put the checks on the border, and you're imperiling
the peace process. Put them in the sea, and you're splitting the UK into two
regulatory zones. It's an impossible problem.

~~~
blibble
> CETA is not a customs union

this is correct, but not at all relevant to your original point:

> If you want access to the single market, you have to sign up to freedom of
> movement.

this statement is objectively not true, as is proven by the existence of CETA

> But if you want into the customs union (and therefore being allowed to just
> walk things across the border to the EU, no checks) you have to sign up to
> pretty much all the EU regulations. And that's the point that the four
> freedoms kick in, and you have to take freedom of movement.

this statement is also not true: Turkey forms a customs union with the EU:
goods travel freely between the EU and Turkey without customs checks, and the
EU does not have freedom of movement with Turkey

~~~
roywiggins
As a practical matter, the Turkey/EU border is not a frictionless one, because
it's only free movement of goods, not (for instance) the actual trucks hauling
the goods:

[https://www.ft.com/content/b4458652-f42d-11e6-8758-687615182...](https://www.ft.com/content/b4458652-f42d-11e6-8758-6876151821a6)

> The EU has agreed open-access road transport deals only with a handful of
> neighbouring countries. This includes members of the European Economic Area,
> which Britain has said it will not join, and Switzerland, which has a
> special bilateral agreement.

> Crucially, all the transport deals are premised on participation in the EU’s
> free movement of people area, which Britain also hopes to leave. In other
> words, even if Britain mirrors the EU rules on haulage, it may not be enough
> to secure free access for trucks to the EU market...

> The goal, said a Turkish official, was to complete as much paperwork as
> possible before actually reaching the border. On the other end, Bulgarian
> border officers examine each truck, going over the paperwork and doing
> random drug and migrant checks. Refrigerated trucks are x-rayed as are 5 per
> cent of other trucks, at random, according to Mr Ereke. “For the UK, I wish
> them good luck,” he said, pointing to the lines behind him. “It is not going
> to be easy.”

------
GrumpyNl
Who want to stay in this EU is beyond me.

------
mensetmanusman
Most countries in the world exist outside of the EU, Britian will figure it
out

------
shmerl
So, will they now re-evaluate the whole Brexit? It's clear it was a failed
idea to begin with.

~~~
kodablah
It's not clear to me nor am I convinced it is clear to those who voted for
autonomy. One could argue that EU legislation since the vote only bolsters the
arguments for independence. The only thing that's clear from my outsider
perspective is that some campaigning was shady. How can it be clear it was a
failed idea when the idea hasn't even come to fruition?

~~~
konradb
> How can it be clear it was a failed idea when the idea hasn't even come to
> fruition?

By doing a cost benefit analysis of the exceptionally high probability likely
outcomes

------
amriksohata
The main issue is that the majority of parliament are remainers and so don't
really represent the 52 percent, further signyfing why the public feel
parliament are out of touch with them. Britain is further teetering towards a
no deal, meaning an even harder Brexit.

------
BossingAround
All I can think of is, why? I don't know what were the main points against the
deal, but the only reason I can think of that the deal is rejected is that
Corbin, or whoever else would come out of this kerfuffle victorious, wants to
re-issue vote on leaving the EU in order to stay..?

This is insanely puzzling to me, and very much unexpected. Can someone ELI5..?
Or maybe ELI15 would be enough.

~~~
dagw
_Can someone ELI5_

Everybody on both sides considers the deal a huge compromise and hope that by
voting it down, their prefered solution will become viable.

I bet however that if this deal was put to a single ranked vote against all
other options, everybody would put it as nr 2 and it would comfortably win.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I bet however that if this deal was put to a single ranked vote against all
> other options, everybody would put it as nr 2 and it would comfortably win.

I don't think there is consensus on what all other options _are_. It's clear
that options Constitutionally available to Parliament and within it's power
(i.e., no external approval needed) include no Brexit, the deal they just
rejected for a near-immediate Brexit, and no-deal near-immediate Brexit, as
well as a snap second referendum (which isn't an outcome option, but it is a
political option which differs from unilaterally choosing an outcome option.)
But it's clear that there are parties that thing that a a better-deal Brexit
and/or a delayed Brexit (or delayed decision on whether to have a Brexit) are
acheivable options.

OTOH, I think there are probably plenty of people who rank no deal and no
Brexit both ahead of the deal on offer.

------
albertgoeswoof
Imagine if all the great minds thinking, discussing, reporting and debating
brexit spent their time on solving real problems facing the human race
instead.

~~~
CodeGlitch
Because democracy, whilst not perfect, is the best system we have for
civilisation to continue.

As someone who voted remain, I have to say that we now have to leave the EU.
If Brexit was to be stopped by Parliment, the damage to UK politics would last
a generation. People would simply loose faith in the system, giving rise to
more extreme political parties - and we all know where that leads to.

If I was in charge, I'd do a hard Brexit - use the ££ windfall from not paying
into the EU as buffer until the economy recovers with new trade deals.

It's not going to be the apocalypse like some hardcore remainers describe

~~~
simonbarker87
Out of interest (also a remainer here) what do you think to the argument that
since every 5 years we get to change the government if we want to and if the
Leave campaigners basically lied to the electorate, we should get a second
vote?

~~~
CodeGlitch
There was definitely lying on both sides. I couldn't say who lied more - but I
think the voting public are more intelligent than that, and could see through
the messages written on the side of buses.

The idea of a 2nd vote is undemocratic if you ask me. Keep asking the question
until you give us the answer we want! There was enough debate and arguing the
first time around - let's just leave and move on with our lives.

------
m0zg
Of course it "failed". The government did everything it could to sabotage it
and arrive at as unfavorable a set of exit conditions as possible. Even if she
did want to get a good deal, May doesn't strike me as a cutthroat negotiator.
Couple this with her unwillingness to abide by the will of the people (the
size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning
democracy), and you get this. This was 100% predictable right from the start.

Like elections, referenda have consequences. You don't get a re-do just
because you didn't like the outcome. To say otherwise opens you up to the same
kind of bullshit when things turn out the way you like and the _other_ side
doesn't like the result.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The referendum was non-binding. It would be entirely legitimate for Parliament
to say "We can't obtain a satisfactory outcome and have opted to remain in the
EU as it's a superior economic option." You don't continue to take your
sovereign nation over the cliff because of an unreasonable minority of
citizens (whether or not they were a majority of those who voiced their
opinions in said referendum).

~~~
m0zg
It was, nevertheless, the directly expressed will of the people. This is very
much the social contract that holds the society together, and makes the
government accountable to the people. Would you rather they just did as they
please?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Yes, definitely. Override uneducated decisions that harm the republic,
regardless of "the will of the people" [1] [2] [3] [4]. That is exactly why
republics exist versus direct democracy.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the
average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say
this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea)

Disclaimer: American

[1] [https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-
peo...](https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-people-
regret-voting-for-brexit-2018-4) (POLL: A majority of British people regret
voting for Brexit)

[2] [https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-
polls/britain-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-
polls/britain-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-new-poll-shows-idUSKCN1LK2U4)
(Britain would now vote to stay in the EU by six point margin, new poll shows)

[3] [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-
vot...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-
voting-leave-brexit) (‘I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who
regret voting leave)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum)
(Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum)

~~~
m0zg
But "the republic" is not a uniform mass. What's good for some is bad for
others. It is far from certain for me at least that the huge influx of cheap
labor from Eastern Europe does not harm the lower classes in Britain. I'm
pretty certain, on the other hand, that this works extremely well for the
upper classes.

Besides, given the quality and moral scruples of "decision makers" that
governments are usually comprised of, why would you so completely trust them
with the fate of the republic in the first place, especially if the populace
does not have the benefit of either the first or the second amendment of US
constitution?

This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g.
the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit,
because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. You can't pick and
choose. If your position is that government knows best, you should be prepared
that the government will make decisions you don't like, too.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if
> e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to
> exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain.

Your bet would be wrong. If the data showed exit was superior, I'd hope the
government went for it. I am entirely comfortable with the government making
decisions I don't like; I'm American and am used it it.

~~~
m0zg
But "the data" can show no such thing. As I said, it can be better for some
and worse for others.

~~~
toomuchtodo
There are always winners and losers when decisions are made.

------
jbottoms
What I find curious through this whole affair is the silence on the topic by
the U.S. For two countries that share a "Special Relationship" I had expected
to hear the State Dept. say something. After all, major changes in governance
by a close ally is bound to have secondary effects. And, please don't tell me
that the Special Relationship is just a put-on show. It is set in numerous
treaties between the U.S. and U.K. for centuries. There have been no
announcements of rescinding any of those well-hidden treaties. Also consider
that the U.S. has three of the most sophisticated econometric models of all
other countries, probably better than the U.K.'s.

That leads me to believe this is a fait accompli and the U.S. may have
actually suggested the referrendum as the best way forward. The brute fact is
the the U.S. is going through it's own Brexit from earlier trade relationships
that were set many years ago and which could be improved upon. You think I'm
harbouring a conspiracy theory? Who told you that?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
What is the point of a special relationship with a UK out of the EU? It
conferred benefits for both sides whilst the UK was some mid-Atlantic bridge
between the EU and US. I seem to remember the (ex?) US ambassador speaking
quite strongly on the topic, as have the many UK diplomats who've resigned
over the issue.

I'd be more inclined to believe the US ending up with a special relationship
with another EU nation. FiveEyes will probably survive as a special
relationship, but I would expect there to be a wish to add someone inside the
EU for SIGINT purposes. Possibly as an entirely separate arrangement excluding
that now insignificant island nation.

Ireland would be my bet, on both counts.

