
How to Brexit? – Explore the (im)possibilities of the different Brexit scenarios - anne_veling
http://howtobrexit.eu/
======
martythemaniak
Brexit has definitely changed my mind on one thing - majority vote in a
referendum is bad. Or rather, the percentage vote required should be
proportional to the gravity of the question. Referendums are rare, so most
votes should require well over 50%.

I did not used to think this. In 2007 British Columbia had a referendum on
switching to proportional representation from FPTP. The result was like 52% in
favour, but the government had set a minimum of 55%,so it did not pass. I
thought it was a a terrible idea at the time (the people had spoken!
Democracy!), but I don't think so anymore. Another example is the 1995 Quebec
independence referendum, which "stay" narrowly won, but afterwards the federal
government passed an act making it much harder to pass a referendum.

Basically, the bigger the question, the longer and larger implications it has,
the more it has to be thought through, the more consensus there should be. The
US constitution has features like this when it requires large majorities to
pass amendments etc.

As an engineering metaphor, having a fast-response system without any
dampening can lead to out of control oscillations, which ultimately destroy
your system.

~~~
songshu
The problem with Brexit is that "leave the European Union" is not a policy,
it's an outcome. All of the thinking about how to do it should have taken
place before the vote, and then we could have voted on that (this is actually
the way legislation is typically developed in the UK, and the job of our
sometime venerated civil service). Compare it to the recent Irish referendum
on abortion, where there was a clear plan for what would actually happen
following a vote for change.

~~~
zimablue
I think you're kind of splitting hairs, all policies can be viewed as
outcomes. "Bring back grammar schools" is both a policy and an outcome.
"Improve education" is only an outcome because it doesn't discuss how to
achieve it. "Leave the EU" is 100% achievable and has an obvious way to
achieve it, it's policy just not detailed policy.

Realistically they should have planned more, but planning is limited when
you're going into negotiations with an unpredictable third party. If other
countries had voted to leave the EU, or the German or French elections had
been different then the negotiation would be very different. Even the UK
election after the vote could have wildly changed our brexit policy.

~~~
pjc50
The trouble is that of the two obvious options, one is pointless ("Norway")
and the other ("Canada") breaches the peace treaty in Northern Ireland.

~~~
zimablue
Fortunately we're something like (top of my head) ten times as important to
the EU as either of those, and so even the most hardened remainer would
privately admit that we should have more leverage in negotiations.

Presumably Norway isn't in the ECHR, which would be significant. Neither is it
obligated to join the Eurozone. It's more complicated than you're painting it.

~~~
kybernetikos
Norway is part of the ECHR. In fact, just like the UK it was a founding member
of the Council of Europe which agreed to create the ECHR at the Congress of
Europe at which Winston Churchill was a delegate from the UK.

The ECHR is a separate institution to the EU anyway so I'm not sure why it
would be relevant. Leaving the EU does not leave the ECHR, and there has been
no referendum to suggest that the UK should do that.

~~~
zimablue
You're right on Norway being a member of the ECHR, I wasn't sure as I stated
in my post, but you're vastly oversimplifying by implying there's no
connection [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-
referendum-3614979...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-
referendum-36149798)

~~~
kybernetikos
There is no direct connection. But a respect for human rights is required to
belong to the EU. Leaving the ECHR would cast the UKs commitment to human
rights into question (at the very least it would be an indication that the UK
has a different conception of human rights to the rest of the EU) and would
mean that the EU would have to scrutinise whatever legislation took its place
to ensure that the UK did still intend to retain a conception of human rights
close enough to the other member states.

None of this means that the recent referendum gave any mandate for leaving the
ECHR.

------
zimablue
This is actually terrible, for one thing the bridges don't move independently,
you click one and another moves, making it FEEL deceptive and not allowing you
to easily work out the whole problem space or why. They should move
independently and if the configuration doesn't make sense, tell you. For
another thing, it conflates economic disalignment with having a hard border,
the whole argument of the UK government is that you don't have to do that.

It therefore makes no comment on the Checquers plan which even if you don't
like it, is just deceptive. Checquers plan would be equivalent to a different
kind of checkbetween NI and Ireland, not a hard border but the idea being (I
think) that we check good on the way in for whether they're intended for
consumption or export to the EU, if they're passing through to the EU we apply
our own tariffs. On the EU side I think we don't put tariffs, then we don't
have to do any checks on the way in or out on that border because the EU
tariffs have been applied on the way in.

Whether you think that's feasible, mixing up hard borders with economic
alignment and completely ignoring the nuance of hard border vs tech border and
the government's current proposal is gross.

~~~
wlll
> For another thing, it conflates economic disalignment with having a hard
> border, the whole argument of the UK government is that you don't have to do
> that.

This pretty much the case in the entire rest of the world. Political or
economic misalignment == hard border, so people and goods can be checked and
charged for. It's not so much a conflation as just becoming any other country
outside the EU.

The solution to this, a soft border managed by technology just doesn't exist,
it's science fiction. Even if you believe it is possible, you've got 6 months
to 1. Negotiate this between the UK and EU, 2. Get the UK political system to
agree to it, 3. Create and test the system and 4. Deploy it. That's a tight
timescale for any project of this size, let alone one that has so much
required work that needs to be done beforehand.

------
tim_hutton
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _The only winning move is not to play_...

That's a losing move too.

The Leave voters would all label you 'undemocratic'. That sentiment imposes a
definite cost on you as well.

Unfortunately, at this point there really are no " _winning_ " moves. Probably
just a few moves that might be less _bad_ than other moves.

~~~
clubm8
>The Leave voters will all call you undemocratic. That sentiment imposes a
definite cost on you as well.

This is the same country that has the queen give "consent" for all
legislation, correct?

What exactly is the point of the monarchy if they won't step in during this
serious issue to act as the "adult in the room"?

~~~
bilbo0s
I guess I'm not familiar enough with the monarchical aspect of their
government to know how (if?) that would go down?

But you make a good point. Why can't their queen or whatever just say no we're
not leaving? I'm not sure? I'm from the US. We don't have the whole monarchy
thing going on.

~~~
mattmanser
Because the position (and power) is symbolic and the centuries old
understanding is that the ruling monarch will never exercise it. Should they
do so, especially in opposition to a full referendum of all things, it would
spell the end of the monarchy.

The last time royal assent was refused in the UK was in 1708:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill)

~~~
Latteland
What if the king or queen was a crazy bastard hell bent or just too stupid to
do anything but destroy your normal democratic behaviors and support
authoritarian practices? I think you've been lucky up to now, at least for the
recent 100 years.

------
conanite
Scotland and NI quit UK to form their own republic and rejoin EU together.
Everyone happy. Maybe even republic of Scotland-Ireland.

~~~
mrighele
Rejoining EU would not be automatic. They will have to to again all the
accession iter.

EU countries that have issues with independence movements (e.g. Spain w.r.t
Catalonia) will not let automatic re-join, because the "You will be out of EU
if you secede" is one of the arguments used for saying that secession is a bad
move.

~~~
dalore
Yes they would have to join, but if Brexit happened they are no longer in the
EU and so need to leave the UK and then apply for the EU. Wonder if they would
need to go through a period of not being in either?

Imagine a hard border on Scotland.

Don't think the monarchy would approve of that much.

------
feintruled
Amusing, but facetious. The border problem as stated is indeed impossible to
solve, but both Brexiter and EU strategy hinges up the idea that the other
side will blink first, the EU betting that the Tories will fudge up a sea
border, and the Brexiters that the EU will plump for any deal to avoid a no
deal (as that would definitely have a hard border).

~~~
Chestofdraw
Problem with the Tories not blinking is that they don't have a majority in
parliament. They're currently being propped up (they have a confidence and
supply arrangement) by the DUP who are very much against a sea border and
would likely vote against a deal that had a sea border and doing so could
bring down the government.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Ultimately there is no majority in parliament for any of the options, we are
headed for either another election or a re-run of the referendum.

~~~
d4rti
Or indeed in the country: the “smartest” (sleaziest) thing the leave campaign
did was to refuse to actually lay out any specific kind of brexit - knowing
there was no unity on the brexit side.

------
Latteland
The current situation is so depressing. The combined ongoing destruction in
the uk and the us of many years of relative safety and peace while claiming
it's all to protect us from change or something like that reminds me that the
many poor leaders and failures of ancient countries making terrible decisions
that lead to the end of their countries can happen now. What a run on
sentence. At the same time, I'm extremely fortunate to have a great job and be
part of the "programmer class". So many people in both countries have lost
their economic confidence and a job that pays for a decent lifestyle.

------
bcoates
This idea of "alignment" is absurd, countries have non-transitive border
arrangements all the time. It might bring the always-questionable idea that
the EU ever had a "single market" under scrutiny, but that's weird ideological
posturing not a serious obstruction to Irish access to the UK market and vice
versa.

~~~
barrkel
Alignment is a mechanism to prevent beggar-thy-neighbour policies that lead to
a race to the bottom, with everybody worse off. If you have a porous border
without alignment, you get smuggling.

The EU single market is a definitional concept, it exists by definition. Not
all goods and services are in the single market, but the scope gradually
increases over time. Necessarily, as the scope increases, the need for
harmonization increases, and that's what often leads to accusations of loss of
sovereignty.

------
arountheworld
This presentation is biased. It doesn't take into account that the Northern
Ireland is really a problem of the EU. There are soft borders in the EU for
example Poland - Russia, where people can roam freely. EU is just not being
flexible to make a "political point", which is pathetic. They shouldn't
include a provision to leave the Union in the first place.

~~~
wlll
> It doesn't take into account that the Northern Ireland is really a problem
> of the EU.

As somoene who grew up in the UK with the IRA blowing up bits of the country,
some rather close to me, I disagree. It's likely that the communities that
would be split by a new border in Ireland would disagree too.

The EU is negotiating in it's best interests, as is the UK. There aren't going
to be any favours traded on either side.

~~~
arountheworld
If the UK doesn't put up a border then it is the EU that is causing a problem.
There doesn't have to be a hard border, but EU insists that there should be.

~~~
cuboidGoat
I'd love to see that result, purely for the hilarity of watching the people I
share a house with, who voted for Brexit, explode at the idea of the UK
government not policing an external border.

The only reason they voted for Brexit was because they think it means they can
get rid of all the migrants, they tell me this quite regularly.

One of them moved here from Bahrain, though apparently this means their family
were ex-pats, not migrants. The other is from a long line of Christian
overseas missionaries.

If they thought for a second that Brexit would mean leaving the border with
Northern Ireland wide open, they would be screaming blue murder.

------
Anderkent
Gimme Scotland / Wales borders to play with too, that'd make for some funny
pictures.

~~~
anne_veling
Great idea! Then you would want to play with the scenario of Scotland (also)
remaining aligned with the EU e.g.?

~~~
Anderkent
Well, the ability to make only Northern Ireland leave the EU was chuckle-
inducing, so I'd probably play with things that way :P

~~~
anne_veling
haha excellent

------
seren
There should be more options, like Republic of Ireland joining the United
Kingdom.

Or Scotland making a bid to join the EU.

~~~
anne_veling
Good one. Yeah so many more options as I was programming it... Like the EU
giving up on their "colony" Northern Ireland. Or France or the NL exiting the
EU too...

~~~
feintruled
Have you seen this?

[https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-pick-your-own-
brexit...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-pick-your-own-brexit/)

~~~
anne_veling
Ooh like it, did not see that one yet :)

------
billpg
Looking forward to the pro-brexit commenters posting their realistic workable
plans for leaving the EU that addresses these issues.

I mean someone must have plan. You've been complaining about the EU for
(checks notes) decades. Didn't you use any of that time to come up a plan?

Want to call me a remoaner or other insults? That's fine, but maybe post your
plan first and then call me a remoaner?

------
spicywings
hacker news is a communism

~~~
gthaman
absolutely. dont you enjoy these painfully long and out of breath explanations
on why this inconvenient majority of voters must be further disenfranchised ?

and all of the appeals to the authority of the EU's rules and regulations and
why that makes it "impossible" ?

what hogwash. we all played by the same rules which were agreed upon
beforehand and now the economically well off (and isolated) minority seek to
invalidate the vote.

I think if the 'vote' is taken away from those who voted for Brexit then
they'll do you one better and choose to ignore more fundamental aspects of our
"social agreement", namely ones involving physical safety.

