Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

I'm not a Brit and the politics of this are not my concern. However the information dissemination and internet aspect of the story is quite fascinating.

I have no idea what's going on. I tried to ignore it, but my friends who care deeply about it can get quite upset so I've been pulled into several private conversations. Because of that, on several occasions I've looked around the web in an effort to easily understand what's going on.

No luck.

Two things come to mind. First, complexity can be used as a wonderful shield against openness and accountability. You can be as open and accountable as anybody would like, but as long as most people find the situation impenetrable and you do not, it doesn't matter. It's the same thing as not being open at all. Second, I don't see how any reasonable public discussion happens at all in an information environment like this. It's a fail. If they wanted no public discussion, they should have made that choice. This is probably the worst situation a democracy can find itself in: lots of upset people arguing about things which they have no idea the true status of. You might as well watch a puppet show. There's no nuanced conversation possible. It is contrast turned as high as possible.

It's not the decision as much as the uncertainty. I can't help but think the net failed us here -- but I don't know how it could have done better. The betting markets at least will give you an up/down version of the likely outcomes. Oddly enough that might be the best source of information.

The original referendum itself was the real heart of the disorder. The government is now tying itself into knots trying to put into action a perceived desired action, even though the general concept of "Brexit" has a tremendous number of vastly different interpretations, and nothing close to a majority actually exists for any of those options.

There never should have been a referendum to begin with, and the idea that a simple majority vote could have such dramatic consequences was frankly actually undemocratic.

Based on how entrenched certain positions are (see the DUP, for example), the (rightly) strong opposition to a No Deal, and the fact that ANY deal is going to make a majority of people unhappy, it would seem there is no majority in Parliament willing to be connected with the actual outcome.

Therefore, it seems the most likely scenario by far is simply an extension. That will probably lead to a General Election or a Second Referendum, where the "choice" can be said to be given to voters, which would also give MPs cover for any decision made.

The EU will not decide against an extension either, as their preferred outcome is the UK remaining in the EU. The longer this drags on, and the more impractical Brexit options are shown to be, the more the likelihood the UK decides to remain increases.

The only way I see the UK actually leaving the EU is if hard Brexiteers decide to back May's deal; however, that would be considerably more politically risky for them than simply continuing to take a hardline position — even if the end result is remain.

> was frankly actually undemocratic

The referendum was infinitely more democratic than the decision to join the EU, which was taken by PM John Major and his colleagues when they signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

No-one asked the people.

>>could have such dramatic consequences was frankly actually undemocratic

The consequences of joining were far less dramatic than the consequences of suddenly leaving.

>> The consequences of joining were far less dramatic than the consequences of suddenly leaving.

I have no dog in this fight (not British or European) but this statement sounds like false equivalence to me.

In what way?

Absolutely not. UK is a representative democracy. So joining the Europe was by definition a democratic decision.

That's not exactly true. The people elected members to Parliament. Those MPs selected a government, with Major at its head. It was a close decision - Major almost lost the confidence of the House - but the treaty was not signed by some rogue autocrat.

Really no different than any other treaty in the UK. Not everything must be put to a public vote. The Executive has the power to sign treaties. Parliament may only advise, or in the extreme, withdraw confidence and call for a new government.

By that reasoning nothing Parliament (or Congress in the US) ever does is democratic because no one asked the people directly. That's not how the government is set up. In fact, this was a non-binding referendum. If Parliament decides not to leave it will be just as democratic as if they decide to leave. Too bad they don't have the wherewithal to make the right decision for their country instead of being swayed by a non-binding referendum. Or maybe they do? Who knows what that decision is other than Parliament? Either way, it'll be democratic no matter what they do.

> was frankly actually undemocratic

The term you seem to be searching for is some variant of 'stupid', 'ill-advised' or 'deceitful'. There is nothing undemocratic about it; democracies famously turn up flavour-of-the-month decisions in defiance of tradition and whatever the elites think is a good idea. That is why most democracies don't generally go with the old school approach where the whole town meets on a hill and counts hands; the results are too volatile for the powerful to be comfortable with them.

Yes. Given that the elite is small, a referendum is almost synonymous with populist governance.

Honestly I don't find that hard to understand what's going on.

Basically, May negotiated a deal with the EU but the UK Parliament does not want it, mainly due to the so-called backstop. The backstop emerges because May has a red line that the UK must leave the single market and the customs union, and this is difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile with the Good Friday Agreement, which forbids a physical frontier at the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The fact is that, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK, it is simply impossible to make the (whole) UK exit the single market and customs union while honoring that agreement. If you place a border in Ireland, you violate the agreement. If you don't place a border in Ireland, then obviously goods and people can circulate freely, so Northern Ireland is effectively part of the EU for customs union and free movement purposes.

This is the very simple (not complex at all) reality that the UK government and parliament have been voluntarily ignoring all the time. To try to reconcile the contradiction, Theresa May proposed the so-called backstop: basically, Northern Ireland stays in the customs union until a technological solution is found that allows to have a non-physical border (yes, I know, bollocks. It won't happen. But Brexit proponents are like that). The EU signed this because May insisted and because why not, if no such miracle solution is found then Northern Ireland remains in the union so it's no problem for the EU. But the hardline Brexiteers in the Tory party (rightfully) pointed out... well, exactly that: that the backstop would imply that Northern Ireland would stay in the customs union forever. Hence, the process is stalled because May's deal has no consensus in parliament, but there is no consensus either for Brexit without a deal or for cancelling Brexit (all of this has been voted this week, with the result of "no" to everything).

If parliament keeps voting no to everything, then the default result is no-deal brexit.

Honestly I don't think there is that much complexity. It's just a very simple problem: that you cannot have Brexit including an exit from the customs union that involves Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement at the same time. That's pretty much all there is to it. If it seems complex, it's because the UK politicians don't want to admit it and just keep running in circles.

That particular problem is indeed 1) very straightforward and 2) unsolvable. It's a major driver of the chaos. But that's just it - the situation is chaotic. There are many sideshows and complexities, and the upshot is that nobody really has any idea how it's going to play out. As shown by the elaborate diagram linked at the top of the page.

That problem is a sufficient condition for the chaos, and what has caused it. Without that problem, there could be consensus or not, and there could be other things to discuss, true. But that problem is enough to understand the current chaos.

You know what's funny? That even if the UK parliament never agrees and there is a no-deal Brexit, that problem doesn't disappear. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK will be in violation of an international treaty (the Good Friday agreement), and the EU (and even the US) will ask them to honor the treaty. Fun times, indeed.

I wouldn't make any bets about what the US would do, sadly. I get the sense that the DUP and most people pushing for no deal actively want to tear up the Good Friday agreement (and blame the EU, even if that makes no sense).

I think this issue leads people to overestimate how much support the EU is giving to Ireland. How much they will support Ireland is still to be seen, but for now it seems to be more like "wait, agreeing to do what you already agreed to do is supposed to be the easy part; how can we negotiate with these people?"

IMO, the updated flowchart is way too optimistic. I don't see any reason to suspect parliament won't keep doing what it has been doing, either nothing in particular and crashing out or, more likely IMO, finding a consensus around an impossible plan, crashing out, and blaming the EU for not accepting it. If they were actually going to do anything different the time for that seems to have come and gone a long time ago. "Revoke article 50 if we can't come up with a plan" went down to a huge defeat Thursday as it has previously.

Edit: Looks like I should have checked the news first, sounds like there may actually be a general election. Edit2: Maybe not as clear as the headlines suggest.

It's not unsolvable, there are detailed proposals for how to solve it and after announcing loudly they would never work, the EU recently changed its mind and announced they'd already started preparations for it.

The only reason the Irish border is being described as "unsolvable" is because that suits the agenda of people who want the referendum to be ignored (as in Europe they always are).

Any simple links / explanations on these proposals to square the circle? I appreciated Al-Khwarizmi's simple explanation of the backstop.

Search for "france interbrexit" to see some detailed information from French customs on how they're solving it for Calais.

As for the others the key word is MaxFAC, I believe, but I looked at the French "smart border" arrangements more closely than the Irish proposals.

I don't think the net failed us ... I think the 'net is maybe the only thing that's slowed this disaster down. Yes yes whatever about the disinformation campaign that allegedly influenced the vote, but misinformation has always been a tool in the political toolkit. What's different this time around is that the net provides the means to route around the official narrative and dig into what's going on. Yes, you might dig the wrong way and come up with bullshit but anyone that can evaluate information can figure this out, and once the honest and educated manage to get to grips with the non-official details then the net provides a means to mobilise.

If anything it's politics has broken the 'net, not the other way round. But the net provides a means to save politics.

Interesting.

If I understand each of us correctly, my position is that the internet has provided a ton of information and drama, just nothing of use to the general public. Your position is because of the vast amount of information, we can identify these problems and route around them.

I can certainly see where you might be correct. I think the key question is this: does the emotional impact of all the noise outweigh the nuggets of useful information a person may find here or there? (And I use the term "noise" generously. A cynic would consider this a form camouflage)

In a way, this is the discussion the net is having all over, right? Do you get more social control by creating these made-for-internet dramas that hide the actual important stuff? Or does the fact that the information can exist much easier now and be published instantaneously to millions easily overcome that?

I'm with the "people decide based on emotion, then use reason to justify their decisions" group of folks, but that's only because I come at this from a sales/startup angle. It very well may be different in the political realm.

I think anybody that's educated can filter out the noise usually and get at some element of the truth. This is an option that would have been mostly unavailable beforehand.

Anybody that's easily swept up by rumours and bullshit was always just getting sucked in by the tabloids and the mainstream press anyway so their situation remains unchanged.

What is particularly interesting in the case of Brexit, and perhaps tangential is how the Brexiteers keep getting caught out speaking out both sides of their mouths time after time. They make a deal in Brussels and then fly home and speak to factory workers in Grimsby contradicting that deal. It's reported immediately online and goes straight back to Brussels where they're "like really?".

I'm going to disengage because I believe this is getting too far into local politics for me.

However I want to make sure you understand my point.

"...I think anybody that's educated can filter out the noise usually and get at some element of the truth...Anybody that's easily swept up by rumours and bullshit..."

You understand that's not the way it works, right? This isn't an intelligence test. My point was about how humans make decisions, not how stupid people gossip and believe things they shouldn't. That's a great topic, but not my point. You don't educate or smart your way about of being human. It doesn't work like that.

I used to love to discuss politics with folks, mainly because it was the one area in which really smart people believed really stupid things. It was -- and remains -- an excellent place to observe clanning and how the human mind works. (I stopped bringing it up, though, because as it turns out, text conversations have a completely different dynamic than in-person conversations.)

Thanks for the chat!

how the Brexiteers keep getting caught out speaking out both sides of their mouths time after time. They make a deal in Brussels and then fly home and speak to factory workers in Grimsby contradicting that deal

I'm not sure what events you're thinking of here, but no "Brexiteers" have been involved in negotiations for a long time. May went behind their backs and they all resigned, the cabinet has been dominated by Remainers like May ever since.

The reason it's such a farce is because the entire process is being run end to end by people who desperately want to ensure leaving can never happen without actually being too obvious about it (they've failed at that too).

I think Brexit was a practice misinformation campaign ... getting Trump elected made use of the techniques that were found effective.

I'm not entirely convinced that the net is the saviour you claim. For example, I'm British but hadn't seen most of these points until more than two years later: [1]

Presumably I didn't see these adverts because I was categorised as a Remain voter, but I can't imagine what my opinion would be if every time I went to Facebook I saw "leave the EU to save the polar bears". I'd like to say I'd immediately search the truthfulness but, honestly, I've got better things to do with my life than google every comment I see online.

The Internet provides a great way for information to be open, but not everything on the Internet is necessarily transparent. Argubly, this is a good reason for regulation on things like advertising to make it more transparent (although what that regulation is, I don't know) which I think would be a case of "politics saving the net".

Of course, there's the "old way" of information being shared which is subject to failure too[2]. But a centralised and curated method like newspapers makes it easier to combat falsehoods.

Overall, I do agree that the Internet is a great tool for information sharing and I think we're better with it, but it's not without its own issues.

[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1059068463933743104.html [2] https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

The net failing us is not about misinformation.

It's about people being less in touch with other flesh and blood members of their species, and more into their own bubble of truths or "truths". People want to hear the fairytales they like. The internet as it exists today has certainly contributed to that.

Thats society’s fault IMO or the lack thereof. In the 80s half the population voted in droves for it. Society is dead so spake the iron lady

Reply on news.ycombinator.com