Why Hasn’t Brexit Happened? | Hacker News Reader

Why Hasn’t Brexit Happened?

claremont.org

13 pointsxmmrm15 comments

"The final negotiated Withdrawal Agreement that May unveiled to Parliament last November caused the whole country, Brexiteers and Remainers alike, to gasp in horror. May’s team had been sent away to declare British independence and had returned with a document of surrender. The agreement not only contained (as expected) a £39 billion ($50 billion) “divorce” fee, but also left E.U. courts free to top that fee up. It locked Britain into a customs union with the E.U., with no mechanism for leaving it—ever. The E.U., and the E.U. alone, would decide when Britain had fulfilled the backstop agreement, and any move to break it unilaterally on Britain’s part would be resolved by giving the E.U. jurisdiction over Northern Ireland’s economic relations. It subjected Britain to E.U. trade sanctions more onerous than those meted out to other countries. It laid out contexts in which E.U. law would retain its supremacy over U.K. law.

The Withdrawal Agreement not only did not end Britain’s ties to the E.U. In the name of Brexit, it actually deepened and constitutionalized them."

"Brexit was not an “outburst” or a cry of despair or a message to the European Commission. It was an eviction notice. It was an explicit withdrawal of the legal sanction under which Brussels had governed Europe’s most important country. If it is really Britain’s wish to see its old constitutional arrangements restored, then this notice is open to emendation and reconsideration. But as things stand now, the Leave vote made E.U. rule over the U.K. illegitimate. Not illegitimate only when Brussels has been given one last chance to talk Britain out of it, but illegitimate now. What Britons voted for in 2016 was to leave the European Union—not to ask permission to leave the European Union. It is hard to see how Britain’s remaining in the E.U. would benefit either side."

"It was an explicit withdrawal of the legal sanction under which Brussels had governed Europe’s most important country."

Europe's most important country? It seems to me that one could make a strong case for Germany.

Repudiating the deal that was made with the EU makes it impossible to negotiate a better one. The first rule of negotiating anything is that you have to establish trust that you are willing and able to fulfill what you agree to. It's not a rule that is imposed by the other party, but by logic, which means there is nothing that the EU can concede that would help.

Brexit is a word that seems to have many meanings. Brexit to Brexiteers means a clean break. Brexit to remainers (remoaners?) means the end of a trade regime that Britain was doing fairly well out of despite the large dues. After Brexit, whenever or if ever it happens, Britain will have to sit down with Europe to negotiate trade deals. This is not mentioned by Brexiteers. The complication of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was pooh-poohed by the Brexiteers during the run up to the Referendum of 2016 and now they are hoist on their own petards. I realise that there are many other reasons besides the above.

Brexit to some Brexiteers means what they rather fancifully believe is the 'clean break' of no-deal. To some other Brexiteers, Brexit means continued membership of the customs union, but not the single market. No doubt that there are numerous other configurations of Brexit that various people thought they were voting for, including staying in the single market.

These different Brexits would result in very different futures for the UK, and yet they were all aggregated into one vote, 'Leave'.

There has yet to be any evidence that there is greater support from the public for any particular Brexit than there is to remain.

> The 1973 vote to enter the EEC was the first the United Kingdom ever had.

Nope. The first referendum was in 1975, after we had joined in 1973. It was about if we should remain, or leave; not about if we should join.

He mentions that right above though

> The Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath brought the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community (EEC)in 1973, and voters ratified the decision in a referendum two years later.

I think it's just a typo, and he meant 1975

All of which ignores one rather crucial detail: Attempting major geopolitical change like this without a coherent plan and suitable strong mandate is suicide.

Brexit may have had some merit of sorts, but launching into this without those was destined to be a disaster. And what's left of the farce is entirely meritless

> And while such borders might present new challenges after Brexit, there were proven solutions: non-E.U. Switzerland, for example, keeps its borders, travel, and trade open with four major E.U. countries. These problems only became “insoluble” when E.U. diplomats discovered they might be used to tangle up the Brexit negotiations.

Complete nonsense, just like the rest of the article. Switzerland (and Norway) are both Schengen countries, and even so, the borders are hardly "open". More importantly, the shape of the border is completely incomparable to that between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The Irish border is the only blocking issue, all else heard from brexiteers is just misdirection.

"The real grounds for elite hostility toward [Boris Johnson] lay elsewhere"

Quite, but unreliability, irresponsibility, and a tendency to consider his own interests as more important than those of the public ought to be among the grounds listed.

Then why not call an election with a one line bill to ensure it happens prior to 31st October?

Fantastic article. Thank you.

I particularly like the explanation of the analogy wrt. treaty vs. merger. A treaty is what is wanted and needed, a merger is what they got. Starting to not blame the Brexiters for what they need to do.

The stuff on Northern Ireland is incredibly biased and inaccurate.

If May hadn’t called an election in 2015 it would probably have been delivered by now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com