Hacker News Reader

Comment by orra | Hacker News Reader

Unbridled nonsense.

From the FAQ:

> Why did it take you so long to negotiate?

> The conditions for associating the UK were not opportune, in view of the overall EU-UK relationship. The agreement on the Windsor Framework allowed association talks to resume. Therefore, it is now time to move forward with the final steps for associating the UK.

Yes, that's an EU source, but it's right. Before the Windsor Framework, the UK was routinely threatening to break the trade agreement it had only just ratified.

View on HN

> the UK was routinely threatening to break the trade agreement it had only just ratified.

Indeed.

The UK was constantly throwing tantrums because it couldn't have its cake and eat it. The EU wouldn't let the UK cherry-pick.

Brexit was frankly the worst decision in UK history. It wasn't a fair vote because of the pack of lies sold by the Leave side in which the UK media were complicit.

People simply don't realise quite what a good seat at the table the UK had. The UK wasn't "just another EU member", the UK had more carve-outs and other benefits than almost any other member.

> It wasn't a fair vote because of the pack of lies sold by the Leave side in which the UK media were complicit.

It wasn’t a fair vote because of deliberate disenfranchisement. UK citizens settled abroad weren’t allowed a say because the vote was only “advisory”. It could also be argued that 16-year olds could have been given a say in their entire future (vs, say, a choice of government for the next five years).

A minute sliver was also taken as a mandate to veer towards the most ideological extremes.I like to imagine many of the reactions if remain had gotten a tiny majority and in conclusion we had joined the euro and schengen.

> It could also be argued that 16-year olds could have been given a say in their entire future

Having chatted to a few of that age group about the subject, I agree. That generation is also more flexible, more mobile than the last, so I doubt they would think twice about leaving the UK in pursuit of better opportunities abroad.

I mean, if I was 16 again, moving to the EU for Schengen access alone would be highly attractive !

> the euro and schengen

The UK was never going to join the euro, that was one of the major carve-outs. There are also other EU countries operating outside the euro and highly-unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Technically the UK was not in Schengen, sure, again it was another UK carve-out. But with the EU passport there was no practical difference for the holder, you had the same freedom of movement in the Schengen area as a UK(EU) passport holder.

Leaving the EU also meant loss of access to EU security databases etc., which is why "stopping the boats" is harder from outside than within.

I don't see why UK citizens abroad should get a vote; they should vote abroad.

You're right that 16 year olds deserve a vote. It's their future, and 16 year olds are smart and politically engaged.

Also there were huge other legitimacy issues, like dodgy donations. And data breaches and highly, highly targeted advertising, allowing Cambridge Analytics to buy a result.

That's on top of the leave prospectus (essentially, EFTA + EEA, before the vote) being reinterpreted as the hardest Brexit imaginable.

UK Citizens abroad absolutely should get a vote in UK matters, especially when those matters directly affect the relationships with the countries they live in. Don’t forget that if you live abroad, you probably can’t vote in your new country either.

True, this affected citizens abroad more than normally. But otherwise, I reject the notion that citizenship is more important than residency. If you want a say in the UK, live there.

The fact that countries (including the UK) disenfranchise non-citizen residents isn't ideal either.

> It wasn’t a fair vote because of deliberate disenfranchisement.

the franchise was identical to that for general elections

any attempt to alter the franchise for the referendum would have been rightly seen as gerrymandering

> UK citizens settled abroad weren’t allowed a say because the vote was only “advisory”.

over the past 7 years I've not heard this one before!

it is not possible to have a binding referendum in the UK due to parliamentary sovereignty, all referendums are "advisory"

people living abroad retain their right to vote for 15 years (and regain it if they come back)

Just because Parliament can't bind future Parliaments doesn't prohibit it from asserting that it has done so. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act purported to do exactly that, and a Brexit referendum could have chosen to explain that HMG intends to implement the people's choice, but it did not.

> Just because Parliament can't bind future Parliaments doesn't prohibit it from asserting that it has done so.

so, it would still be non-binding

who cares what reality is as long as it's marketed the right way?

> The Fixed Term Parliaments Act purported to do exactly that

yeah and look how well that worked

Re "fair vote"

It wasn't the advisory nature of the referendum which denied some British citizens living abroad a say, it was that they'd been domiciled abroad for at least certain number of years. That has long been a rule of our system. Those folks also did not get to vote in UK general elections.

The vote by the citizens within the UK was largely in the end an irrelevance, due to the consequences of the Miller court case, which pushed the decision back to Parliament. It ensured that the referendum actually was advisory in fact, as well as in law. So any arguments about the fairness of the referendum are moot.

The Parliament had a vote on if, and under what conditions, to authorise the sending of the Article 50 notification. They chose to allow it, and to do so with no conditions whatsoever. Giving the government of the day a "blank cheque".

That is the vote people should complain of, the MPs were generally whipped, and overwhelmingly voted to grant the blank cheque to leave.

The MPs could have chosen to either not pass the Bill, or attach whatever conditions to it. There would be no legal recourse if they had done so - but they may not have been re-elected.

> Brexit was frankly the worst decision in UK history.

Suez?

valuing Jamacia over the American colonies?

entering world war 2 (economically, morally it was clearly correct)

picking gas over nuclear power?

the impact of leaving the EU isn't even on the same scale as these decisions (and any impact has already been dwarfed by covid and the russian energy crisis)

World War II was in practice not a choice. The timing is a choice. But basically once Hitler controls Germany, it's going to invade its neighbours and it's going to win, and the UK only has a choice of whether and where to fight - if it won't fight it becomes at best a client state, taking orders from Hitler's Germany under threat of invasion once the Germans control mainland Europe. Eventually it will be under German control de facto.

For example, as a party to the war, Britain's navy is of course entitled to fire upon German vessels, or ostensibly neutral vessels clearly operating under German control, in the strait. This capability makes Sea Lion (amphibious invasion of Britain) essentially suicide, German troop barges would be destroyed by British Navy vessels, and even if some of the British vessels are damaged or destroyed in the process the manpower losses for Germany are devastating. However if Britain is not a party to the war, those troop barges can just cross the strait unmolested, with no naval support - right up until the troops disembark and begin seizing control of British ports.

Nah.

Once they enter territorial waters, and not engaged in 'innocent passage' they are legitimately a target for us to defend ourselves against.

However in 1939, that would have been around 3-4 miles off the shore, so your point largely stands.

Throwing tantrums might more charitably be phrased “protecting its interests”.

Could you point out what I said that was incorrect? The UK agreed to join Horizon when I said it did. The EU prevented that from happening due to trade disagreements over Northern Ireland. Those disagreements were resolved with the Windsor Framework. The UK joined. As I said, it has nothing to do with a sudden change of mind or realisation, but was the intention for many years.

It’s terrible that they feel the need to put this sort of language in such an official document. What is striking is that there is precious little trust on either side and not a lot of goodwill.

Can you be specific about the “sort of language” are you referring to? That seems to be quite diplomatic and fair, so is it perhaps less about the language than that you wish the facts were otherwise?

I was referring to “The conditions for associating the UK were not opportune, in view of the overall EU-UK relationship”, but there are other sentences like that in the document. It’s a diplomat’s way of calling them untrustworthy bastards. Which is fair (they are referring to May, Johnson and Truss, all of them are liars of the worst sort), but I do wish the facts were otherwise.

I don’t blame the EC for saying it, I just regret that the UK took such a destructive path.

Ah, I read that as you thinking they were being too harsh when it seemed like a very diplomatic way to make a statement of fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com