Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/world/europe/brexit-vote-theresa-may.html <comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER4> 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.

<comment><USER5> 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.

<comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER7> 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.

<comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER7> 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.

<comment><USER7> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 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!

<comment><USER10> Edit: I got a bit carried away.

<comment><USER11> > 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.

<comment><USER12> 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.

<comment><USER13> 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."

<comment><USER12> Farage isn't an MP and parliament is dominated by remainers loyal to Labour or the Tories. You make my point for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> 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.

<comment><USER15> > _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.

<comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER15> 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.

<comment><USER16> 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?

<comment><USER15> 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.

<comment><USER16> Distrust not without good reason I'd say!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 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.

<comment><USER18> By _Union_ what is meant here is, the United Kingdom?

<comment><USER17> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> 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.

<comment><USER20> > 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?

<comment><USER21> 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 - <USER2> 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.

<comment><USER22> 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.

<comment><USER23> Or the jobs will disappear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> 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.

<comment><USER25> 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.

<comment><USER26> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 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!

<comment><USER28> 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.

<comment><USER29> 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

<comment><USER28> 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?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 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.

<comment><USER30> 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)

<comment><USER10> Ageism: one of the few remaining socially acceptable types of hate!

<comment><USER30> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "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."

<comment><USER31> "If Parliament is unable to decide which foot should be shot, then the default option of shooting themselves in the head will be enacted."

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> 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).

<comment><USER33> 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.

<comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER33> 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.

<comment><USER13> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> 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.

<comment> 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".

<comment><USER10> Or, the EU starts thinking pragmatically and offers a proper deal.

<comment> 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.

<comment><USER10> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> 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.

<comment><USER36> "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)

<comment><USER37> 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.

<comment><USER38> 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.

<comment><USER39> 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)?

<comment><USER40> 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.)

<comment><USER37> 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?

<comment><USER40> 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!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 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)

<comment><USER42> It's easy to make nice-sounding speeches when you're not accountable for delivering any results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> 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?"

<comment><USER33> No

<comment><USER44> 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.

<comment><USER43> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> 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?

<comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER45> > 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?

<comment><USER47> "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).

<comment><USER46> This thinking is narrow. There is a parliamentary majority, and a majority within her own party, for an EEA-style solution.

<comment><USER48> > 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.

<comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER48> > Nobody wants a crisis

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

<comment><USER46> I understand that. Nevertheless, I believe this is the likely outcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> 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.

</comment><comment><USER50> 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 .

<comment><USER35> 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.

<comment><USER51> 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)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> 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?

<comment><USER53> 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.

<comment><USER54> 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.

<comment><USER55> > 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> 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.

<comment><USER57> or a second referendum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> 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.

<comment><USER59> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> 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.

<comment><USER61> 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)...

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> 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.

<comment><USER32> 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.

<comment><USER62> _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?

<comment><USER32> 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.

<comment><USER62> Do you have sources for this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> 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.

</comment><comment><USER53> The whole thing seems like a slow motion train wreck, except with the potentially and arguably happy outcome of them remaining in the EU.

<comment><USER64> 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.

<comment><USER53> 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.

<comment><USER65> 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.

<comment><USER66> Replace "should" with "could" and you'd be right. Each vote would be genuine if its conudcted according to law.

<comment><USER67> 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.

<comment><USER68> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> 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)

</comment><comment><USER70> 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.)

</comment><comment><USER71> 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.

</comment><comment><USER72> 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.

</comment><comment><USER73> 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.

</comment><comment><USER74> 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.

</comment><comment><USER75> 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.

</comment><comment><USER76> 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.

</comment><comment><USER77> > 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.

<comment><USER78> Don't all the Starks say that? Those are their "words".

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> 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.

</comment><comment><USER80> Other thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18914290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18914290).

</comment><comment><USER81> Why was a simple majority used for the brexit decision? Are there issues in the U.K. that require a bigger passing percentage?

</comment><comment><USER82> 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?

<comment><USER83> 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.

<comment><USER84> 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)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> 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.

<comment><USER86> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> 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.

</comment><comment><USER88> Stewart Lee on Brexit, very funny:

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

</comment><comment><USER89> 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.

</comment><comment><USER90> Jacob Rees-Morgan:

"Chaos is a ladder."

</comment><comment><USER91> 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)

<comment><USER92> >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.

<comment><USER93> 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.

<comment><USER55> > 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)

<comment><USER93> 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.

<comment><USER55> > 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

<comment><USER93> 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."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> Who want to stay in this EU is beyond me.

</comment><comment><USER95> Most countries in the world exist outside of the EU, Britian will figure it out

</comment><comment><USER96> So, will they now re-evaluate the whole Brexit? It's clear it was a failed idea to begin with.

<comment><USER97> 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?

<comment><USER98> > 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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> 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.

</comment><comment><USER100> 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.

<comment><USER101> _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.

<comment><USER48> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Imagine if all the great minds thinking, discussing, reporting and debating brexit spent their time on solving real problems facing the human race instead.

<comment><USER103> 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

<comment><USER19> 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?

<comment><USER103> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> 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.

<comment><USER105> 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).

<comment><USER104> 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?

<comment><USER105> 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)

<comment><USER104> 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.

<comment><USER105> > 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.

<comment><USER104> But "the data" can show no such thing. As I said, it can be better for some and worse for others.

<comment><USER105> There are always winners and losers when decisions are made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> 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?

<comment><USER107> 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.</comment></comment>


IPhone And Android Now Make Up 25 Percent of Smartphone Sales - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/19/iphone-android-25-percent/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><USER2> From the article:

> _"Can Android sales catch up to the iPhone?"_

Yes, of course it will. We're talking about a free OS that all the major manufacturers have jumped behind - no way Apple can beat that.

The better question is: will the dominance of Android actually change anything for the consumer, or will things be the same as they are currently (i.e., fractured UIs, no consistent experience, poor compatibility even within a single manufacturer, etc)

Google IMHO has done a poor job so far keeping Android as a single unified platform - it seems more and more like it's just a marketing word for Motorola, HTC, et al to latch onto.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, take that J2ME! Now I'll never have to learn you and your ridiculous acronyms.

<comment><AUTHOR> care to elaborate for the rest of us?

<comment><USER4> Probably in reference to the various API "profiles": IMP, MIDP, CLDC, and myriad lesser-known acronyms:

<http://www.ericgiguere.com/j2me/acronyms.html></comment></comment></comment>


Google Agrees to Change Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns - <AUTHOR> http://ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/google.shtm <comment><USER2> The FTC never had a prayer on the "manipulating search results" charge. Google's search product is a great big "filter-and-sort." Regulating the "sort" was ridiculous.

To my mind, the strange part of the settlement is the FTC's claim that websites benefit from hits coming from organic search but are somehow harmed by hits from Google local/shopping results. It seems the only sites harmed by being included in Google Shopping results are those with high prices. I didn't realize the FTC had a mandate to protect arbitrageurs.

<comment><USER3> just because "regulating the sort" seems tricky doesn't mean you just throw your hands up and concede. what if google just put all of its own properties on the right column of the SERPs (search engine results pages) and all the organic results unfettered in the center. what google already does, and now will likely do more of, is intersperse its own results _among_ the organic results.

<comment><USER2> If Google's products answer my question / solve my problem, their search engine would be worse if those products were excluded from the results. If the government starts regulating the CSS, I'm even more worried.

<comment><USER3> does it bother you that cigarette companies are required to put warning labels on their products. is it a problem that the font-size, contrast, element size are also monitored.

would it be ok for cigarette companies to put their warning messages in size-4 font in light grey inside the package?

<comment><USER2> Gmail doesn't cause cancer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It looks like all of Google's new lobbying efforts have paid off. <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=d000022008>

<comment><USER5> Interesting. For comparison:

Apple: <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021754>

Amazon: <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000023883>

Facebook: <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000033563>

IBM: <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000720>

Intel: <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000804>

Microsoft: <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000115>

<comment><USER6> Money Google spent is close to the sum of what all other companies above spent. Talk about not doing evil.

<comment><USER7> Why do you assume lobbying == doing evil?

<comment><USER8> Lobbying doesn't necessarily equate with doing evil, but it almost always equates with a person or group of people using their disproportionate power to push an agenda that individuals have little hope of pushing back on.

Obviously the nature of the agenda itself is what makes it good or evil, and there are plenty of lobbyists that do work that I personally agree with, but at the same time I can step back and say that because of the way the system is set up that lobbying disempowers individuals with whom I disagree but who do not have access to similar resources, and that makes me uneasy.

<comment><USER9> >Lobbying doesn't necessarily equate with doing evil, but it almost always equates with a person or group of people using their disproportionate power to push an agenda that individuals have little hope of pushing back on.

This assumes both that the ones doing the pushing aren't just pushing back against someone else, and that the someone else is a group of defenseless individuals rather than other corporate entities.

If you think about where all this got started you can kind of see where all the money goes. On the one hand you have Microsoft waging a PR campaign against them and funding front companies to make questionable antitrust claims against them.[1] So then they have to spend money telling their side of that story to members of Congress before the smear campaign can influence legislation. Then you have Facebook doing much the same thing for different reasons.[2] And they'll be pushing different legislation, so now they've got to pay someone to talk to different legislators.

At the same time, Apple is waging a patent war against Android, so now Google has got the incentive to go in and see if anything can be done to address the insanity that allows software to be patented in the U.S.

And then there's Rupert Murdoch, who seems to think that Google is the cause of all that is wrong with internet and the destruction of the publishing industry, and wants to make search engines pay to link to other websites. And the RIAA/MPAA accusing them of facilitating piracy and trying to pass SOPA and PIPA. And that whole Google Books thing with the authors guild. And AT&T and Verizon wanting to monopolize payment processing on mobile devices and anticompetitively excluding Google Wallet, or violating the open access terms on the recent spectrum auction, or whatever else greedy utility companies like that can imagine to do to negatively impact Android.

Oh, and China continues to harangue Google for not wanting to censor and so that they can advantage their own domestic search competitor, so now Google is under market pressure to go in and lobby the executive branch and try to get them to push back under the various trade treaties that ostensibly prohibit what China is doing.

I don't mean to paint the picture as "poor defenseless Google getting picked on by everybody else" because they're hardly poor and defenseless, and "don't be evil" doesn't mean that they're a bunch of saints or that you should trust them -- but holy crap. That's a lot of political fronts to be fighting at the same time. You can kind of see how it could be pretty expensive.

[1] [http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/02/how-microsoft-pays-big- money...](http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/02/how-microsoft-pays-big-money-to- smear-google-audaciously/)

[2] <http://www.wired.com/business/2011/05/facebook-google-smear/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> i think that the ftc's findings on "search bias" are going to deal a big blow to the online ecosystem. google now has a free hand to promote its own services. they have already shown a willingness to show subpar results above the fold. take the high positioning of google places for example, when there are much richer options available on the web (yelp etc.).

large established players like tripadvisor, kayak and yelp will probably be fine because they already get traffic from other sources, but new companies will now have one less major way to get traction.

it seems that this paves the way for a future where there are no organic results atf for many transactional queries. search for "flights from jfk to lax" and you'll only see ads and google flights atf (as opposed to hipmunk or kayak).

i am not making a moral or business claim, just stating my opinion that this ftc ruling (be it right or wrong) will harm the ecosystem.

<comment><USER10> There is no such thing as unbiased search. There is no such thing as an objective ranking algorithm.

Even ignoring the first amendment issues, what possible way are you going to regulate the "fairness" of the ordering of search results without completely hobbling the usefulness of that search engine?

A MapQuest-fan's trash is another man's useful google map at the top of the search results.

Far better for the FTC to actually enforce their rules about disclosure of site-provided results, which have been on the books for a decade. Danny Sullivan covers the lack of attention there well: [http://searchengineland.com/a-letter-to-the-ftc-regarding- se...](http://searchengineland.com/a-letter-to-the-ftc-regarding-search- engine-disclosure-124169)

<comment><USER3> as i mentioned in another post on this page, you dont need to regulate the _ordering_. for example, the ftc could regulate the labeling and positioning. ie. google could be required to put all googley results on the right column.

<comment><USER10> Positioning is, again, an untenable idea, as you're enshrining the search results of a decade ago as what a search engine _should_ return, while requiring anything else (whether that's search verticals, which is what you seem to be objecting to, or newer approaches like synthesized results) to be literally marginalized.

In other words, you would be requiring Google to remain static, while the rest of the market can explore the search result presentation space. That might help competitors, but it's bad for users.

You're also special-casing google, when, as noted in Jon Leibowitz's speech today: "Tellingly, Google's search engine rivals engaged in many of the same product design choices that Google did, suggesting this process can benefit consumers." Considering that today's result is because there was no evidence that consumers are being harmed here, would you be OK with your hypothetical labeling and positioning rules being applied to _all_ search engines? Then we just need to decide what defines a search engine...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> it is interesting to me that the stock is not moving on this news. i think if the shareholders knew how much of google's future profits relied on exploiting the SERPs, the stock would have soared today. <http://www.google.com/finance?q=goog>

<comment><USER3> also interesting, the market is not punishing those companies who stand to lose from this ruling:

<http://www.google.com/finance?q=yelp> <http://www.google.com/finance?q=kyak> <http://www.google.com/finance?q=trip> <http://www.google.com/finance?q=pcln>

<comment><USER11> A general presumption of FTC inaction has probably long been baked into the markets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a huge win for Google. For a company that has near monopoly in search and online ad business to escape this is a big deal.

<comment><USER12> What is Google's market share? I thought it was under 70%.

It's not like they've actually had a monopoly (90%) for almost 2 decades. Furthermore, it's not like you can't trivially change your search engine in the next 2 minutes.

<comment><USER13> There are multiple ways of measuring market share. One way is by the number of searches, and by that measure, in the US, google's market share is under 70%. Outside of the US, google's share is over 90% in many countries.

Another way to measure market share is by counting incoming clicks to websites from search engines. By that measure, google's share is higher.

<comment><USER12> Yes, and in one really big country, it's under 5%.

[http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/11/06/google-search-maps- con...](http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/11/06/google-search-maps-continue- downward-slide-in-china/)

I bet Microsoft has a much more consistent desktop market share in more countries. That is, about 90% everywhere. And that's one monopoly that isn't going away any time soon.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


DDoS attack protection for at-risk public interest websites - <AUTHOR> http://www.cloudflare.com/galileo <comment><USER2> We have seen a number of high profile sites being subjected to extortion via ddos. I wonder how many big companies have been paying up and kept silent about it. I also wonder how hard it would be to hire some broad shouldered guys to go and pay the extorter (extortioner?) a not-so-friendly visit, considering how inefficient law enforcement appears to be in this regard.

<comment><USER3> It's basically been a cost of doing business in certain industries since at least ~2000 -- I remember a bunch of gaming (gambling) companies complaining about huge 80Mbps floods and being extorted back then (often through e-gold, WebMoney, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > There is no cost to participate in Project Galileo — it's free. CloudFlare > will not publicly announce involvement in Project Galileo without > permission.

> Becoming part of Project Galileo is quick. On average, participants are up > and running within a couple of hours; however, set up time ranges from 15 > minutes to a couple of days.

> CloudFlare does not cap its DDoS mitigation service. CloudFlare has > experience defending against some of the largest DDoS attacks on record. We > will keep your website online.

The web is fragile in so many ways... But it's worse: the perpetrators of online attacks are (as good as) anonymous -- so this charitable initiative should be lauded for the load it's carrying.

Pun intended.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm personally shocked by how much power a DDoS has to potentially sway public opinion and influence the world at large. A few individuals have a hugely disproportionate voice in our public media by nature of the fact that they can control what other websites say through these attacks.

Is there any progress on infrastructure improvements that could potentially improve this current state of affairs? Is our only solution for benevolent companies like Cloudflare to offer their blanket of protection? I guess I'm asking, who will guard the guards?

<comment><USER6> I think the fundamental problem is cost. Much like raising an army, protecting against things like DDoS on the scale of 10Gbps+ costs real money.

Services like Cloudflare, Blacklotus, etc. act like insurance companies [e.g. You have a pool of X services and only Y are getting attacked at a time]. This gives them an economy of scale others can't match on their own. I'd like to see a non-profit public internet security service tbh but I don't think it'd raise the capital it would need to get to the level Cloudflare is at.

Provisioning something like this yourself is going to probably cost you $450 per Gbps of mitigation per month. HE is selling transit for $.45/Mbps/month, for instance. Then you'd need to clean it. HE can't provision this instantly or on demand, so you'd need to have it built out and semi-permanent [e.g. long term contract for 100s of Gbps].

You can create multiple targets too but the costs are still roughly the same vs. one big target. [e.g. 10 x 10 Gbps is pretty much as effective as 1 x 100 Gbps and similar costs]

<comment><USER7> Typically, you pay a fixed extra cost for a gigabit or 10Gbps link, but beyond that you only pay for traffic. So, a DDoS will cost you a fair bit, but having the spare capacity to weather one shouldn't cost you all that much. (Depending on just how much you expect to get hit by.)

I'm more curious why we don't start large-scale investigations in response to each DDoS attack: each one gives you a list of machines likely participating in a botnet.

<comment><USER6> I suppose I wasn't very clear then. Ah well, life.

> I'm more curious why we don't start large-scale investigations in response > to each DDoS attack: each one gives you a list of machines likely > participating in a botnet.

[https://securityledger.com/2013/04/cyberbunker-owner- arreste...](https://securityledger.com/2013/04/cyberbunker-owner-arrested-in- spain-rolled-in-mobile-ddos-van/)

They do. It just has to be large enough.

<comment><USER7> I'm not just talking about finding the originator of the attack; I'm talking about finding and cutting off all the vulnerable systems that facilitate the attacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What about sites involving religion? I imagine there is a need or will be a need for minority groups (whether pro or anti-religion) in various developing nations, but it's not mentioned on the project page at all.

</comment><comment><USER9> Well, the NSA needed something to make up for the reduced cooperation of service providers post-snowden…</comment>


The Verizon guy who turned down the iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/06/the-verizon-guy.html <comment><USER2> I saw the COO of Verizon talking about this on CNBC a few weeks ago. He says that to compete with the iPhone, Verizon has "18 multimedia phones" with picture and messaging packages.

But when you go to a Verizon store, and use the phones, they're all hideous attempts to create cool devices. Why do they even need EIGHTEEN devices? The menu systems are ugly and practically unusable, the buttons on the phones are poorly designed-- I bought my dad a Razr K1m, and the buttons are so small and flat that you have to grow your finger nail to press each individual number. The Verizon devices (that's LG, Motorola, etc) all suffer from a lack of creative design and ingenuity, because they are all pumped out quickly and with contracts, and because the manufacturers have little competition amongst themselves, because they generally operate in different niches, or on different networks.

This is why Apple's strategy is so revolutionary and is going to change the game. They've taken their crazy talent at creating easy and beautiful user interfaces and merged it with lots of leverage on AT&T's network in an attempt to remove all of what is bad about the cellular industry.

I think it's cool; the cell phone industry needs some shakeup now, just like PCs did in the late 90's.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not actually clear to me that AT&T's actually got a net win on their hands. I also wouldn't be so quick to call the iPhone a game changer.

This is the kind of article you write 10 years down the road, when all of the dust has cleared. It just came out two weeks ago...

Shouldn't there be a similar story about what eventually became a Danger/T-Mobile deal (on the Hiptop/Sidekick)?

</comment><comment><USER4> This suffers from the common Apple fanboy logical fallacy that hype=success.

</comment><comment><USER5> On the one hand, its very annoying that the Iphone can't be used on the best network. On the other hand, I can understand why Apple wanted so much control over the launch as they want to sell the user a complete experience, not just a gadget.

Letting Verizon handle sales would have been a bad idea - they're not very good at selling phones - I haven't enjoyed having to go and buy them at the Verizon stores in the past.

Letting Verizon handle support would have been less problematic, they've been great with my blackberry support, always overnighting me a new one no questions asked the same day (happened 3 times). Of course having people have to buy them at the Apple store gets people looking at Macs etc,so the motivation for Apple is pretty clear.

The big question is whether running on a lesser network will lose them so many customers that demanding the super deal with AT&T was a mistake. Time will tell once the clones arrive.

</comment><comment><USER6> Seems like...Apple wanted a sweetheart deal that threatened to change to overall relationship between Verizon and its other partners.</comment>


Secure EcmaScript, a runtime for running third-party code safely - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Agoric/SES <comment><USER2> "Still under development: do not use for production systems yet, there are known security holes that need to be closed."

Also note the experience of Figma who used the realms shim I think this project is using to secure Figma's JS based plug-ins system, only to promptly take a different approach when compromises were identified:

[https://www.figma.com/blog/how-we-built-the-figma-plugin- sys...](https://www.figma.com/blog/how-we-built-the-figma-plugin-system/)

[https://www.figma.com/blog/an-update-on-plugin- security/](https://www.figma.com/blog/an-update-on-plugin-security/)

I am looking forward to Realms. Until then, I am doubtful of attempts to fully secure third party JS execution in the browser's engine.

<comment><USER3> _" Since we published this blog post, we decided to change our sandbox implementation to an alternative approach: compiling a JavaScript VM written in C to WebAssembly"_

That's a fairly good indictment of browser sandboxing :)

<comment><USER4> Not really, since this is about creating new sandboxes within the the browser sandbox, not about the browser sandbox itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The original SES doesn't seem to do anything to prevent meltdown/spectre attacks [1]

This version removed direct access "Date" [2] but I'm not sure I'd trust any code running in the same process space given how hard it is to fix spectre in general.

[1] [https://github.com/google/caja/wiki/SES#current-date-and- tim...](https://github.com/google/caja/wiki/SES#current-date-and-time)

[2] [https://github.com/Agoric/SES/tree/master/demo#taming- dateno...](https://github.com/Agoric/SES/tree/master/demo#taming-datenow)

<comment><USER6> > ...but I'm not sure I'd trust any code running in the same process space...

Can someone ELI5 how a separate process would fix Spectre/Meltdown?

<comment><USER7> Spectre relies on being able to speculatively access data and extracting information about said data through a side channel despite the speculative execution not committing. A separate process means address spaces are separate, which means speculative execution cannot access the data.

Meltdown is similar, but because a CPU affected by Meltdown does not perform permission checks during speculative execution, you can read memory that the execution environment doesn't even have permissions for. E.g. kernel memory.

The fix for Spectre is thus to only consider address spaces a security boundary; interpreters or JITs cannot be considerd security boundaries any more (in general).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> FYI, Moddable's XS JavaScript engine already includes a native preliminary implementation for anyone who wants to play. As a contributor to the standard, their announcement post is also interesting: [https://blog.moddable.com/blog/secureprivate/](https://blog.moddable.com/blog/secureprivate/)

> _SES is not a security model or a security policy. SES is a way to build > these using standard JavaScript. By taking this more general approach, SES > allows each host to define its own approach to security (including the > option to have no restrictions at all). This is important because a security > policy that makes sense for scripts running on a lightbulb is unlikely to > apply equally well to scripts running on a web server or scripts in a web > page. SES provides tools in the language to build secure systems, but it is > not a security system._

</comment><comment><USER9> On a related note, a new project was posted here a couple days ago, that runs an entirely separate JavaScript runtime (Duktape or QuickJS) in WASM:

[https://github.com/maple3142/wasm-jseval](https://github.com/maple3142/wasm- jseval)

I've been playing with this, exploring its potential for running user scripts.

As noted in another comment, Figma used a Realms polyfill for their plugins, similar to SES, then migrated to using WASM-ized QuickJS as a safer sandbox.</comment>


Homeshare Shuts Down Today - <AUTHOR> https://www.homeshare.com/content/homeshare-closes-its-doors/ <comment><AUTHOR> "I'm thankful we had the opportunity to turn this simple idea into a business that made a difference."

That doesn't help when they can't/won't provide refunds for stuff like room dividers. Instead they're "transferring ownership" to whoever has them.</comment>


Detecting stack overflows on an embedded system - <AUTHOR> http://www.netburner.com/learn/detecting-stack-overflows-on-an-embedded-system <comment><USER2> With most ARM processors you can also use the DWT to set hardware watchpoints on data accesses. The advantage of that approach is that it runs at full speed and you don't have to instrument your code so you can set guards around your stack and the debugger/trace unit catches bad accesses.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. I believe this is the same as the hardware watchpoint I mentioned. I'm not usually working with ARMs, so I do not know for sure.

How would you deal with multiple tasks running? Do you have multiple watchpoints you can set with an ARM, or would the watch space need to be changed when switching tasks.

<comment><USER2> It's at the lowest level so it's unaware of multiple tasks. If there are multiple stacks you'd have to switch. At that point an MMU would be more suited to the job but of course that's a whole different environment.</comment></comment></comment>


Theremin - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theremin <comment><USER2> I recommend the Clara Rockmore recordings. "The Swan" is amazing - wouldn't be surprised if the Star Trek theme had been influenced by it.</comment>