Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

LHW99

Yes it's an unlikely occurrence but that's an awful lot of power for someone who has been elected let alone for someone who hasn't.

IMO in the case of the powers of the monarchy, the benefit to the country of them being left to an unelected sovereign is precisely because it is extremely unlikely they would decide to actually try to use them. Put an elected person in with the power to, eg decide if the PM chosen by the party(s) with the most seats should actually be PM or not, they just might decide they didn't like what that person represented, and as they also were elected, they must have the right to refuse to accept that person.
As in Catalonia.

tracey3596

Herzlos wrote: »

It largely does. Most directives from Brussels are guidelines and not implementations, And our parliament decides how to enact them.

If we don't like them, we can veto them, vote against them or otherwise kick up a fuss.

Really?
Then perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what happens should any member state do this - or are you suggesting that doing so would be free of consequences?

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

Barnier was given his basis for negotiating the transition period today it took all of 2 minutes for the EU27 to vote yes to the guidence.
The EU will negotiate on the basis that the Transition period will end December 31st 2020. There might be room to negotiate around the edges but the EU have made it clear what the deal is on offer. Frankly there were no surprises at all.
The press conference was very interesting.

Seems a reasonable starting point from which to negotiate. Which business has been calling for across Europe. Besides which the UK is maintaining contributions to the end of 2020. So is paying our dues to benefit from the single market.

tracey3596

ilovehouses wrote: »

The Express? Why lower the tone of the discussion.
I explained why; read the post again. "this being chosen because it contains a video as well as writing so it'll be easy to understand." Apparently not though.

According to full fact the Lords amended bills despite the objections of the government 50 times in 2016.
Ooh, a whole 50 times in a full year?

In a third of those cases they were overuled by the Commons. Another third led to a negotiated change. In the remaining third the government conceded because they thought the amendment a good idea or because they didn't think they had the votes to overrule the Lords. Ah, so one third of 50 = 17 times the HoP accepted that the Lords were correct and a further 17 times there were some sort of minor adjustment, yes? So 34 times in a year.

i.e. two thirds of the Lords amendments led to an amendment in a year when the government had a decent majority. Now we're getting somewhere. Just one bit you are deliberately missing out: the Lords cannot stop a bill passing into law. At best they can delay it, as they may well try to do. Watch the video if you're disinclined to read and at least attempt an understanding of how it works.

This isn't inconsequential power. Why do you think Rees-Mogg is issuing threats to the Lords? Yes it is, really. And because he can and he likes the publicity, for a wild guess. How unlike a politician that is, eh.

If the above still flies straight over, try thinking of Lords as being like one of those sat on a shoulder in this:

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

It largely does. Most directives from Brussels are guidelines and not implementations, And our parliament decides how to enact them.

If we don't like them, we can veto them, vote against them or otherwise kick up a fuss.

Give me an example. How and when could we have vetoed MIFID II?

Rough_Justice

Ha ha ha ha!
Mark Carney is to be put on the spot by The Lords Economic Affairs Committee tomorrow (Tuesday) to ask him:

why the Bank's economic projections in August 2016 – when it slashed interest rates for the first time in more than seven years to ward off a Brexit recession – differed "substantially" from the reality.

http://www.cityam.com/279588/bank-englands-mark-carney-faces-grilling-lords-committee
:T About time! :T

gfplux

This is the document outlining the transition guidelines agreed by the EU today.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32504/xt21004-ad01re02en18.pdf

Rough_Justice

There's lots about a potential EU/USA trade war currently in the media &
this caught my eye from an EU Commission spokesman:

For us trade policy is not a zero sum game. It is not about winners and losers. We here in the European Union believe that trade can and should be win-win.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/29/brussels-prepared-for-trade-war-with-us-if-it-restricts-eu-imports
If that really is the official EU stance then the UK will be fine with Brexit.
Barnier & pals all want trade to continue so all will be fine, right?
Or is it yet another EU lie?

ilovehouses wrote: »

The leave narrative. As well as being more patriotic they're authorities on democracy too.

Ah.
Disingenuous it was, then.
"Are you being deliberately disingenuous or are you just ignorant as to how the EU works?" Post #4723

sevenhills

Incredible_1 wrote: »

Dunno about that poster but personally I think that there are that many it's difficult to know where to start, from VAT and what attracts it to the Working Time Directive. From deciding how much power a vacuum cleaner consumes to reforming CAP, there are so many which are unnecessary and often counter-productive that not only would a UK Parliament do it differently but in honesty ANY parliament worth it's salt would do it differently.

As far as I can see, our politicians just blame the EU for our failings.
We increased VAT from 17.5% to 20% in 2011, no problem.

The Working Time Regulations provide rights to: a limit of an average 48 hours a week on the hours a worker can be required to work, though individuals may choose to work longer by "opting out".

Herzlos

tracey3596 wrote: »

Really?
Then perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what happens should any member state do this - or are you suggesting that doing so would be free of consequences?

As far as I'm aware, there are no strings on our veto and no consequences for voting against anything. Do you have evidence to the contrary?