Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

cogito

sevenhills wrote: »

The Tories wont like that, it might force them towards PR for general elections. PR is one of the best things the EU have brought to our election processes.

PR is the reason why the likes of AfD are the main opposition party in Germany and why populist parties are on the rise in other EU member states. And just wait until the EU Parl elections which will produce a result which the Commission won't enjoy one bit.

cogito

sevenhills wrote: »

But tariffs remain a feature of trading under WTO rules and the EU charges a range of tariffs depending on the product or service. For example, the tariff on food products and beverages imported into the EU is 21% of the value of a shipment. The UK’s fishing exports to the EU would be subject to a 9.6% tariff under WTO-only rules. Clothes manufactured in the UK and exported to the EU would be subject to an 11% tariff.


That is not what people voted for.

What tariffs would the UK apply to EU products under WTO?

buglawton

sevenhills wrote: »

But tariffs remain a feature of trading under WTO rules and the EU charges a range of tariffs depending on the product or service. For example, the tariff on food products and beverages imported into the EU is 21% of the value of a shipment. The UK’s fishing exports to the EU would be subject to a 9.6% tariff under WTO-only rules. Clothes manufactured in the UK and exported to the EU would be subject to an 11% tariff.

That is not what people voted for.

It's what I voted for.

Enterprise_1701C

sevenhills wrote: »

The Tories wont like that, it might force them towards PR for general elections. PR is one of the best things the EU have brought to our election processes.

We had a referendum on vote reform in 2011.

The result was 67% no and 32% yes.

From memory it was held due to an agreement with the LibDems where they would allow constituencies to be changed if we had a referendum on the AV system.

They went back on their word then, and once again were on the wrong side.

Lungboy

They promised a vote on PR and delivered a vote on AV, then totally failed to promote it.

Zero_Gravitas

A_Pandiculation wrote: »

*Shock alert*
Remainer would be happy to remain legally tied to the EU.
:rotfl:

Whatever else happens, from the way it looks so far it's pretty safe to say that history will be scathing towards May's administration and to those that put a remainer in charge of taking Britain out of the EU following the referendum..

Nobody “put a remainer in charge”. What actually happened is that the all the leavers who could have been in charge either ran away or dropped out - May was the only one left.

The way it looks so far is that the leavers have utterly failed to take any responsibility for the damage they have caused and will cause - and that’s what history will really be scathing about.

Herzlos

It's also a stretch to call Theresa "submarine" May a remainer. She made a pretty non-committal effort to remain to be seen to take a side and then hid for most of the campaign.

Sky has done a survey that shows 53% would prefer remaining, and very few people (about 20%) think Mays deal or no deal to be worth the economic damage:
https://news.sky.com/story/most-britons-think-brexit-not-worth-economic-hit-sky-data-poll-finds-11566038

Enterprise_1701C

Lungboy wrote: »

They promised a vote on PR and delivered a vote on AV, then totally failed to promote it.

No. The LibDems wanted an AV system because they wanted to be the kingmakers.

A vote on PR was not promised.

I remember the hubbub around the AV referendum, it was on the same day as the local elections.

"In February 2010, the Labour Government, which had been in power since 1997, used their majority to pass an amendment to their Constitutional Reform Bill to include a referendum on the introduction of AV to be held in the next Parliament, citing a desire to restore trust in Parliament in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal.[15] A Liberal Democrat amendment to hold the referendum earlier, and on STV,[16] was defeated by 476 votes to 69.[15] There was insufficient time remaining in the term of that Parliament for the Bill to become law before Parliament was dissolved; and so the move was dismissed by several Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs as a political manoeuvre.[15]
In the ensuing 2010 general election campaign, the Labour manifesto supported the introduction of AV via a referendum, to "ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election".[17] The Liberal Democrats argued for proportional representation, preferably by single transferable vote, and the Conservatives argued for the retention of FPTP. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats proposed reducing the number of MPs, while the Conservative Party argued for more equal sized constituencies. "

"The initial Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement, dated 11 May 2010, detailed the issues which had been agreed between the two parties before they committed to entering into coalition. On the issue of an electoral reform referendum, it stated:

"The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."

The LibDems natural reneged on the agreement.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

PR is the reason why the likes of AfD are the main opposition party in Germany and why populist parties are on the rise in other EU member states. And just wait until the EU Parl elections which will produce a result which the Commission won't enjoy one bit.

That's presumably a good reason to have something like PR, then? It gives the smaller parties a chance to get involved and better reflects the political wishes of the constituents?


I'm not saying I'm a fan of right wing parties, but if that's what people want to vote for I'm all for it. That said, I think a lot of the reason the right wing / populist / single issue parties seem so popular in terms of votes is that they've never been given any power or opportunity to show how shallow they are as a party. For instance, the easiest way to kill off UKIP was to give them what they wanted and let them run away from the responsibility, than to continue to sideline them.


PR also gets rid of this strategic voting nonsense. With a single non-transferable vote in what's essentially a 2 party system your choices are realistically A, B, anyone-but-A or anyone-but-B.
How many Labour votes are because the voter wanted Labour Vs how many voted Labour because they didn't want Tories, and visa versa?


Up here, parties have actually run campaigns along the lines of "Vote labour, get SNP", and we've even had Labour parties encouraging people to vote Tory to keep the SNP out. If that's not a sign of a broken electoral system then I don't know what is.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

That's presumably a good reason to have something like PR, then? It gives the smaller parties a chance to get involved and better reflects the political wishes of the constituents?


I'm not saying I'm a fan of right wing parties, but if that's what people want to vote for I'm all for it. That said, I think a lot of the reason the right wing / populist / single issue parties seem so popular in terms of votes is that they've never been given any power or opportunity to show how shallow they are as a party. For instance, the easiest way to kill off UKIP was to give them what they wanted and let them run away from the responsibility, than to continue to sideline them.


PR also gets rid of this strategic voting nonsense. With a single non-transferable vote in what's essentially a 2 party system your choices are realistically A, B, anyone-but-A or anyone-but-B.
How many Labour votes are because the voter wanted Labour Vs how many voted Labour because they didn't want Tories, and visa versa?


Up here, parties have actually run campaigns along the lines of "Vote labour, get SNP", and we've even had Labour parties encouraging people to vote Tory to keep the SNP out. If that's not a sign of a broken electoral system then I don't know what is.

You could just as easily end up with the same sort of situation as in Belgium that took 541 days of negotiations to form a government after the elections because 11 parties were elected to the Chamber of Representatives, none of which won more than 20% of the votes. They were technically without a government for 589 days.