Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

cogito

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

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.

True but it didn’t seem to do them much harm, did it?

Herzlos

There are also lots of countries that seem to be getting on fine with 3+ party coalitions, so I don't think it's unworkable.


11 parties, each with <20% of the votes shows that none of the parties represent the people well and need to be in a larger coalition.

Masomnia

Herzlos wrote: »

There are also lots of countries that seem to be getting on fine with 3+ party coalitions, so I don't think it's unworkable.


11 parties, each with <20% of the votes shows that none of the parties represent the people well and need to be in a larger coalition.

I think it is in the UK. The Coalition we had from 2010 proved it, to me at least. The Lib Dems were supposedly in favour of PR and thus coalitions, but their supporters abandoned them in droves because of the 'betrayal' of going into coalition. We're far too tribal.

I'm old fashioned, but I quite like FPTP. You (usually) get decisive governments with a clear manifesto, with the power to get it through the house. I don't buy the argument that PR is more democratic because you end up with coalitions that no one voted for.

sevenhills

cogito wrote: »

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

At the moment, being part of the EU, we receive £3 billion in tariff payments. I don't know whether our Government would try to keep tariffs to £3 billion, or it could have zero tariffs and increase taxation.


Or maybe there is a requirement adopt WTO tariffs and they could reduce taxation if more monies was raised?

A_Pandiculation

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

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.

You can't rewrite history!
No wonder the country is so divided; remainers simply do not understand that they're being led down the proverbial garden path.

Since there seems to be misunderstanding about this, read on.
It might have escaped your attention but Fox, Gove and Leadsom stood as candidates for the then-vacant position of PM. Gove wouldn't back Boris J for that reason & that's why Boris chose not to stand. Note that these are all Brexiters; I didn't see either Fox, Leadsom or Gove "run away", do you?
So far so good then.
Round one of leadership voting saw Liam Fox out. That left Leadsom, Gove and May in the running. Still clear enough even for remainers, surely?
Then it was narrowed down to May vs Leadsom & the rest, as they say, is history. Unless you're a remainer, it seems.

So to be clear; there was no "running away" of Brexit MP's and no "dropping out"; they were voted out.
Hence my assertion "that history will be scathing towards May's administration and to those that put a remainer in charge" remains valid. Just because you either do not understand how May was chosen or you simply do not like it does not alter historical fact.

Herzlos

Johnson choosing not to stand isn't getting voted out. Didn't Leadsom drop out as well and handed it to May by default?

Edit: she did.

Even Gove claims May was a reluctant remainer https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/793998/Michael-Gove-trusts-theresa-May-with-strengthened-hand-general-election-2017-brexit
She only went remain after being pushed off the fence, and did so with the least gusto ever seen. Which is why I fond it so strange that people claim she's some kind of saboteur remainer.

andrewf75

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

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.

Spot on.
I doubt a “leaver” would have done things much different. It’s one thing promising the earth, quite another situation when you’re actually in charge of delivering it – for the whole country. Johnson, Gove, Fox, Leadsom etc would have softened their position had they been leader. Rees Mogg is probably the only one who is completely set on his hardline approach, but he is self-aware enough to know he could never be leader.

A_Pandiculation

Herzlos wrote: »

Johnson choosing not to stand isn't getting voted out. Didn't Leadsom drop out as well and handed it to May by default?

Edit: she did.

Even Gove claims May was a reluctant remainer https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/793998/Michael-Gove-trusts-theresa-May-with-strengthened-hand-general-election-2017-brexit
She only went remain after being pushed off the fence, and did so with the least gusto ever seen. Which is why I fond it so strange that people claim she's some kind of saboteur remainer.

You've never heard the phrase "flogging a dead horse"? Round two: May 199 votes, Leadsom 84 votes. Leadsom did the honorable thing, simple as.There is no way she could have won.

May has managed to actually produce a supposed "deal" that is actually worse than no deal., agreed by MP's of all persuasions too. I find it strange that people here claim not to see that ...... oh hold on, remainer selective comprehension strikes again.

sevenhills

A_Pandiculation wrote: »

May has managed to actually produce a supposed "deal" that is actually worse than no deal., agreed by MP's of all persuasions too. I find it strange that people here claim not to see that ...... oh hold on, remainer selective comprehension strikes again.

I think Mays deal will go through, if it does not go through, that is because leavers see a 'no deal' as better and remainers see 'staying in' as a better deal.
The only way to not get Mays deal, is another referendum.

LHW99

I doubt a “leaver” would have done things much different.

Possibly the end result would have been similar, although IMO we may have started in 2016 from the position that the UK would expect to move to WTO in April 2019. Which would at least have given certainty and ensure businesses spent the 2+ years preparing.