Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Herzlos

Having a political system that isn't a 2 party first-past-the-post system would certainly help.


Here, we rarely seem to vote for a candidate whilst we tend to vote for the party most likely to beat the one we don't want. The result of that is the quality of a candidate doesn't matter (until the recent SNP stomping here you could have put forward a dead sheep and it'd win if it was wearing a Labour rosette. I doubt anywhere else is any better), and there's no compromise as we lurch wildly from left to right.



All those countries with 3+ party coalitions seem to take a bit longer to form governments, but seem to be a lot more stable in political outlook. They also seem to avoid our current situation where the 10 member DUP holds the minority government to ransom, because the Tories don't have enough seats on their own to do anything.

phillw

Herzlos wrote: »

Having a political system that isn't a 2 party first-past-the-post system would certainly help.

Yeah, germany sorted out their electoral issues after the war.

Winners are dreadful, they do stupid things because their winners.

andrewf75

phillw wrote: »

I think losing the war made them more humble, while we act like jerks and wave flags & believe the lies of anyone who tell us that Great Britain is Great.

It appears to have had a similar effect on Japan.

Yep I think this is right. I often ask myself how 2 of the countries who behaved most appallingly in the (recent) past are now 2 of the most sensible countries in the world today...

Maybe in a similar way we will eventually benefit long term from a Brexit humiliation

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

Yeah, germany sorted out their electoral issues after the war.

Germany was partioned after the war........;)

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

Yep I think this is right. I often ask myself how 2 of the countries who behaved most appallingly in the past are now 2 of the most sensible countries in the world today...

Deutsche Bank, VW, BMW, Commerzbank (to name a few) above board...... People are people. Wherever they are from.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

Mifid is a harmonized framework for financial regulation, and as such we'd need to adhere to it to sell financial services to the EEA?

Any UK businesses who want to sell financial services to the EEA are welcome to do so and comply with their financial regulations when they sell to those countries. There is no reason "the worst financial regulation in history" should be applied in this country.

Mifid II provides no investor protection. It largely focuses on forcing investment businesses to issue documents that are meaningless at best and misleading at worst, to their clients' detriment. The FCA has admitted that firms may have to issue "additional explanation" on top of Mifid documentation to explain that the Mifid documents are misleading. It puts consumers at greater risk of losing money in scams, because a) the regulator is distracted with Mifid b) legitimate businesses are forced to issue nonsensical and confusing information about their products while scammers can say what they like.

phillw wrote: »

You think weakening financial service regulation has no effect? 2008 says hi.

What on earth have Mifid's nonsensical disclosure requirements got to do with the credit crunch?

How, precisely, would the credit crunch have happened differently if Mifid II had been in place at the time?

spikyone

Herzlos wrote: »

Partnering that up with it being run by a government that wants to scrap the Human Rights Act, voted to reduce disability benefits and voted against a law requiring rental properties to be "fit for human habitation", and I'm not optimistic that outside of the ECHR and ECJ, we're not about to get royally shafted.

But as I've pointed out, and neither you nor StevieJ have addressed, the government could reduce any of those workers' rights today if it so desired. They are not tied to the EU, because our laws exceed the EU's requirements and we already have better workers' rights and benefits than many - if not most - EU members. It might not suit your pro-EU agenda, but them's the facts.

I can't speak from experience on the other issues you mention, but it appears that the "Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018" is passing into law soon as an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act. Forgive my ignorance on that matter, as my knowledge is gleaned from a 30-second Google that turned up lots of recent articles stating that it's being enacted. What is your issue with it?
Don't forget that MPs vote against legislation for various reasons; not necessarily because they disagree with its content, but sometimes because it is being enacted in an inappropriate or flawed manner, or they feel that it is already covered by other legislation. You can't infer that because someone voted against a piece of legislation, it was because they didn't agree with the aims of the legislation.

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Red tape for business.

A company doesn't exist to make a profit. A company needs to make a profit to survive.

'Red tape' let's have a bonfire eh? Last time that was aired was just before the Global Financial Crisis in 2007. Interestingly though, they seemed to think they could have a bonfire of the regulations even though we were still in the EU? Not all that red tape was imposed by the EU then? They also wanted to cut regulation on mortgage provision, sub-prime anyone

The proposals, to be endorsed by David Cameron, would achieve savings by scrapping huge amounts of legislation imposed on businesses by both Whitehall and Brussels, including rules on working hours and employee protection and restrictions on financial services.
A vast range of regulations on the financial services industry should either be abolished or watered down, including money-laundering restrictions affecting banks and building societies. Mr Redwood's group also sees "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

gfplux

Thrugelmir wrote: »

France tried higher taxes. People simply moved to London......:)

The major driver for a number of businesses was the high level of red tape in France.
Britain is considered by the French to have a lot less red tape.
In fact my experience of a number of European countries is that there are many more rules and regulations governing daily life.
Originally I felt this was too much but after a while I recognised that many of these regulations protect jobs and consumers.
A “light touch” towards regulation is not always the best way.

gfplux

Slide 10 of the British presentation explains the financial settlement for those who have difficulty in understanding it.

It’s the 5th File down.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration