Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Tromking

phillw wrote: »

There isn't support in Parliament for it.

Labour have said they would try to force a General election or 2nd referendum.

Conservatives could whip for no deal, I don't think they'll want the responsibility when it inevitably is a disaster. They'll never get elected again, the leave voters won't remember that it was them that caused it. They'll blame the conservatives.

A no confidence vote in the government could allow parliament to take control of the house.

No support needed for a default, it just happens.
Labour can try whatever they want, it’s the support for their aims that’s key.
There’s a high chance that the next Tory leader will be elected on a mandate where no deal is an option in the absence of Brussels acquiescing on a deal.
No deal being a disaster is conjecture on your part, there’s also plenty of Tories who reckon that a Corbyn Government will amount to a bigger economic disaster than no deal.
A successful vote of no confidence in the Government would require some Tories to vote for it, not a given I would suggest.

phillw

Prism wrote: »

I do too but then a general election would likely create such a mess that I have no idea what would happen after that. It would be tactically very interesting i reckon

I'm not sure what would happen either. If Farage filled parliament with all his WTO MPs then at least that would prevent any "bbbbbut I didn't know what would happen when I voted to leave" sob stories that will plague xmas day arguments for the next 50 years.

Tromking wrote: »

A successful vote of no confidence in the Government would require some Tories to vote for it, not a given I would suggest.

Surely not a given, but not out of the question. By attempting it then Labour would at least have clean hands, it would destroy the Conservatives forever. So it's win/win.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

If there is going to be no business in parliament between now and October then I would expect a no confidence vote to succeed.

Jeremy Corbyn first I would say. Never known such a dithering politician. Hopeless.

SNP will demand new referendum to support a coalition. Minority government will be chaotic.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn first I would say. Never known such a dithering politician. Hopeless.

I'm not a fan of his fence sitting tactic, he's running out of time for sure.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

SNP will demand new referendum to support a coalition. Minority government will be chaotic.

Chaos is going to be the new normal for a while no matter what happens.

Moe_The_Bartender

phillw wrote: »

Anything is possible at the moment. All that has changed from the EU parliament votes is more people are looking forward to WTO terms (without understanding it)

I very much doubt that remainers understand it either. They just pretend that they do and claim that it will be a disaster.

Enterprise_1701C

phillw wrote: »

You're confusing two separate issues. Making voting mandatory means that everyone has had their name ticked off, they know who is registered to vote & at the end of the day there are a lot of people who didn't turn up.

If you know you're gong to be fined if you don't turn up then I think asking someone to turn up and impersonate you is an acceptable way to cast your vote. Although I would remove the requirement to turn up and allow voting electronically. The chances that someone will be able to impersonate you and you happen to not vote is going to be so low that it's not worth worrying about. If a "person" ends up voting twice then it's a sign that the process isn't working. I would also spread voting over multiple days and give a report on how parties are doing, so you can make tactical decisions. The idea that tactical voting is somehow wrong is absurd, although going to single transferable voting would be fairer and remove the requirement.

Making sure that everyone is registered to vote is a bigger hurdle, people often don't register as a way to claim single person discount on the council tax where they reside. That is something that should be dealt with anyway.



The whole ID card thing is pretty toxic because it makes people think of living in a police state (we won two world wars right?). It evokes the same kind of irrational thinking as suggesting ditching sterling for the euro. The vote against them was similar same across all parties.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/dec/21/idcards.immigrationpolicy3

I'd like to know how you know so much about electoral fraud. Maybe you should have advised the review which found very low numbers https://www.ncpolitics.uk/2016/12/how-big-a-problem-is-voting-fraud-in-uk-elections/

That is precisely why I feel that if voting was mandatory it would have to be with ID. Asking someone to impersonate you would be fraud.

However, there is already a way of asking someone to vote for you without impersonating you, maybe you don't know about proxy votes.

buglawton

Prism wrote: »

I do too but then a general election would likely create such a mess that I have no idea what would happen after that. It would be tactically very interesting i reckon

It would create a coalition a la Con-LibDem we had some years ago. That wasn't a complete disaster IMO.

buglawton

Herzlos wrote: »

What's the path to a no deal brexit then?

The only way i see is for a no-deal PM to upset the EU enough for them to stop negotiating with us and let it time out. We'd get destroyed in any follow on negotiations though, as I honestly think they've been being sympathetic to us so far.

Isn't that what they did already?

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Herzlos
The only way i see is for a no-deal PM to upset the EU enough for them to stop negotiating with us and let it time out.

Negotiations are over. The EU parliamentry coalition will push to forward it's socialist intergrational protectionist agenda.

phillw

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

I very much doubt that remainers understand it either. They just pretend that they do and claim that it will be a disaster.

I don't understand everything about it & I doubt anyone truly does understand all the implications, but I am not encumbered by the need to believe it will be great. Therefore I hope you can see that my conclusion is more likely to be correct.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

That is precisely why I feel that if voting was mandatory it would have to be with ID. Asking someone to impersonate you would be fraud.

However, there is already a way of asking someone to vote for you without impersonating you, maybe you don't know about proxy votes.

Do they require ID when you vote by proxy? If not then why should you require ID to make voting mandatory?