Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

SouthLondonUser

I asked Brexiters a very banal question about whether central bank governors should be appointed directly. Still no answer. Now someone will come along shouting how dare I demand answers...

westernpromise wrote: »

Is there any example of a central bank governor being a convicted financial criminal whose conviction the state decided to ignore?

A financial criminal? You make it sound like she embezzled state funds.
A businessman sold shares in a business to a bank owned by the French state. He then sued the bank and she referred the case to an arbitration panel. I don't know the details. It was probably poor judgement. But 'financial criminal'?

Any way, I am not saying Lagarde is the best choice. For example she doesn't seem to have experience in monetary policy.

I am saying that the criticism of that article, which decries the lack of direct election of the ECB governor, is total nonsense, because no central bank governor is (and rightly so) appointed by the electorate. Can Brexiters agree on this, at least?

Rinoa

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

If true (I don't know the details), it may mean she is a poor choice for the job; It doesn't mean that EU electors should vote for the ECB governor directly.

I ask again:

A UK PM will have detailed knowledge of the best people in his/her party. They will give the high offices to those they know will be most competent at carrying out their duties. It's broadly the same with most governments, the right people get the right jobs usually on merit.

The EU does things differently. Each country thinks it should be represented at EU level in some capacity. The top jobs are chosen by what can only be described as horse trading, I'll vote for your guy if you'll vote for mine. Eventually after much shenanigans the jobs are distributed. It's a stupid way of appointing important EU officials.

SouthLondonUser

westernpromise wrote: »

That commissioners be selected from the MEPs of whichever party won the vote in each country.

I am not, in principle, opposed to selecting Commissioners from MEPs, even though I disagree it would be the game changer you may think it would be. But "from whichever party won the vote in each country" doesn't make much sense - it signals a FPTP mentality which doesn't translate well to a proportional system. What if one left-wing party won the largest share but a coalition of two right-wing parties won an even greater share of the votes?

westernpromise wrote: »

So you think the last GE should be rerun because the voters didn't understand what they might be getting?

Please don't put words in my mouth.
What I think is that, at the very least, there should be an automatic confidence vote for any PM elected midterm, with a genera election triggered in case of defeat. After all, we are not a presidential but a parliamentary democracy, right? Power ultimately lies with Parliament, right? So what would be wrong about this?

I also think parties should reform how they elect their leaders. At least when it means replacing a PM, IMHO it would make more sense if only MPs elected a new leader. The Tory system whereby a tiny and unrepresentative number of people chooses it is dysfunctional to say the least. So was the Labour system of letting anyone show up and vote.

SouthLondonUser

Rinoa wrote: »

A UK PM will have detailed knowledge of the best people in his/her party. They will give the high offices to those they know will be most competent at carrying out their duties. It's broadly the same with most governments, the right people get the right jobs usually on merit.

Supposedly yes.

In practice, not always. Incompetent people get appointed all the time for all the wrong reasons. Take Grayling, for example!

Rinoa wrote: »

The EU does things differently. Each country thinks it should be represented at EU level in some capacity. The top jobs are chosen by what can only be described as horse trading, I'll vote for your guy if you'll vote for mine. Eventually after much shenanigans the jobs are distributed. It's a stupid way of appointing important EU officials.

There is some truth in what you say. It sucks, but is also understandable in the case of supranational entities like the EU.

Just look at what the British tabloid write to see how all too common it is to judge EU politicians and civil servants on nationality more than on actual competence.

What would you propose?

Would you propose to create a President of the EU and to give even more power to him/her and to MEPs, to the detriment of national governments?

Takedap

I see this discussion has now moved on to a "My system is better than your system" argument.


No-one is now talking about whether or not Brexit is the best thing for the UK. Or even if there is going to be of any benefit whatsoever.


All the talk now is about how to compensate farmers & fishermen over the loss of their subsidies. Of how much we have to spent to negate the effects of a no deal Brexit.


Even the most bullish of supporters (ie, Johnson) has forgotten about the sunlit uplands & the brave new dawn.


It's just about "the will of the people" & "saving democracy". It doesn't matter if it's economic suicide, the people asked for it so they must get it. Even if it was just a protest vote to give the Government of the day a kicking.


Go for it. What have you got to lose?

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

A financial criminal? You make it sound like she embezzled state funds. A businessman sold shares in a business to a bank owned by the French state. He then sued the bank and she referred the case to an arbitration panel. I don't
know the details. It was probably poor judgement. But 'financial criminal'?

A French court convicted the head of the International Monetary Fund and former government minister, who had faced a €15,000 (£12,600) fine and up to a year in prison.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-lagarde-avoids-sentence-despite-guilty-verdict-in-negligence-trial
The previous IMF incumbent was a rapist, so at least they've maintained the culture.

no central bank governor is (and rightly so) appointed by the electorate. Can Brexiters agree on this, at least?

I'm not a Brexiteer, I'm a neutral. From where I am standing, Remainers and Brexiteers alike are common or garden liars. There is not a cigarette paper between them. Just calling it Remain at all was a lie in itself. There is no option available to preserve the status quo. It is Leave (the simplicity of which Leave lied about) or Federate (the goal of which Remain lied about).

Herzlos

Not at all, we could have remained and still refused to get involved in the ever closer union (apart from the bits we suggested).

phillw

westernpromise wrote: »

There is no option available to preserve the status quo. It is Leave (the simplicity of which Leave lied about) or Federate (the goal of which Remain lied about).

I haven't lied about anything. Have you not seen Star Trek? That is where we are heading. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a federation.

Remaining was a status quo, we would be in the same position slowly moving towards the future. We were protected from anything extreme because 28 countries have to agree (although prejudiced people struggle to understand this). Brexit was a knee jerk reaction to some small scale/short term issues that people felt entitled about.

Takedap

phillw wrote: »

I haven't lied about anything. Have you not seen Star Trek? That is where we are heading. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a federation.

Remaining was a status quo, we would be in the same position slowly moving towards the future. We were protected from anything extreme because 28 countries have to agree (although prejudiced people struggle to understand this). Brexit was a knee jerk reaction to some small scale/short term issues that people felt entitled about.

Bloodly Klingons.........coming over here, taking our jobs & claiming our benefits.


Hang on. I can hear sirens......must run to the shelters.

Enterprise_1701C

I believe one day the whole world will be united.

BUT that is hundreds of years away.

You cannot force these things, and that is precisely what the eu are trying to do. We are not ready for a USofE, I don't think Eastern Europe is either, we are not ready for anyone being able to live anywhere, for Europe to become one big country with no identifiable differences between what would then be regions. We are certainly not ready for it to be run by corrupt officials that can't even get the books right, and send money to countries like Italy where it then goes to the !!!!! rather than companies that are run properly.

Seriously, you could not get more ridiculous than wanting to let someone that has been prosecuted for negligence but reckoned she had done nothing wrong! She was convicted of the misuse of public funds fgs, and they think the ecb would be safe in her hands? When she thinks she did nothing wrong?