Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

gfplux

With no deal now firmly on the table the pound has sunk further in value against the dollar and the Euro delighting British exporters, saddening British importers and making staycations even more attractive.

I imagine Johnson might have taken a peek at this Wikipedia page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Controls_in_the_United_Kingdom

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Why is it entirely to the advantage of the EU? We'd benefit from being in the CU, too.


They'd have to release us from the backstop once we satisfied the criteria we agreed on. If somehow they didn't, the ECJ would find in our favour or we could just tear it all up and walk away.


You seem to somehow think the EU is only out to screw us over, rather than purely to protect itself and knows fine well hurting us hurts them. You're by far the most anti-EU Remain voter I've ever encountered.


Only if both sides honoured their part - the EU refusing to accept a solution that dissolves the backstop would invalidate the whole thing

Exactly what benefit would the UK get from being in a Customs Union that prevented us from negotiating our own arrangements with other countries?

Regarding the backstop, all the EU have to do to keep us locked in is to find excuses to reject any proposals that we put forward. If they will reject a report by Lars Karlsson that they themselves commissioned on smart borders, they will reject anything. The backstop as it stands is unacceptable because it is without any time limit and all the EU have agreed is to use reasonable endeavours to find a solution. These words are utterly meaningless as they can mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.

As for your suggestion that the political ECJ would find in our favour, words fail me. And you cannot just walk away from an International Treaty. Ask the Spanish how they are getting on with walking away from the Treaty of Utrecht.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Well, my whole point is that I disagree with the way the British un-written constitution works. I am not describing how it works, I am criticising it.

I get that, its just that your criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our parliamentary system of government. Its like someone drinking Pepsi and complaining that it doesn't taste like Coca Cola. You're applying a presidential argument to a party based system.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Please clarify. There is no explicit mechanism whereby PMs must resign if they "cannot get their business done". How many times was May's deal defeated before she resigned? Even then, it wasn't automatic.

I repeat, we do not have confidence votes in PM's, we have them in the government they happen to lead, we had a confidence vote last year in the current Government which they won. In our system parliament cannot remove the leader of a party. TM resigned at the behest of her own party don't forget. If a government cannot gets it business done, it falls, if that happens its still perfectly possible for the party to keep the same leader. Stop thinking a PM is akin to a President, ours is a party based system.

SouthLondonUser

???
I never said our PMs are akin to a president. They have more power than in other parliamentary systems but presidents they are not, obviously.

Yes, the confidence vote is technically in the government, I had clarified that. But the gist doesn't change: the Tory leader is changing. New leader means new PM means new government, BUT the new government won't be subject to an automatic confidence vote. My point is that there should be such an automatic confidence vote when the PM (and therefore the government) changes.

What would I have misunderstood? How is anything I have said inaccurate?
By all means, do disagree with me (although I'd be curious to understand why) but don't say I misunderstand just because we have a different opinion.

You keep saying if a government cannot get its business done, but is there a formal definition or an automated mechanism for that?

Tromking

BJ's new administation won't be subject to an initial confidence vote because you've just invented the idea that it should. Under our system we don't vote for Governments we vote for a collection of MP's in a party that get to run things for five years. There is no constitutional imperative to check-in with parliament every time the ruling party changes its leader.
If I recall correctly the viability of a Government is linked directly to whether its budget can get through parliament. If it can't, then that is akin to a vote of no confidence.

Enterprise_1701C

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

???
I never said our PMs are akin to a president. They have more power than in other parliamentary systems but presidents they are not, obviously.

Yes, the confidence vote is technically in the government, I had clarified that. But the gist doesn't change: the Tory leader is changing. New leader means new PM means new government, BUT the new government won't be subject to an automatic confidence vote. My point is that there should be such an automatic confidence vote when the PM (and therefore the government) changes.

What would I have misunderstood? How is anything I have said inaccurate?
By all means, do disagree with me (although I'd be curious to understand why) but don't say I misunderstand just because we have a different opinion.

You keep saying if a government cannot get its business done, but is there a formal definition or an automated mechanism for that?

I almost wish you were right, although you are wrong on so many levels.

Can you imagine what would have happened when Blair just handed the reins to Brown? Now that was wrong, he was not even selected by his own party, Blair promised him the job as part of a deal and that was it. At least the next leader of the Conservative party will be elected by the party members.

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

BJ's new administation won't be subject to an initial confidence vote because you've just invented the idea that it should. Under our system we don't vote for Governments we vote for a collection of MP's in a party that get to run things for five years. There is no constitutional imperative to check-in with parliament every time the ruling party changes its leader.

?????????????????
I haven't invented anything.
I have simply dared express an opinion. By all means, do disagree with the opinion, but please:

1. explain why. What would be so wrong in forcing an automatic confidence vote when the PM, and therefore the government, changes? What are the downsides? Why would it be wrong? Note that saying "our unwritten Constitution does not envisage it" is not an answer to the "why not?" question
2. do not claim I misunderstand how our system works. Disagreeing with something doesn't mean not understanding how it works. Basically I have been saying: "it is yellow but I think it should be green" while you keep saying "you are wrong, you misunderstand, it is yellow because our Constitution says so". Ehm, so what?

Tromking wrote: »

If I recall correctly the viability of a Government is linked directly to whether its budget can get through parliament. If it can't, then that is akin to a vote of no confidence.

Practically yes, but not explicitly nor automatically: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/voting-budget

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I almost wish you were right, although you are wrong on so many levels.

Care to explain why?

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Can you imagine what would have happened when Blair just handed the reins to Brown? Now that was wrong, he was not even selected by his own party, Blair promised him the job as part of a deal and that was it. At least the next leader of the Conservative party will be elected by the party members.

So what? Boris’ new government should not be subject to a confidence vote because… Brown’s wasn’t? Is this your argument? I am not following. The fact that something similar or worse happened in the past does not make this right! I am not following. I ask again: can you please explain why you disagree? What would be so wrong in forcing an automatic confidence vote when the PM, and therefore the government, changes? That’s what happens by default in most parliamentary systems, by the way. That’s the whole point of a parliamentary systems: if the executive is to derive its legitimacy from Parliament, why on Earth shouldn’t Parliament have a say on whether it approves a new executive the very moment it changes?? Please explain.

Sailtheworld

The leadership campaign which effectively started the day after the last general election has been hugely disruptive. If it was up to me I'd suggest that a change of PM that happened, say, more than a year before a planned general election should trigger a new general election.

triathlon

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49027889

This is the reality of a No Deal Brexit.

I just despair with people, how can anyone supports a policy that will bring about a scorched earth policy in order to bring successful people down to their level of despair, not that it will work.
I assume seeing though this is a property debating board that those wanting Brexit here want to instigate a crash in the economy, how pathetic.

Tromking

triathlon wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49027889

This is the reality of a No Deal Brexit.

I just despair with people, how can anyone supports a policy that will bring about a scorched earth policy in order to bring successful people down to their level of despair, not that it will work.
I assume seeing though this is a property debating board that those wanting Brexit here want to instigate a crash in the economy, how pathetic.

A recession borne out of a 2% drop in growth in 2020 and then a return to growth in 2021!
Is that it?