Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

ben501

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I like to hold people accountable... even though I know it's quite pointless in this populist age.

But not a word against our two faced MPs I notice.

SouthLondonUser

What do you want me to say? Invoking article 50 and setting the clock in motion before agreeing a plan was a very stupid mistake. I thought this was self-evident.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

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

Unimpeded trade with our biggest and closest trade partner.

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.

True, and they will because there is no good solution. That's why the EU is insisting on the backstop and we're insisting that it times out. Of course, the backstop doesn't apply if we accept that our decision means a hard border and just get on with it.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Well, the consistent event is actually people spitting out factually false nonsense. My calling it out is just a consequence.

For example, someone said I was confusing parliamentary and presidential systems; nonsense - requiring a vote of confidence when a new government is formed is, indeed, a feature of many parliamentary systems. Whether you agree with that or not is an opinion; that it has nothing to do with a presidential system is a fact.

I like to hold people accountable... even though I know it's quite pointless in this populist age.

Fella, we’re just two idiots arguing the toss on a rather obscure money saving forum. No one needs to hold anyone else “accountable” as you bizarrely and somewhat egotistically put it, we just engage in civilised discourse and challenge each other’s viewpoint.
I accused you of confusion because you were suggesting a change of PM required a confidence vote on that PM, ergo you were elevating the PM who is merely (under our system) the head of the executive, to the status of a president.
You can advocate for a change of system, but don’t criticise the current one when the things that that irk you about it are things that are entirely consistent with a parliamentary system.

SouthLondonUser

You continue to misunderstand. A vote of confidence in a new government is a feature of many parliamentary systems.
In fact, in presidential systems, the president is typically elected directly by voters.

You can disagree with me about whether requiring a confidence vote is appropriate or not. But you cannot say that that's a feature of presidential systems - your insistence in saying so shows you are totally unfamiliar with how these systems work.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

You continue to misunderstand. A vote of confidence in a new government is a feature of many parliamentary systems.
In fact, in presidential systems, the president is typically elected directly by voters.

You can disagree with me about whether requiring a confidence vote is appropriate or not. But you cannot say that that's a feature of presidential systems - your insistence in saying so shows you are totally unfamiliar with how these systems work.

Your entire point is that a change of PM should trigger a confidence vote, my entire point is that under our system it doesn’t, never has and shouldn’t ever. Let’s just agree to disagree and move on.

SouthLondonUser

I see you are still unwilling to admit that you made a big confusion between parliamentary and presidential systems. Whatever...

Care to explain what would be the downside in forcing a confidence vote when the PM changes? Would there be any negative consequence I fail to see?

SpiderLegs

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I see you are still unwilling to admit that you made a big confusion between parliamentary and presidential systems. Whatever...

Care to explain what would be the downside in forcing a confidence vote when the PM changes? Would there be any negative consequence I fail to see?

The leader of the opposition can call a confidence vote whenever they want to. I expect that is exactly what will happen next week.

SouthLondonUser

But that is not the same as having one triggered automatically.
There may be extreme cases (we live in extreme times) where the leader of an opposition might not call the vote even if the new government is unlikely to survive it.

SpiderLegs

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

But that is not the same as having one triggered automatically.
There may be extreme cases (we live in extreme times) where the leader of an opposition might not call the vote even if the new government is unlikely to survive it.

I really don’t understand why you are getting in such a flap about this.

In these extreme times I guess it’s possible that an asteroid could destroy parliament before they have time to hold a no confidence vote. I think we should move parliament to an underground nuclear bunker with enough suppliers for three years and robot monkey guards just in case.

Honestly get a grip. You want a vote, there’ll be a vote. If not then take it up with Jeremy.
Jesus even Boris Johnson is expecting it.