Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Thrugelmir

wunferall wrote: »

We are facing a cliff edge because of Brexit, remainers keep telling us!
:rotfl:
Well, as the remaining major EU contributors languish in recession or remain stagnant the UK continues to grow and to prosper.

That's last years profits though. Tax is paid in arrears.

wunferall

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's last years profits though. Tax is paid in arrears.

You're suggesting then that last years profits were a record if tax from these are why the surplus is a record?
Even better news, thanks!
:T

SouthLondonUser

Sigh... I despair. I do wonder if it's a combination of bad faith and ignorance, or of good faith and confusion.

No, it's not true that in the UK we can explicitly get rid of a minister.
There are countries where a referendum can be held to call early elections. The UK is, as far as I know, not one of these countries.

I am also not aware, but happy to learn more, of any country with a specific constitutional mechanism that allows electors to directly get rid of an unwanted minister.

UK electors can apply pressure if they want to get rid of a minister. But there is no explicit mechanism that allows them to do so directly.

It is of course true that it is easier to apply pressure at a national level to get rid of a country minister, than at a EU level to get rid of a EU Commissioner, but this doesn't, per se, make EU commissioners less "democratic" than UK ministers.

It is also not true that we can get rid of a minister "by voting at an election". Again, we don't vote for ministers. Aspiring PMs do not typically disclose lists of who they would appoint as Ministers if they become PM. Any choice on ministers you would express by voting for your MP would be very, very, very indirect.

Any more unfounded nonsense people want to propose to justify why EU Commissioners would be "undemocratic"?

SouthLondonUser

On Barnier: the EU Commission appointed him to be the Chief Negotiator on Brexit. This doesn't seem very different to the way Theresa May appoints Brexit Ministers. If people are unhappy with how he was appointed, could they please elaborate?

The EU deputy Brexit negotiator is a civil servant
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Weyand

Her role, her mandate and her appointment seem very similar to those of Oliver Robbins for the UK.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with how Barnier and Weyand were appointed? In what way are the appointments of their UK equivalents any better? Please elaborate.

Thrugelmir

wunferall wrote: »

You're suggesting then that last years profits were a record if tax from these are why the surplus is a record?
Even better news, thanks!
:T

Perhaps self assessment is creating a more efficient tax collection system. Harder to hide anything from the HMRC.

Caveat is until next year, we won't know if this year is a one-off or it is indeed the norm.

BobQ

ben501 wrote: »

We may not vote the minister into the ministerial job, but they have still usually been voted voted into public office

How many people vote for an MP on the basis they might become a Minister?

Our EU commissioner has not been subject to any public vote. I think you'll find that is a big difference.

Neither system is perfect but the method of appointing EU Commissions is left to individual nations.

Besides the Commissioners are not like MInisters. A Minister is executing/setting Government policy. EU Commissions are required to act in the best interests of the EU not their country. It is the Council of Ministers that is political. So a better analogy is that a Commissioner is analogous to a Company Director.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

So a better analogy is that a Commissioner is analogous to a Company Director.

Shareholders can vote Directors out though. Directors are required to stand for re-election. Likewise with shareholder backing, people can be put forward for election to the board.

Tromking

Rudimentary lessons on Parliamentary democracy for some it seems.
U.K. Ministers derive their democratic legitimacy from being voted into our Parliament. The executive is then formed from those voted into our Parliament. Wholly more democratic than EU style appointments.

SouthLondonUser

The fact remains that UK electors have no say whatsoever on who gets to be minister of what. No minister is voted into the role of minister. Nor do UK electors have any direct say whatsoever when PMs decide to reshuffle their cabinet.

I have already pointed out that many EU Commissioners were in fact elected in some capacity. Would you be more comfortable if, say, there were a requirement to choose EU a Commissioners only from MEPs? And/or from MPs of the member countries? Would that be sufficient to address your reservations?

Also, to be precise, while rare, there have been cases of UK Cabinet Ministers who were neither MPs nor Lords: Patrick Gordon Walker and Frank Cousins. Look them up. I also don't need to remind you that members of the house of Lords can be Cabinet Ministers, but they are most certainly NOT elected by UK voters.

What's that I hear? Was that a "sorry, you're right"? Louder, please

Kohoutek

J_Nostin wrote: »

Another that doesn't understand the difference between "assets" and "liabilities" or how such things work. You can't debate with someone like that who has no clue of how what they think they are discussing works.

A hint: We supposedly know how much is being moved in "assets". Now tell us how much is being moved in "liabilities"?

Well, I do actually understand what "assets" and "liabilities" mean. What's less clear from your garbled post is exactly what your point is.

Are you saying assets being moved = bad and liabilities being moved = good? The banks are moving parts of their balance sheets outside the UK, i.e. both. Your confusion seems to arise from the fact that word "asset" means both accounting / financial reporting asset and financial asset.