[Politics] Brexit

[Mtoto]

Except that the Tories didn't want to leave the EU. They said they'd let the people choose, and they thought the people would choose remain, thus silencing the right wing Tories that did want to leave. It's not FPTP that's seen this move to the right, it was a referendum.

Yes, you get a lot more decisions made with a majority government than under PR.

Agreed. That will be the odd one out in our recent history.

I don't think 'strong and stable' is the best question, as FPTP is more likely to provide that, as you generally get a government with a majority, who can carry out their manifesto. It's unusual that we don't have a majority government, and obviously the Brexit issue has divided everyone. I agree that Germany's system usually leads to less lurching from left to right (not that I think we've seen much ourselves), and that could be better for the country. Although one issue with it is the constant concessions that would be made to the SNP etc.

FPTP hollowed out the middle over the course of 40-odd years, creating the landscape in which the referendum result could happen - the two sides managed (just) to overwhelm the centre.

You're also conflating individual parliaments and governments with long-term stability. In general, FPTP does indeed result in a majority government, which then sets about carrying out its manifesto - which will be either a left-wing manifesto or a right-wing manifesto, regardless of the fact that a majority of the electorate has not voted for it. It encourages radicalism, on both sides, because there's no need to convince half the voters, or anything close to it. A PR government, on the other hand, can claim to represent a majority of the individual votes cast.

 

[melias shoes]

TBH the rest of the post was largely paranoid drivel so not really worth engaging with. Or it ignored the core tenement of our constitution that one Parliament does not bind it's successor, so it is perfectly entitled to review and change any decision it made.

Sigh.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Another day another Boris lie. (Denying he ever spread alarm on the likelihood of a massive influx of Turkish migrants if we remained in the EU.) Even working from the assumption that all politicians lie is there anyone who does it so brazenly as Bojo??
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-uk-to-change-its-mind-and-stay-politics-live

 

[Grombleton]

There are no better common sense MPs than Mogg and Farage imo

Ok, now I'm sure you're a parody account.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Because he is a lying, self-interested little toad.

I get you don't understand their educated commonsense discussions, of course we could look at the dream duo of Corbyn and Abbott.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]1086254693721014272[/tweet]

 

[Baldseagull]

I have read that doc before, I am unaware of reform since and frankly as this thread demonstrates in spades, 3rd countries will not benefit from the need for an effective working EU. Turkeys won’t vote for Christmas, and if EU politicians are not going to assist the U.K. post Brexit on what basis do you think EU politicians will meaningfully help other 3rd countries? That is absurd.

The origins of the CAP are reasonable, however as it stands today it is broadly speaking indefensible, I can accept some subsidies but 40% of the EU budget is obscene, if the EU was serious about deploying it on a socialist basis they would create an algorithm to make it means tested. Billionaire landowners will get nothing. They have had plenty of time to do that haven’t they?

The policy sits in place for 6 years from 2014 till 2020, then it gets reviewed. It is not absurd to help third countries that need help, if the EU makes life in other parts of the world difficult them people start turning up en masse in boats and trying to get assylum in the EU. There is obviously other forces that can cause that to happen anyway, but it is in no ones long term interest to see other countries failing in a global economy.

 

[pearl]

The fourth time he stood for election he was beaten by a dolphin.

I would vote for Flipper before Farage

 

[Triggaaar]

FPTP hollowed out the middle over the course of 40-odd years, creating the landscape in which the referendum result could happen

I disagree. The migration issues following wars in the middle east etc, gave support for UKIP and their timing was perfect to get the result over the line. Had we had PR the likes of UKIP would have had an even bigger voice, so I'm not sure you can put the referendum down to FPTP.

You're also conflating individual parliaments and governments with long-term stability.

Well yes, I thought your question was which system was more likely to deliver a strong and stable government. I'd have answered differently if I thought you were asking about government over the long term.

In general, FPTP does indeed result in a majority government, which then sets about carrying out its manifesto - which will be either a left-wing manifesto or a right-wing manifesto, regardless of the fact that a majority of the electorate has not voted for it. It encourages radicalism, on both sides, because there's no need to convince half the voters, or anything close to it. A PR government, on the other hand, can claim to represent a majority of the individual votes cast.

I agree.

 

[Triggaaar]

Another day another Boris lie.

I couldn't even be bothered to listen in.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

This short selling practice you dislike and it’s affect on the lives of ordinary people..........can you recall George Soros and how he made over a billion on Britain’s exit from the ERM?

He must be the living embodiment of the very “worst sort of tossers” to quote you.......or maybe not?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...rexit-campaign-best-for-britain-a3809821.html

Capitalists eh?

I read your posts with interest but comparing Farage's action (shorting the currency of his country, the country he claimed to be the saviour of) with claiming agricultural grants seems a bit thin. It's like saying a pensioner who accepts a not-totally-needed winter fuel allowance is no better than someone who constructs a fantastically contrived tax-avoidance scheme.

 

[Baldseagull]

Nigel thinks the MEP elections in May will still take place. Apparently Nick Farage is looking for a new party to represent. Is he Nigel's brother?

[tweet]1086232491973722112[/tweet]

Of course he will, money for old rope innit, 45 meetings of the fisheries committee he was on and turned up once. Benteke scores more often than Farage turns up to do anything other than mouth off to the Commission.

 

[Gwylan]

Why would remain be suddenly so low?
And, we form governments on those numbers so why now do people suddenly have an issue?

It was only an example of what could happen, not what will. But, for an example, I've heard many Remainers say that "people have voted leave so we should just get on with it" and consequently feel obliged to vote Leave (or not vote at all and distort the result).

And when have we voted a government in with 31% of the popular vote? It's never happened in my lifetime.

But, even if we did, there's a big difference between voting for a government that can be voted out again in a few years (and if it's only got 31% of the vote, it probably wouldn't be a stable government) and a vote for a major constitutional change where there may not be another vote for some time.

 

[Baldseagull]

Not really.

He said he does not see how parliament can rule out no deal.

But he also said a no-deal Brexit that led to the imposition of tariffs between the EU and the UK is not going to happen.

He probably believes, as many do, that in the event of No Deal, we and the EU would immediately agree to tariff free access under a FTA.

"...taking into account the stated positions of both sides, the most probable option would be an FTA with zero-tariffs for all sectors."

"Overall, a bespoke deal like CETA + seems to be the most likely outcome of the negotiations. Although both sides are probably willing to accept zero or near-zero tariffs, the final outcome depends on other issues too."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/...s-but-the-eus-political-interest-matters-too/

I only skimmed it, but your link appears to be to a post in which a student is talking about what the outcome would be at the end of an agreed withdrawal period, not what would happen in No Deal.

 

[dingodan]

I only skimmed it, but your link appears to be to a post in which a student is talking about what the outcome would be at the end of an agreed withdrawal period, not what would happen in No Deal.

Perhaps, but I think, in a No Deal situation, i.e. without an agreed withdrawl period, we would go to zero tariffs pretty quickly. There is nothing stopping us doing that, and every reason to do it.

Boris didn't say No Deal won't happen, which is what was implied in the post I replied to. He said that the imposition of tariffs between the EU and the UK is not going to happen, and there are good reasons to think that is true.

Of course, while No Deal still seems preventable to some people the EU aren't going to invite it by acknowledging this. If they did it would make No Deal seem less problematic, and, along with many in Parliament, they want No Deal to seem as problematic as possible. They want as much pressure as possible to stop it. Not merely because of the challenges it involves, but also because in the absence of a possible No Deal, Brexit looks (to them) much less likely (since a deal would be required for Brexit to happen, and any deal requires the approval of parties who don't want Brexit to happen).

 

[WATFORD zero]

Not really.

He said he does not see how parliament can rule out no deal.

But he also said a no-deal Brexit that led to the imposition of tariffs between the EU and the UK is not going to happen.

He probably believes, as many do, that in the event of No Deal, we and the EU would immediately agree to tariff free access under a FTA.

"...taking into account the stated positions of both sides, the most probable option would be an FTA with zero-tariffs for all sectors."

"Overall, a bespoke deal like CETA + seems to be the most likely outcome of the negotiations. Although both sides are probably willing to accept zero or near-zero tariffs, the final outcome depends on other issues too."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/...s-but-the-eus-political-interest-matters-too/

You honestly believe that if we were to leave under a 'no deal' scenario, then the EU would immediately grant us tariff free access, as if we were still a member ?

I thought Boris was the height of f***wittery, but you have raised the game to a whole new level.

Congratulations

 

[dingodan]

You honestly believe that if we were to leave under a 'no deal' scenario, then the EU would immediately grant us tariff free access, as if we were still a member ?

I thought Boris was the height of f***wittery, but you have raised the game to a whole new level.

Congratulations

Yes. See my post above.

When No Deal actually happens they will have to face up to that reality, and act responsibly in the face of it. Until then, they (and you) can pretend that they are ready to cut off their nose to spite their face, in the hope that such an illogical threat (and it's implications) will thwart Brexit.

 

[dingodan]

By far the most powerful lobby in the EU is German industry.

Nobody is going to want a FTA between the UK and the EU more than German industry.

 

[highflyer]

BREAKING

Eton & Oxford educated former Foreign Secretary Alexander Boris de Pfeffeil Johnson accuses others of being "part of the elite".

Well this is a first, Boris keeping a promise.

He did say he was going to lie in front of a bulldozer after all...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Yes. See my post above.

When No Deal actually happens they will have to face up to that reality, and act responsibly in the face of it. Until then, they (and you) can pretend that they are ready to cut off their nose to spite their face, in the hope that such an illogical threat (and it's implications) will thwart Brexit.

Still with the “they need us more than we need them” argument.