View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit (the EU Referendum debate)

Page 388 of 416
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 387, 388, 389 ... 414, 415, 416  Next

Efros
1290252.  Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:32 am Reply with quote

It may be practical but the kamikaze attitude seems to be set that Brexit will happen so I doubt this vote will.

 
GuyBarry
1290260.  Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:17 am Reply with quote

I can't see how it could possibly happen. There's less than nine months left before we're due to leave, during which time we'd have to get the referendum legislation through Parliament as well as having the campaign and the vote itself. There's simply no time.

 
Numerophile
1290262.  Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:22 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Where have I gone wrong?

In not bothering to read the study linked to by Leith?

In simple terms, you're only looking at one side of the equation: the government deficit is the difference between spending and receipts, and you're only looking at the impact on receipts (and only part of that). But lower national income implies higher spending on social security (because people's incomes are lower) and higher spending on debt interest (because the money not raised through taxes has to be replaced by borrowing), assuming other areas of spending remain unchanged. As the study shows, these 'spending' effects are about two and a half times as great as the 'receipts' effect (as a proportion of national income).

GuyBarry wrote:

Quote:
i.e. it's not as simple as 'roughly two-thirds of national income doesn't go to the UK Government'. The proportion changes.



It does, but it's never gone above more than about 43% (source). 43% of £60 billion is about £26 billion, so subtract £8 billion and the Treasury has still only lost £18 billion overall.

So far I've ignored this aspect, but there are two things wrong here. In the first place, if national income falls the proportion going in tax also falls; your 43% maximum is irrelevant. In the second place, you need to apply the changed proportion to the whole of the national income, not just the reduction.

So, using your figures: if the original tax take was 33.3% of £2000 billion it would be £666 billion; if it then reduced to (say) 32.7%* of £1940 billion it would be £634 billion in round terms - a reduction of £32 billion, of which £12 billion is due to the change in proportional tax take. And that is before you take into account the 'spending' effect: if spending was initially £666 billion it would increase to £675 billion (34.8%* of £1940 billion), so the overall government deficit would increase by £41 billion, before any direct saving in the EU contribution is taken off.

*You assumed a 3% fall in national income, and the study shows that each 1% fall leads to a 0.2% fall in the proportional tax take and a 0.5% rise in spending as a proportion of national income.


Last edited by Numerophile on Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:22 am; edited 1 time in total

 
GuyBarry
1290263.  Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:27 am Reply with quote

OK, thanks for the explanation. I think I'll stick to politics rather than economics in future!

 
Zziggy
1290382.  Tue Jul 17, 2018 2:08 am Reply with quote

Vote Leave fined and reported to police by Electoral Commission

 
dr.bob
1290493.  Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:26 am Reply with quote

Lots of Brexit news lately. The big vote must've been yesterday's vote to amend the government's Customs Bill to keep Jacob Rees-Mogg happy. This was passed by just 3 votes.

Pro-EU media are unsure who to blame most: Either Vince Cable and Tim Farron who, despite campaigning to remain in the EU, couldn't be arsed to turn up to vote; or Labour MPs Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Graham Stringer who voted for the government. This is a tricky one since all 3 are consistently pro-Brexit, so they were voting with their conscience. However, they're also Labour MPs and, if the government had been defeated on the vote, it's highly likely a vote of no confidence would've followed, which would likely lead to an election and a chance for Labour to run the country which should, surely, also be a pretty important factor for them to consider.

 
GuyBarry
1290494.  Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:38 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Lots of Brexit news lately. The big vote must've been yesterday's vote to amend the government's Customs Bill to keep Jacob Rees-Mogg happy. This was passed by just 3 votes.


It's difficult to keep up, I know, but that vote was on Monday. Yesterday's vote was on the Trade Bill:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44864496

An amendment to require the UK to join a customs union if it does not agree a free-trade deal with the EU was defeated by six votes. Four Labour MPs voted with the Government.

Also, the Government was defeated by four votes last night on an amendment to keep the UK in the European medicines regulatory network.

 
suze
1290524.  Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:29 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Also, the Government was defeated by four votes last night on an amendment to keep the UK in the European medicines regulatory network.


That defeat doesn't actually force the government to do anything that it didn't want to though, does it?

All it does is require the government to treat participation in the medicines regulatory system as a negotiating priority. It was actually planning to do that anyway, so I don't really know why it was opposed to the amendment which was moved by Phillip Lee (Con, Bracknell).


As for those votes which the government won by three, it might actually have lost at least one of them but for incompetent Lib Dems and cheating Tories.

Vince Cable and Tim Farron decided not to bother voting, apparently believing that the government would win the vote by "hundreds" and therefore it didn't really matter if they were somewhere else. Dr Cable won't say quite where he had to be that was so important, while Mr Farron was busy being anti-gay in Dorset. The Lib Dem Chief Whip ought to be considering his position after allowing the two to miss the vote - except that the only person who can fire him is, ahem, Dr Cable.

Even worse is what Brandon Lewis (Con, Great Yarmouth) did. He was paired for these votes; Jo Swinson (LD, East Dunbartonshire) is on maternity leave, and had agreed with Mr Lewis that they would both sit the votes out and cancel each other out.

This is a common arrangement in Parliament, but what Mr Lewis did next isn't: he voted anyway. That is unheard of, and practically no one believes his excuse that he "forgot" that he was paired. He probably needn't expect opposition members to do him any favours next time he is unable to be at a vote. Ms Swinson initially tweeted that she was "fucking angry" about Mr Lewis's deception, although she has since thought better of the first word.

Had the Lib Dems not been far too busy to uphold party policy, and had Mr Lewis not cheated, the Speaker would have had a casting vote.

 
GuyBarry
1290545.  Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:19 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:

Even worse is what Brandon Lewis (Con, Great Yarmouth) did. He was paired for these votes; Jo Swinson (LD, East Dunbartonshire) is on maternity leave, and had agreed with Mr Lewis that they would both sit the votes out and cancel each other out.

This is a common arrangement in Parliament, but what Mr Lewis did next isn't: he voted anyway. That is unheard of


Well, not completely unheard of. There was quite a celebrated incident under the Labour government on 27 May 1976:

Wikipedia wrote:
The Speaker had accepted a suggestion by Conservative MP Robin Maxwell-Hyslop that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill was hybrid. The Government moved a motion to reverse the ruling; after a debate the Government won by 1 vote when Tom Pendry, who was supposed to be paired and absent, voted anyway. Opposition Industry Secretary Michael Heseltine removed the House of Commons mace from its place on the table and advanced towards the Government front bench. The Speaker suspended the sitting for 20 minutes; when it resumed, the House immediately adjourned.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_grave_disorder_in_the_British_House_of_Commons

 
GuyBarry
1290551.  Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:37 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:

Had the Lib Dems not been far too busy to uphold party policy, and had Mr Lewis not cheated, the Speaker would have had a casting vote.


By convention, the Speaker uses his casting vote to uphold the status quo. Does this mean that those amendments would have been rejected in the case of a tied vote?

 
ali
1290554.  Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:18 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
suze wrote:

Had the Lib Dems not been far too busy to uphold party policy, and had Mr Lewis not cheated, the Speaker would have had a casting vote.


By convention, the Speaker uses his casting vote to uphold the status quo. Does this mean that those amendments would have been rejected in the case of a tied vote?


That would be my understanding, and is how I would have used a casting vote when I have chaired meetings.

 
suze
1290555.  Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:05 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Well, not completely unheard of. There was quite a celebrated incident under the Labour government on 27 May 1976:


Thanks for that, Guy. In the recesses of my mind I was aware that Michael Heseltine once picked the mace up, but I don't think I'd ever known the circumstances. Now I do!

Ken Clarke will know all about that 1976 incident. For one thing, he was there - he has been an MP since 1970. For another thing, he and Heseltine have been friends for nigh on sixty years. He must have been slightly tempted to do something similar!


GuyBarry wrote:
By convention, the Speaker uses his casting vote to uphold the status quo. Does this mean that those amendments would have been rejected in the case of a tied vote?


The conventions have it that the Speaker votes for legislation if he has to exercise a casting vote, but against amendments. So as you say, if Mr Bercow had acted in accordance with convention then the amendments would still have failed.

The convention has been defied once, in 1910. The government of the day was a Liberal one led by H H Asquith, but its Speaker was one James Lowther (Penrith) who had gone to Parliament as a Conservative. Mr Lowther exercised his casting vote to pass a Conservative amendment to government legislation - and while there was uproar, the government made no attempt to have Mr Lowther removed from his position. Erskine May described Mr Lowther's vote as "questionable".

Would Mr Bercow have been keen to make a name for himself as the first Speaker in 108 years to play party politics in this way? Well, sort of party politics, since this was a Conservative amendment to government legislation, which the government only decided to support a few hours before the vote.

Probably not, but you never quite know with Mr Bercow!

A short essay on tied divisions in the House of Commons

 
Spud McLaren
1290567.  Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:07 am Reply with quote

I note that Johnson, B lashed out at the May government in his resignation speech for not doing enough to make Brexit a workable reality.

Whether you agree with his stance on the EU or not, you have to feel the man's pain. I mean, it isn't as if he had anything to do with the campaign to leave the EU, not was he in any position of power or influence for any of the two years or so since the referendum.

Sorry, what's that ...?

 
Spud McLaren
1290570.  Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:36 am Reply with quote

Meanwhile, Ken Clarke pointed out something odd - "Yesterday I was astonished that the government used a 3 line whip to secure a majority for the ERG amendments. They actually whipped my party to defeat the govt's policy as set out in the white paper..."

 
AlmondFacialBar
1290576.  Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:34 am Reply with quote

Meanwhile this side of the Irish Sea Sammy Wilson has just proved once again conclusively in an RTÉ interview that the DUP continue to live in an alternative reality. Makes me want to bite the furniture, so it does...

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 

Page 388 of 416
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 387, 388, 389 ... 414, 415, 416  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group