That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
So we're not back to where we were before the crash in 2008? I am surprised at that.
EDIT: I suppose this is the UK figure. It would be interesting to see a Greater South East chart. I reckon house prices have been pretty static in many places outside the South East since 2008.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
Are you talking your property portfolio book by any chance ?
No, I'm resigned to losing 20% of the value of my flat. It was always nominal anyway, I've no desire to move. And 20% is about two years' worth of inflating values.
And London always bounces back.
BUT I don't want to see 20, 30, 50% drops across the country, that would be catastrophic.
The estimates in the papers over the weekend was 5% outside London, 10-20% in London.
I think Prime London will be down 60% in real terms, probably 40-50% nominal. (And I speak as a man with a multi million pound mortgage in Prime London. Yes Charles, Hampstead is prime London... Albeit probably not as prime as NW8.)
Why? Three reasons:
Firstly, lots of London trades at £2,000/square foot, up from £350 less than two decades ago. I used to own a beautiful flat in Marylebone, which I bought in 2003. It was 1,200 square feet, and I paid £470,000 for it. Those flats now sell for £2.1m. In a period during which UK GDP per capita has risen (what) 20%, Prime London has gone up 4x. To go back to the same ratio of earnings they had in 2003 would need prices to fall at least 60%. If they were to go back to 1996 levels, it'd probably be more like 75%. (My friend Matt bought a decent sized two bedroom flat on Alderney Street in Pimlico for £115,000 back in 1996...)
Secondly, one of the major drivers of house price inflation in London has been foreign buyers making investments in the UK 'off plan'. One of my colleagues is renting in a new block by Victoria and reckons he is pretty much the only resident. These properties were bought because the UK was seen as a safe haven. Now, it is likely that Britain will prosper out of the EU in the medium to long term. But, in the near term, foreign buying is likely to dry up - simply because uncertainty has increased.
Thirdly, I don't think people realise how thinly traded some of these property markets are. In the year to July 2015, just 225 houses were sold for more than £2m in London. But there are probably 10,000 homes that are valued at more than £2m! If just a small number of people decide they want to sell (and there will be a lot of investment bankers moving to Paris, Dublin, Warsaw and Frankfurt if we don't make up our minds soon), then it will totally overwhelm the number of buyers.
In the long-run it will be healthy to have property prices reset. But in the short term, as SeanT observes, it will be incredibly painful.
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I am interested in how you feel joining the EEA will stop the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours. Or why you feel there will be a drop in inward investment in the medium term given the number of commonwealth and other countries lining up over the last couple of days to make trade agreements with us. But mostly I am interested in why you think this will cause a larger drop in GDP than the entire Subprime Crisis and Lehman's crash ?
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
So we're not back to where we were before the crash in 2008? I am surprised at that.
I like numbers, charts and tables. They keep me sane when tyson is spouting gibberish and Sean's having a wobble.
However, the chart I showed is dodgy in a different way. It's adjusted for RPI inflation, which is fine, but the key thing for most people, and especially young people, is affordability. How many people have been getting RPI (or better) pay rises since 2008? Not many I'd guess.
I've yet to dig out an income multiplier vs house price graph, which would have been more useful.
I was going to join both the Tory and Labour parties so I could have a say in their both appointing a sensible leader. I don't believe in the childish idea of joining the party you oppose to vote for a crap leader (a la the pathetic Platoite Tories for Corbyn) – which I think is counter to the spirit of party politics and decidedly un-civic – but do care for my country. I would therefore vote Theresa for the Conservatives and Yvette for Labour. Sadly, the Tories have a rule whereby you have to have been a member for at least 90 days so there is no point paying my £25.
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
Yep, increased rent goes to the banks and doesn't get spent on other things (i.e. its a drag on growth)...
Presumably there are other ways as well?
What I'm getting at, is how much of the UK's economic growth between 1996 and 2006 was purely down to rises in property prices and how much was from growing economic productivity.
Did the housing bubble over those ten years hide an actual fall in GDP. Surely on those numbers it is possible that it did and the UK was in a technical depression.
Add in the fall in inward investment, the decline of the City, the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours, etc etc etc, and we could be looking at a 10-20% drop in GDP. Which is like the economic damage done by a mild civil war.
Fab!
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
That doesn't address the fundamentals though, Mr. T, just keeps the plates spinning for a bit longer. The imbalances, the trade deficit etc that Mr Robert mentions have to be faced at some stage and as we have found the longer the correction is put off the worse its effects will be. Brexit really has nothing to do with the fundamentals, it just adds another layer of problem to the mix.
Your 10-20% drop in GDP is of course just nonsense caused by you not drinking enough tea.
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
It gets reflected directly in the imputed rent component.
You don't seem to grasp how the UK economy is founded on house prices, and the confidence they bring. Yes a modest correction would be good. 10%? But this is like lighting a wildfire to clear a small portion of a very dry forest: the chances it could get out of hand are big, and the whole forest could burn. Who's to say property prices won't halve?
What would that do?
And then there's the confidence thing. Rising house prices make homeowners feel happy and prosperous (even if it's bogus), falling house prices bring negative equity and retail slumps and the entire economy seizes up. We could be facing the worst case Brexit scenarios of a 5-10% drop in GDP.
10% is almost twice the drop we experienced after 2008.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
The UK economy has been 'boosted' by high house prices in three ways:
ened was 1990-92, and saw house prices fall 40% in real terms, and unemployment double.
Well that's cheering.
And that's just the effect of house prices.
Add in the fall in inward investment, the decline of the City, the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours, etc etc etc, and we could be looking at a 10-20% drop in GDP. Which is like the economic damage done by a mild civil war.
Fab!
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I think we're looking at a price drop whatever happens, obviously it won't be as big if we stay in the single market, but I'd guess 20% for those of us in inner London is fair.
Does Mr Gove not see any of this, as he advocates leaving the single market?
You don't seem to grasp how the UK economy is founded on house prices, and the confidence they bring. Yes a modest correction would be good. 10%? But this is like lighting a wildfire to clear a small portion of a very dry forest: the chances it could get out of hand are big, and the whole forest could burn. Who's to say property prices won't halve?
What would that do?
And then there's the confidence thing. Rising house prices make homeowners feel happy and prosperous (even if it's bogus), falling house prices bring negative equity and retail slumps and the entire economy seizes up. We could be facing the worst case Brexit scenarios of a 5-10% drop in GDP.
10% is almost twice the drop we experienced after 2008.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
The UK economy has been 'boosted' by high house prices in three ways:
ened was 1990-92, and saw house prices fall 40% in real terms, and unemployment double.
Well that's cheering.
And that's just the effect of house prices.
Add in the fall in inward investment, the decline of the City, the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours, etc etc etc, and we could be looking at a 10-20% drop in GDP. Which is like the economic damage done by a mild civil war.
Fab!
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I think we're looking at a price drop whatever happens, obviously it won't be as big if we stay in the single market, but I'd guess 20% for those of us in inner London is fair.
Does Mr Gove not see any of this, as he advocates leaving the single market?
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
Are you talking your property portfolio book by any chance ?
No, I'm resigned to losing 20% of the value of my flat. It was always nominal anyway, I've no desire to move. And 20% is about two years' worth of inflating values.
And London always bounces back.
BUT I don't want to see 20, 30, 50% drops across the country, that would be catastrophic.
I think we're looking at 30-40% inner London (unfortunately for you and I) and maybe 20-30% in outer London, 20% in the rest of the country.
My view is similar - we're essentially looking at a bounce back to about 2012. (When prices were still too high for y liking, but that's another issue). At which point the market will bottom out for a bit and then start to rise again.
But how much of this is down to Brexit? Surely a correction of this magnitude or similar would have happened anyway after the turbo-charged boom of the last four years?
Yes, it is important to remember that Britain's imbalances were always going to be corrected. (It is the nature of economics that all things must eventually balance.) All Brexit does is speed up the process. Albeit, a slow rebalancing driven by 3% inflation would probably be a lot less painful.
You don't seem to grasp how the UK economy is founded on house prices, and the confidence they bring. Yes a modest correction would be good. 10%? But this is like lighting a wildfire to clear a small portion of a very dry forest: the chances it could get out of hand are big, and the whole forest could burn. Who's to say property prices won't halve?
What would that do?
And then there's the confidence thing. Rising house prices make homeowners feel happy and prosperous (even if it's bogus), falling house prices bring negative equity and retail slumps and the entire economy seizes up. We could be facing the worst case Brexit scenarios of a 5-10% drop in GDP.
10% is almost twice the drop we experienced after 2008.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
The UK economy has been 'boosted' by high house prices in three ways:
ened was 1990-92, and saw house prices fall 40% in real terms, and unemployment double.
Well that's cheering.
And that's just the effect of house prices.
Add in the fall in inward investment, the decline of the City, the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours, etc etc etc, and we could be looking at a 10-20% drop in GDP. Which is like the economic damage done by a mild civil war.
Fab!
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I think we're looking at a price drop whatever happens, obviously it won't be as big if we stay in the single market, but I'd guess 20% for those of us in inner London is fair.
Does Mr Gove not see any of this, as he advocates leaving the single market?
Gove won't win. My worry is Leadsom, she has said all the same things about leaving the single market and going for the Canadian deal. I'm not convinced we can make that work, at least in the short to medium term.
You don't seem to grasp how the UK economy is founded on house prices, and the confidence they bring. Yes a modest correction would be good. 10%? But this is like lighting a wildfire to clear a small portion of a very dry forest: the chances it could get out of hand are big, and the whole forest could burn. Who's to say property prices won't halve?
What would that do?
And then there's the confidence thing. Rising house prices make homeowners feel happy and prosperous (even if it's bogus), falling house prices bring negative equity and retail slumps and the entire economy seizes up. We could be facing the worst case Brexit scenarios of a 5-10% drop in GDP.
10% is almost twice the drop we experienced after 2008.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
The UK economy has been 'boosted' by high house prices in three ways:
1. They've brought in a lot of money from foreign investors, allowing us to run a sizeable current account deficit. 2. They have meant that a lot of people feel financially secure during the downtown ("well, I've got £100,000 in my house"), which meant that the UK savings rate didn't spike. 3. They've stimulated construction activity.
The problem with the first two of these things is that they've fundamentally unbalanced the UK economy. The UK has the worst current account deficit in the developed world, one of the worst budget deficits, the lowest savings rate, and huge amounts of consumer debt.
In fact, if you look at the UK economy in 2016, it looks awfully like the Spanish one in 2006, with similar levels (and types) of imbalances. We have the advantage of a flexible currency to take some of the strain, but realistically we are going to have to see our savings rate go from 4% to 11%, and that's going to be horrendous. The last time something like that happened was 1990-92, and saw house prices fall 40% in real terms, and unemployment double.
Well that's cheering.
And that's just the effect of house prices.
Add in the fall in inward investment, the decline of the City, the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours, etc etc etc, and we could be looking at a 10-20% drop in GDP. Which is like the economic damage done by a mild civil war.
Fab!
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
Are you talking your property portfolio book by any chance ?
No, I'm resigned to losing 20% of the value of my flat. It was always nominal anyway, I've no desire to move. And 20% is about two years' worth of inflating values.
And London always bounces back.
BUT I don't want to see 20, 30, 50% drops across the country, that would be catastrophic.
I think we're looking at 30-40% inner London (unfortunately for you and I) and maybe 20-30% in outer London, 20% in the rest of the country.
My view is similar - we're essentially looking at a bounce back to about 2012. (When prices were still too high for y liking, but that's another issue). At which point the market will bottom out for a bit and then start to rise again.
But how much of this is down to Brexit? Surely a correction of this magnitude or similar would have happened anyway after the turbo-charged boom of the last four years?
Yes, it is important to remember that Britain's imbalances were always going to be corrected. (It is the nature of economics that all things must eventually balance.) All Brexit does is speed up the process. Albeit, a slow rebalancing driven by 3% inflation would probably be a lot less painful.
Yep - if only there was a means of creating inflation. Brexit and our currency revaluations is about the only thing that might do it and I'm not holding out much hope based on what I'm hearing from China...
Has anyone seen any comments from David Davies? He was a Boris backer, which I thought was really odd, I thought he would have gone for Fox? I don't think he was there at the proposed "launch" yesterday.
I hope once we have got the Sunday papers out of the way, we can get on with choosing a new PM, the country is becoming a laughing stock.
Homebuilders hard hit by Brexit - might damage their confidence going forward. One of @currystar posts on this pre-vote that started to change my mind on the whole caboodle.
Housebuilding is one of those policy areas which needs better central planning. Leaving it up the market hasn't worked as companies like to have their cake and eat it by restricting supply.
The entirety of the housing crisis is explained by our planning laws. A bonfire of those and it would go away in short order.
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I am interested in how you feel joining the EEA will stop the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours. Or why you feel there will be a drop in inward investment in the medium term given the number of commonwealth and other countries lining up over the last couple of days to make trade agreements with us. But mostly I am interested in why you think this will cause a larger drop in GDP than the entire Subprime Crisis and Lehman's crash ?
Because it is a unique combination of headwinds that we are facing. Falling confidence, political instability, property price crash, wobbly banks, recessiony neighbours, our main industry (fin services) potentially crippled, more turbulence in Scotland + Ulster, on and on and on.
We put a bomb under the economy and set it off. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE WARN US OF THIS???
grrrr. I'M TOTALLY HACKED OFF THAT NO ONE WARNED ME THIS WOULD HAPPEN.
Now if people will just listen to ME, I have the solution, a very quick move to EEA, sidestep the storm almost entirely. The Europeans will want this (whatever the Commission says), we want it, America wants, China wants, we all want stability as soon as possible. So just bloody do it.
We'll have to talk about Free Movement later, once we're in the EEA. As I said, immigration is going to plummet anyway, for the next two years or more.
The other advantage of EEA now is that we can sensibly negotiate trade deals with others while in it. If we dumped ourselves straight to WTO and then started negotiating with others, we would be in a very weak position. We'd be the one desperate for the deal.
You don't seem to grasp how the UK economy is founded on house prices, and the confidence they bring. Yes a modest correction would be good. 10%? But this is like lighting a wildfire to clear a small portion of a very dry forest: the chances it could get out of hand are big, and the whole forest could burn. Who's to say property prices won't halve?
What would that do?
And then there's the confidence thing. Rising house prices make homeowners feel happy and prosperous (even if it's bogus), falling house prices bring negative equity and retail slumps and the entire economy seizes up. We could be facing the worst case Brexit scenarios of a 5-10% drop in GDP.
10% is almost twice the drop we experienced after 2008.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
The UK economy has been 'boosted' by high house prices in three ways:
ened was 1990-92, and saw house prices fall 40% in real terms, and unemployment double.
Well that's cheering.
And that's just the effect of house prices.
Add in the fall in inward investment, the decline of the City, the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours, etc etc etc, and we could be looking at a 10-20% drop in GDP. Which is like the economic damage done by a mild civil war.
Fab!
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I think we're looking at a price drop whatever happens, obviously it won't be as big if we stay in the single market, but I'd guess 20% for those of us in inner London is fair.
Does Mr Gove not see any of this, as he advocates leaving the single market?
Gove won't win. My worry is Leadsom, she has said all the same things about leaving the single market and going for the Canadian deal. I'm not convinced we can make that work, at least in the short to medium term.
You can make Canada work. But you'd want to be in the EEA position on the way to Canada. Otherwise you risk losing our financial services industry, while not yet having new trading arrangements in place.
You don't seem to grasp how the UK economy is founded on house prices, and the confidence they bring. Yes a modest correction would be good. 10%? But this is like lighting a wildfire to clear a small portion of a very dry forest: the chances it could get out of hand are big, and the whole forest could burn. Who's to say property prices won't halve?
What would that do?
And then there's the confidence thing. Rising house prices make homeowners feel happy and prosperous (even if it's bogus), falling house prices bring negative equity and retail slumps and the entire economy seizes up. We could be facing the worst case Brexit scenarios of a 5-10% drop in GDP.
10% is almost twice the drop we experienced after 2008.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
The UK economy has been 'boosted' by high house prices in three ways:
ened was 1990-92, and saw house prices fall 40% in real terms, and unemployment double.
Well that's cheering.
And that's just the effect of house prices.
Add in the fall in inward investment, the decline of the City, the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours, etc etc etc, and we could be looking at a 10-20% drop in GDP. Which is like the economic damage done by a mild civil war.
Fab!
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I think we're looking at a price drop whatever happens, obviously it won't be as big if we stay in the single market, but I'd guess 20% for those of us in inner London is fair.
Does Mr Gove not see any of this, as he advocates leaving the single market?
There is no single market without FoM, McDonnell doesn't get it.
That is the EU's opening position, not necessarily their last. And you certainly do not get something you want in such negotiations unless you ask for it.
Britain has some negotiating strength at the table - it would be a piss poor performance of our negotiating team if the EU were able to come out of the process with making no concessions whatsoever to our positions.
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I am interested in how you feel joining the EEA will stop the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours. Or why you feel there will be a drop in inward investment in the medium term given the number of commonwealth and other countries lining up over the last couple of days to make trade agreements with us. But mostly I am interested in why you think this will cause a larger drop in GDP than the entire Subprime Crisis and Lehman's crash ?
Because it is a unique combination of headwinds that we are facing. Falling confidence, political instability, property price crash, wobbly banks, recessiony neighbours, our main industry (fin services) potentially crippled, more turbulence in Scotland + Ulster, on and on and on.
We put a bomb under the economy and set it off. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE WARN US OF THIS???
grrrr. I'M TOTALLY HACKED OFF THAT NO ONE WARNED ME THIS WOULD HAPPEN.
Now if people will just listen to ME, I have the solution, a very quick move to EEA, sidestep the storm almost entirely. The Europeans will want this (whatever the Commission says), we want it, America wants, China wants, we all want stability as soon as possible. So just bloody do it.
We'll have to talk about Free Movement later, once we're in the EEA. As I said, immigration is going to plummet anyway, for the next two years or more.
I think you need a decent glass of wine and to sit down for a while. The nation has been through worse, and we're very likely to end up in the EEA where we will prosper without having to worry about political interference from the EU or being forced into the EU army etc... the nation will be happier outside the EU and we can ensure economic growth and prosperity by staying in the single market via the EEA.
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
It gets reflected directly in the imputed rent component.
Homebuilders hard hit by Brexit - might damage their confidence going forward. One of @currystar posts on this pre-vote that started to change my mind on the whole caboodle.
If we really do need more homes then there will not be 40% falls in prices UK wide. We have an increase in demand that is still outstripping supply.
Am I the only one thinking that Gove has taken one for the team? Clear Boris out of the way, draw all of the flak, and give Leadsom a clear run against May.
If Leadsom wins, Gove gets to be Chancellor, we get the Brexit deal he favours, Farage gets put back in his box and all of the Tory Leavers are generally happy.
Leadsom has the same problem as the other LEAVE candidates; when and if the economy tanks after Brexit, and it surely will - to a greater or lesser extent - the voters will not be happy. Far better to have a Tory REMAINIAC in office who can say, Yes, well, I did say this might happen....
A LEAVER PM would be totally exposed, and could easily take the party to defeat in 2020,
I think it could be the other way round. A leaver could say "short term pain, long term gain, Battle of Britain, don't worry, you made the right decision etc.". A remainer can't - telling your voters they were wrong doesn't look good, and it all sounds a bit Project Fear - in which case you're opening yourself up to an attack from UKIP for waivering.
Project Fear has so far turned out to be a pretty accurate forecast ( Yes I know it is early days ) A £ sterling that has devalued 15% against the worlds basket case currencies such as the Vietnamese Dong , Bangladeshi Taka and Guatamalan Quetzel . Im sure it will help our exports to these important trading nations . Meanwhile UKIP seem to be giving up fighting elections . 25 council by elections in July have just 8 UKIP candidates . 5 more by elections have nominations closing at 4 pm today .UKIP are unlikely to fight more than 2 of these .
As someone whose expenses are in VND, I'm acutely aware of the fall! Although the Dong's pegged to the Dollar, so in that sense it's probably unfair to lump it with the others.
I agree (as a committed remainer) that Project Fear might well be accurate - but I don't think it matters. Voters wanted to Take Back Control. A Leaver can press the A50 button any time between now and May 2020 and claim success on that one. Then it's just a bit of reassurance that the voters were right. Everyone likes to be right. So long as the economy doesn't tank entirely, how can the "experts" claim to know what it would've been like otherwise.
I worry that we underestimate the chances of an authoritative sounding arch-leaver at the next election. Especially one that's not associated with the £350m/week for the NHS!
The other advantage of EEA now is that we can sensibly negotiate trade deals with others while in it. If we dumped ourselves straight to WTO and then started negotiating with others, we would be in a very weak position. We'd be the one desperate for the deal.
But surely even the sop of an EEA deal (assuming it doesn't end up with a UKIP government) still requires the UK to make enough stuff other countries want to buy?
I presume, Mr Knox, that this is you in MAXIMUM IRONY mode
I suspect he's realising he is a Scouser (I'ts never their fault) and is having some kind of breakdown.
Not all scousers are Andy Burnham jellies. I for one voted leave and I am very glad I did. Vindicated by the latest chapter opened in Turkey accession negotiations and the other false prophecies (calais border moved, Scottish independence, etc. etc.)
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I am interested in how you feel joining the EEA will stop the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours. Or why you feel there will be a drop in inward investment in the medium term given the number of commonwealth and other countries lining up over the last couple of days to make trade agreements with us. But mostly I am interested in why you think this will cause a larger drop in GDP than the entire Subprime Crisis and Lehman's crash ?
Because it is a unique combination of headwinds that we are facing. Falling confidence, political instability, property price crash, wobbly banks, recessiony neighbours, our main industry (fin services) potentially crippled, more turbulence in Scotland + Ulster, on and on and on.
We put a bomb under the economy and set it off. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE WARN US OF THIS???
grrrr. I'M TOTALLY HACKED OFF THAT NO ONE WARNED ME THIS WOULD HAPPEN.
Now if people will just listen to ME, I have the solution, a very quick move to EEA, sidestep the storm almost entirely. The Europeans will want this (whatever the Commission says), we want it, America wants, China wants, we all want stability as soon as possible. So just bloody do it.
We'll have to talk about Free Movement later, once we're in the EEA. As I said, immigration is going to plummet anyway, for the next two years or more.
I think you need a decent glass of wine and to sit down for a while. The nation has been through worse, and we're very likely to end up in the EEA where we will prosper without having to worry about political interference from the EU or being forced into the EU army etc... the nation will be happier outside the EU and we can ensure economic growth and prosperity by staying in the single market via the EEA.
The markets and general bearishness should calm somewhat as long as the Tories elect May, a sensible Remainer who can and should make an immediate commitment to EEA. That is key.
You can make Canada work. But you'd want to be in the EEA position on the way to Canada. Otherwise you risk losing our financial services industry, while not yet having new trading arrangements in place.
Absolutely right. I said that a few days ago and the more hardcore element of the Brexit camp got upset. I would say we need four years to get everything off the ground with non-EU trade deals, which means we either wait and don't serve article 50 until 2018 or we move to EEA membership. The latter makes more sense to me.
As an aside were you at the BBA roundtable a few days ago, I'm much less worried about the future now that I've had time to digest it and we've discussed it at work. I think even outside of the passporting region we'd be OK, it would take a bit of adjustment but I no longer think we'd be so damaged as to lose out prime position in Europe.
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
Yep, increased rent goes to the banks and doesn't get spent on other things (i.e. its a drag on growth)...
Presumably there are other ways as well?
What I'm getting at, is how much of the UK's economic growth between 1996 and 2006 was purely down to rises in property prices and how much was from growing economic productivity.
Did the housing bubble over those ten years hide an actual fall in GDP. Surely on those numbers it is possible that it did and the UK was in a technical depression.
The growth came largely from immigration. GDP rose, but GDP per capita rose more slowly. Do the math.
I'm trying to do the maths.
The problem is that the answer is very concerning. Basically the UK is still the sick man of Europe, nothing has changed since the 70s other than various sticking plasters have been applied to mask the problem (house prices and immigration propped up by debt and stealing Scotland's oil revenues).
WIthout those sticking plasters, the underlying UK economy is unsalvagable. We aren't Greece, we are much, much worse than Greece.
It also means that getting Scotland out of the UK (and indeed onto the Euro or a new currency) is extremely urgent.
Has anyone seen any comments from David Davies? He was a Boris backer, which I thought was really odd, I thought he would have gone for Fox? I don't think he was there at the proposed "launch" yesterday.
I hope once we have got the Sunday papers out of the way, we can get on with choosing a new PM, the country is becoming a laughing stock.
We are long past that milestone. It reminds me of that old Bob Monkhouse joke: "They laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian ... They're not laughing now."
That is the EU's opening position, not necessarily their last. And you certainly do not get something you want in such negotiations unless you ask for it.
Britain has some negotiating strength at the table - it would be a piss poor performance of our negotiating team if the EU were able to come out of the process with making no concessions whatsoever to our positions.
The problem with protracted negotiations is that you have 18 months during which businesses don't know what the future relationship will be. This will lead to investment decisions being postponed, and (quite possibly) to us losing chunks of our financial services industry. (In many ways, the idea situation for France is that they give us most of what we want, but it's been devalued by BNP and SocGen moving their investment banking businesses back to Paris.)
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
Yep, increased rent goes to the banks and doesn't get spent on other things (i.e. its a drag on growth)...
Presumably there are other ways as well?
What I'm getting at, is how much of the UK's economic growth between 1996 and 2006 was purely down to rises in property prices and how much was from growing economic productivity.
Did the housing bubble over those ten years hide an actual fall in GDP. Surely on those numbers it is possible that it did and the UK was in a technical depression.
The growth came largely from immigration. GDP rose, but GDP per capita rose more slowly. Do the math.
I'm trying to do the maths.
The problem is that the answer is very concerning. Basically the UK is still the sick man of Europe, nothing has changed since the 70s other than various sticking plasters have been applied to mask the problem (house prices and immigration).
WIthout those sticking plasters, the underlying UK economy is unsalvagable. We aren't Greece, we are much, much worse than Greece.
It also means that getting Scotland out of the UK (and indeed onto the Euro or a new currency) is extremely urgent.
You're beginning to sound suspiciously like someone formerly of this parish
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
Yep, increased rent goes to the banks and doesn't get spent on other things (i.e. its a drag on growth)...
Presumably there are other ways as well?
What I'm getting at, is how much of the UK's economic growth between 1996 and 2006 was purely down to rises in property prices and how much was from growing economic productivity.
Did the housing bubble over those ten years hide an actual fall in GDP. Surely on those numbers it is possible that it did and the UK was in a technical depression.
The growth came largely from immigration. GDP rose, but GDP per capita rose more slowly. Do the math.
I'm trying to do the maths.
The problem is that the answer is very concerning. Basically the UK is still the sick man of Europe, nothing has changed since the 70s other than various sticking plasters have been applied to mask the problem (house prices and immigration).
WIthout those sticking plasters, the underlying UK economy is unsalvagable. We aren't Greece, we are much, much worse than Greece.
It also means that getting Scotland out of the UK (and indeed onto the Euro or a new currency) is extremely urgent.
I can't think of any question in economics where shifting to a currency that you have no control over is the answer (except for hyperinflation)...
You don't seem to grasp how the UK economy is founded on house prices, and the confidence they bring. Yes a modest correction would be good. 10%? But this is like lighting a wildfire to clear a small portion of a very dry forest: the chances it could get out of hand are big, and the whole forest could burn. Who's to say property prices won't halve?
What would that do?
And then there's the confidence thing. Rising house prices make homeowners feel happy and prosperous (even if it's bogus), falling house prices bring negative equity and retail slumps and the entire economy seizes up. We could be facing the worst case Brexit scenarios of a 5-10% drop in GDP.
10% is almost twice the drop we experienced after 2008.
I hope I'm wrong and it's just a modest correction, mainly in London and the SE, which would very arguably be a good thing. But no one knows.
The UK economy has been 'boosted' by high house prices in three ways:
ened was 1990-92, and saw house prices fall 40% in real terms, and unemployment double.
Well that's cheering.
And that's just the effect of house prices.
Add in the fall in inward investment, the decline of the City, the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours, etc etc etc, and we could be looking at a 10-20% drop in GDP. Which is like the economic damage done by a mild civil war.
Fab!
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I think we're looking at a price drop whatever happens, obviously it won't be as big if we stay in the single market, but I'd guess 20% for those of us in inner London is fair.
Does Mr Gove not see any of this, as he advocates leaving the single market?
Actually quite a sensible package from JM although I would like to see full blown FOM.
I think if the EU offers us EEA/single market but only with Free Movement we will just have to take it, sell it to the voters as an emergency stopgap. PM May can say to the people, quite honestly, that immigration is going to fall quickly, anyway, which it will, it always does in slumps. There won't be any UK jobs for EU nationals. They will stop coming.
At the same time take students out of the stats.
...and put in place a points system for non-EU nationals...
I presume, Mr Knox, that this is you in MAXIMUM IRONY mode
I suspect he's realising he is a Scouser (I'ts never their fault) and is having some kind of breakdown.
Not all scousers are Andy Burnham jellies. I for one voted leave and I am very glad I did. Vindicated by the latest chapter opened in Turkey accession negotiations and the other false prophecies (calais border moved, Scottish independence, etc. etc.)
Turkey will not join the EU in your or my lifetime.
Britain Elects @britainelects 2h2 hours ago On a General Election this year: Support: 52% Oppose: 32% (via BMG / 29 - 30 Jun)
General Election this year:
Support: 52% █████████████████████████
Oppose: 32% ███████████████▌
Voters at the general election selected more Conservative MPs than from other parties. We have a parliamentary government where the MPs chose the government and the governing party choose their Prime Minister.
The Conservative manifesto spelt out that there would be a referendum on the EU membership.
So the government is following the constitution and the path set out. There should not be a general election until 2020.
We don't have a written constitution. We do have a parliamentary democracy and there are ways in which a general election can be called quite properly and constitutionally.
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I am interested in how you feel joining the EEA will stop the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours. Or why you feel there will be a drop in inward investment in the medium term given the number of commonwealth and other countries lining up over the last couple of days to make trade agreements with us. But mostly I am interested in why you think this will cause a larger drop in GDP than the entire Subprime Crisis and Lehman's crash ?
Because it is a unique combination of headwinds that we are facing. Falling confidence, political instability, property price crash, wobbly banks, recessiony neighbours, our main industry (fin services) potentially crippled, more turbulence in Scotland + Ulster, on and on and on.
We put a bomb under the economy and set it off. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE WARN US OF THIS???
grrrr. I'M TOTALLY HACKED OFF THAT NO ONE WARNED ME THIS WOULD HAPPEN.
Now if people will just listen to ME, I have the solution, a very quick move to EEA, sidestep the storm almost entirely. The Europeans will want this (whatever the Commission says), we want it, America wants, China wants, we all want stability as soon as possible. So just bloody do it.
We'll have to talk about Free Movement later, once we're in the EEA. As I said, immigration is going to plummet anyway, for the next two years or more.
For me, that outcome would be well worth a leave vote. Obviously many are against free movement, but it's not something I personally would die in a ditch for.
That is the EU's opening position, not necessarily their last. And you certainly do not get something you want in such negotiations unless you ask for it.
Britain has some negotiating strength at the table - it would be a piss poor performance of our negotiating team if the EU were able to come out of the process with making no concessions whatsoever to our positions.
The problem with protracted negotiations is that you have 18 months during which businesses don't know what the future relationship will be. This will lead to investment decisions being postponed, and (quite possibly) to us losing chunks of our financial services industry. (In many ways, the idea situation for France is that they give us most of what we want, but it's been devalued by BNP and SocGen moving their investment banking businesses back to Paris.)
If it were that simple to be in Paris why would they have set up camp here in the first place? London has a lot more going for it than just the passport. I agree that keeping it would be preferable, but I think if we lose it the doom and gloom is overblown.
Leadsom has the same problem as the other LEAVE candidates; when and if the economy tanks after Brexit, and it surely will - to a greater or lesser extent - the voters will not be happy.
At long last. Anyone who thinks that expensive housing is a good thing for the country needs their head examined...
No sane person could deny that house prices need to come down, but doesn't this cause big problems for the banks providing mortgages on these houses if/when the borrowers default?
Nope... The 2016 BoE stress tests for banking were based on a 30% drop in house prices. The banks passed them.
And what if houses drop by 50% in value?
They didn't in the Subprime Crisis. I think you might need a lie down in a darkened room.
They did in the US, Spain and Ireland. One of the remarkable things about the UK is how our property survived (people normally blame QE, but of course the US had this too).
Homebuilders hard hit by Brexit - might damage their confidence going forward. One of @currystar posts on this pre-vote that started to change my mind on the whole caboodle.
Housebuilding is one of those policy areas which needs better central planning. Leaving it up the market hasn't worked as companies like to have their cake and eat it by restricting supply.
The entirety of the housing crisis is explained by our planning laws. A bonfire of those and it would go away in short order.
Last time I checked, the tories-4-concreting-over-the-greenbelt facebook group didn't have many members.
In principle though - and as a lefty - I agree. So much of our planning framework favours entrenched interests and the already wealthy.
I presume, Mr Knox, that this is you in MAXIMUM IRONY mode
I suspect he's realising he is a Scouser (I'ts never their fault) and is having some kind of breakdown.
Not all scousers are Andy Burnham jellies. I for one voted leave and I am very glad I did. Vindicated by the latest chapter opened in Turkey accession negotiations and the other false prophecies (calais border moved, Scottish independence, etc. etc.)
Turkey will not join the EU in your or my lifetime.
I'm a lot younger than you then. I foresee a Cyprus reunification forced through with European money and an accelerated accession.
But, as I keep saying, this is not inevitable. The fecking Tories have to admit all this, and go for EEA immediately, and stop the madness. Confidence will return, and quickly, if investors, homebuyers, bankers, know that not much will change, at least at first, as we keep all our economic ties with the EU.
I am interested in how you feel joining the EEA will stop the slowing economies of our post-Brexit neighbours. Or why you feel there will be a drop in inward investment in the medium term given the number of commonwealth and other countries lining up over the last couple of days to make trade agreements with us. But mostly I am interested in why you think this will cause a larger drop in GDP than the entire Subprime Crisis and Lehman's crash ?
Because it is a unique combination of headwinds that we are facing. Falling confidence, political instability, property price crash, wobbly banks, recessiony neighbours, our main industry (fin services) potentially crippled, more turbulence in Scotland + Ulster, on and on and on.
We put a bomb under the economy and set it off. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE WARN US OF THIS???
grrrr. I'M TOTALLY HACKED OFF THAT NO ONE WARNED ME THIS WOULD HAPPEN.
Now if people will just listen to ME, I have the solution, a very quick move to EEA, sidestep the storm almost entirely. The Europeans will want this (whatever the Commission says), we want it, America wants, China wants, we all want stability as soon as possible. So just bloody do it.
We'll have to talk about Free Movement later, once we're in the EEA. As I said, immigration is going to plummet anyway, for the next two years or more.
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
Yep, increased rent goes to the banks and doesn't get spent on other things (i.e. its a drag on growth)...
Presumably there are other ways as well?
What I'm getting at, is how much of the UK's economic growth between 1996 and 2006 was purely down to rises in property prices and how much was from growing economic productivity.
Did the housing bubble over those ten years hide an actual fall in GDP. Surely on those numbers it is possible that it did and the UK was in a technical depression.
The growth came largely from immigration. GDP rose, but GDP per capita rose more slowly. Do the math.
I'm trying to do the maths.
The problem is that the answer is very concerning. Basically the UK is still the sick man of Europe, nothing has changed since the 70s other than various sticking plasters have been applied to mask the problem (house prices and immigration propped up by debt and stealing Scotland's oil revenues).
WIthout those sticking plasters, the underlying UK economy is unsalvagable. We aren't Greece, we are much, much worse than Greece.
It also means that getting Scotland out of the UK (and indeed onto the Euro or a new currency) is extremely urgent.
...and the only politician who seems deeply committed to reform and with a manifesto for it is Brutus...
Putin may be worried that Baltic states may want to make a bloc with the UK which is more hardline against Russia than Germany's tendency to appeasement.
The other advantage of EEA now is that we can sensibly negotiate trade deals with others while in it. If we dumped ourselves straight to WTO and then started negotiating with others, we would be in a very weak position. We'd be the one desperate for the deal.
But surely even the sop of an EEA deal (assuming it doesn't end up with a UKIP government) still requires the UK to make enough stuff other countries want to buy?
We are currently the 11th largest manufacturer in the world. Not the heady heights of China or the US but certainly not out of the game by any means.
I presume, Mr Knox, that this is you in MAXIMUM IRONY mode
I suspect he's realising he is a Scouser (I'ts never their fault) and is having some kind of breakdown.
Not all scousers are Andy Burnham jellies. I for one voted leave and I am very glad I did. Vindicated by the latest chapter opened in Turkey accession negotiations and the other false prophecies (calais border moved, Scottish independence, etc. etc.)
Turkey will not join the EU in your or my lifetime.
I'm a lot younger than you then. I foresee a Cyprus reunification forced through with European money and an accelerated accession.
Firstly, what would the EU gain from having Turkey as a member? Secondly, do you really think it is sufficiently popular in every single one of the 27 remaining countries that wouldn't be vetoed?
"The Justice Secretary admitted he was 'limited', unglamorous and did not really want to be PM - but insisted he had no choice but to betray the former London mayor."
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
Yep, increased rent goes to the banks and doesn't get spent on other things (i.e. its a drag on growth)...
Presumably there are other ways as well?
What I'm getting at, is how much of the UK's economic growth between 1996 and 2006 was purely down to rises in property prices and how much was from growing economic productivity.
Did the housing bubble over those ten years hide an actual fall in GDP. Surely on those numbers it is possible that it did and the UK was in a technical depression.
The growth came largely from immigration. GDP rose, but GDP per capita rose more slowly. Do the math.
I'm trying to do the maths.
The problem is that the answer is very concerning. Basically the UK is still the sick man of Europe, nothing has changed since the 70s other than various sticking plasters have been applied to mask the problem (house prices and immigration).
WIthout those sticking plasters, the underlying UK economy is unsalvagable. We aren't Greece, we are much, much worse than Greece.
It also means that getting Scotland out of the UK (and indeed onto the Euro or a new currency) is extremely urgent.
Well, it's a view. On any measure the UK has been very successful. We have benefited more than most from the information revolution. We're globally in the top 20-30 in GDP per capita (PPP) and the IMF has us at #13 in nominal GDP per capita.
We're certainly ahead of our European peers. France and Spain have flat lined, Italy has declined. Germany is still the number one (bar the tiddlers like the Scandis).
That is the EU's opening position, not necessarily their last. And you certainly do not get something you want in such negotiations unless you ask for it.
Britain has some negotiating strength at the table - it would be a piss poor performance of our negotiating team if the EU were able to come out of the process with making no concessions whatsoever to our positions.
The problem with protracted negotiations is that you have 18 months during which businesses don't know what the future relationship will be. This will lead to investment decisions being postponed, and (quite possibly) to us losing chunks of our financial services industry. (In many ways, the idea situation for France is that they give us most of what we want, but it's been devalued by BNP and SocGen moving their investment banking businesses back to Paris.)
If it were that simple to be in Paris why would they have set up camp here in the first place? London has a lot more going for it than just the passport. I agree that keeping it would be preferable, but I think if we lose it the doom and gloom is overblown.
I think Europe is likely to end up with a more American system, where there are lots of financial capitals. We'll be less predominant in almost every scenario.
My point - really - is all about house prices (and tax take). Losing 20% of bankers wouldn't stop London from being the preeminent financial services centre, but it would hole the London property market below the waterline.
Putin may be worried that Baltic states may want to make a bloc with the UK which is more hardline against Russia than Germany's tendency to appeasement.
Yes the visigrad nations all seem to be taking stock at the moment. Many seem worried that without our foreign policy influence the Germans will reduce the sanctions on Russia which would precipitate their seeking a new settlement with the UK or increasing NATO presence in their nations in case Putin got any ideas.
That's the inflation-adjusted house price graph since '75. Says it all really.
If nothing else Brexit should concentrate minds. The BoP figures came out yesterday. They weren't as bad as Q4 last year, but they were pretty terrible.
Does the rise in house prices get reflected in GDP in any way?
Yep, increased rent goes to the banks and doesn't get spent on other things (i.e. its a drag on growth)...
Presumably there are other ways as well?
What I'm getting at, is how much of the UK's economic growth between 1996 and 2006 was purely down to rises in property prices and how much was from growing economic productivity.
Did the housing bubble over those ten years hide an actual fall in GDP. Surely on those numbers it is possible that it did and the UK was in a technical depression.
The growth came largely from immigration. GDP rose, but GDP per capita rose more slowly. Do the math.
I'm trying to do the maths.
The problem is that the answer is very concerning. Basically the UK is still the sick man of Europe, nothing has changed since the 70s other than various sticking plasters have been applied to mask the problem (house prices and immigration).
WIthout those sticking plasters, the underlying UK economy is unsalvagable. We aren't Greece, we are much, much worse than Greece.
It also means that getting Scotland out of the UK (and indeed onto the Euro or a new currency) is extremely urgent.
Well, it's a view. On any measure the UK has been very successful. We have benefited more than most from the information revolution. We're globally in the top 20-30 in GDP per capita (PPP) and the IMF has us at #13 in nominal GDP per capita.
We're certainly ahead of our European peers. France and Spain have flat lined, Italy has declined. Germany is still the number one (bar the tiddlers like the Scandis).
Technically Spain dived, and is now climbing out of its hole...
I presume, Mr Knox, that this is you in MAXIMUM IRONY mode
I suspect he's realising he is a Scouser (I'ts never their fault) and is having some kind of breakdown.
Not all scousers are Andy Burnham jellies. I for one voted leave and I am very glad I did. Vindicated by the latest chapter opened in Turkey accession negotiations and the other false prophecies (calais border moved, Scottish independence, etc. etc.)
Turkey will not join the EU in your or my lifetime.
I'm a lot younger than you then. I foresee a Cyprus reunification forced through with European money and an accelerated accession.
Firstly, what would the EU gain from having Turkey as a member? Secondly, do you really think it is sufficiently popular in every single one of the 27 remaining countries that wouldn't be vetoed?
Can’t see Greece voting for it for one. And although it’s a long time since I was in Bulgaria the memory of the hosility of, at least, our guide towards Turkey, still lingers.
Syed Kamall: "...once Article 50 is invoked, we should enter negotiations on the basis of seeking a UK-EU trade agreement. On goods, the UK has a record trade deficit with the EU, widening to £23.9 billion in the first three months of 2016, so a deal should be relatively straightforward here. However, for services, governments in Berlin and Paris will be under pressure from financial districts of Frankfurt and Paris to reduce London’s role as the global financial centre. Here I believe there will need to be a trade-off on other areas, such as support for EU programmes on research and innovation, student exchange, maintaining our participation in the European Investment Bank, aid to ‘new’ EU states, and perhaps cooperating and offering assets for EU operations of mutual interest, such as protecting the EU’s borders.
Of course, for financial services there will be other issues to consider such as regulatory equivalence and passporting of services, since all companies wishing to sell into the EU’s Single Market would need to show that they meet the standards set within it. Initially, this would present no real barriers since as all EU legislation and type approval standards are already applied in the UK. Over time, we would be in a similar position to the USA, which has recently adjusted its data protection standards to allow US companies to access European digital markets."
Leadsom has the same problem as the other LEAVE candidates; when and if the economy tanks after Brexit, and it surely will - to a greater or lesser extent - the voters will not be happy.
At long last. Anyone who thinks that expensive housing is a good thing for the country needs their head examined...
No sane person could deny that house prices need to come down, but doesn't this cause big problems for the banks providing mortgages on these houses if/when the borrowers default?
Nope... The 2016 BoE stress tests for banking were based on a 30% drop in house prices. The banks passed them.
And what if houses drop by 50% in value?
They didn't in the Subprime Crisis. I think you might need a lie down in a darkened room.
They did in the US, Spain and Ireland. One of the remarkable things about the UK is how our property survived (people normally blame QE, but of course the US had this too).
The 2008 recession was bizarre in all kinds of ways. Unemployment should have been through the roof.
Homebuilders hard hit by Brexit - might damage their confidence going forward. One of @currystar posts on this pre-vote that started to change my mind on the whole caboodle.
If we really do need more homes then there will not be 40% falls in prices UK wide. We have an increase in demand that is still outstripping supply.
People go into the rented sector.
What a house price crash means is that the volume of houses being sold crashes. People are too sacred to buy. So that 500k that someone would have paid for a house with a 400k mortgage doesn't happen. That means there is 400k not slashing around in the real economy. Multiply that by many tens of thousands of times and you can see why a house price crash is terrible for a fragile UK economy. It effectively takes many billions out of the real economy, as well as hits the construction industry, as well as directly reduces tax intake through stamp duty, as well as hits associated industry sectors...solicitors etc.....
This scenario which is now happening in London and other affluent areas will spread outwards. This will be combined with foreign businesses who invest in the UK and have access to the common market reviewing their decisions. Add years of uncertainty and the odd political crisis and constitutional crisis.
Brexit is a monumental clusterfuck for Britain PLC.
"The Justice Secretary admitted he was 'limited', unglamorous and did not really want to be PM - but insisted he had no choice but to betray the former London mayor."
It's all going so well.
That might just be the first time I've enjoyed something written by the Daily Mail!
"While anti-Corbyn MPs believe they need to rally around a single challenger, there is no consensus among members as who the obvious choice would be. In a head-to-head with Corbyn, Angela Eagle would lose by 40 per cent to Corbyn’s 50 per cent, Tom Watson by 39 per cent to 50 per cent, and Dan Jarvis by 35 per cent to 52 per cent."
Basic tactical error of the Labour rebels is that they needed to have a credible alternative to Corbyn who would win in the membership election.
By not having a candidate to beat Corbyn, the rebels have demonstrated how weak they are and passed the initiative to Corbyn and Co.
David Miliband 6.2/1 on betfair....
If I were Angela Eagle, trailing Corbyn by only 10% I would be confident of beating him. After all every major figure in the PLP past and present could come out in support.
Having every major figure in the Establishment come out for Remain didn't do the trick, though, did it? And the Labour members form a far more cussed electorate than the UK....
"The Justice Secretary admitted he was 'limited', unglamorous and did not really want to be PM - but insisted he had no choice but to betray the former London mayor."
It's all going so well.
The only people suitable to be PM are those that are reluctant!
There is zero chance of our EU friends agreeing to an EEA deal if it is seen as a temporary solution. Even if they were to agree to it, it would be an unmitigated disaster, for the very obvious reason that all it does is prolong the business uncertainty. You might as well simply delay triggering Article 50, it would have the same economic effect.
It has to be May, for all these reasons we've discussed. And it has to be done quickly, very quickly.
And then she has to stand up and say: "we're moving to EEA. We will then address the problem of Free Movement, once we know how many people are coming, and how the economy is performing outside the EU. At present we expect a sharp drop in net migration, anyway".
That's a perfectly reasonable fudge, and all true. If it turns out in three years the economy can't survive without Free Movement, then fuck it. So be it. Everyone will have been terrified into servitude.
There is zero chance of our EU friends agreeing to an EEA deal if it is seen as a temporary solution. Even if they were to agree to it, it would be an unmitigated disaster, for the various obvious reason that all it does is prolong the business uncertainty. You might as well simply delay triggering Article 50, it would have the same economic effect.
Agreed, but we shouldn't make it a temporary solution. It should be where we stay. It is an economic partnership with the EU, which is what a majority of people want.
I presume, Mr Knox, that this is you in MAXIMUM IRONY mode
I suspect he's realising he is a Scouser (I'ts never their fault) and is having some kind of breakdown.
Not all scousers are Andy Burnham jellies. I for one voted leave and I am very glad I did. Vindicated by the latest chapter opened in Turkey accession negotiations and the other false prophecies (calais border moved, Scottish independence, etc. etc.)
Turkey will not join the EU in your or my lifetime.
I'm a lot younger than you then. I foresee a Cyprus reunification forced through with European money and an accelerated accession.
Firstly, what would the EU gain from having Turkey as a member? Secondly, do you really think it is sufficiently popular in every single one of the 27 remaining countries that wouldn't be vetoed?
Can’t see Greece voting for it for one. And although it’s a long time since I was in Bulgaria the memory of the hosility of, at least, our guide towards Turkey, still lingers.
I can't see the French or the Dutch going for it either. It would pretty much ensure Marine Le Pen would be the next President of France.
So, you have to simultaneously believe that the EU apparatchiks in Brussels are desperate to get Turkey in (they're not), that the Turkish government is willing to make wholesale changes to their country to satisfy accession terms (they're not), that Greece and Cyprus would be in favour (they'd rather leave the EU than let Turkey in), and that it wouldn't be politically popular in even one single EU capital to block their accession.
This is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Here is an argument in favour of Brexit. I am in favour of Brexit. Therefore I will look for reasons why this argument must be valid.
It has to be May, for all these reasons we've discussed. And it has to be done quickly, very quickly.
And then she has to stand up and say: "we're moving to EEA. We will then address the problem of Free Movement, once we know how many people are coming, and how the economy is performing outside the EU. At present we expect a sharp drop in net migration, anyway".
That's a perfectly reasonable fudge, and all true. If it turns out in three years the economy can't survive without Free Movement, then fuck it. So be it. Everyone will have been terrified into servitude.
I think today you must be channelling the Spirit of The Somme....
Homebuilders hard hit by Brexit - might damage their confidence going forward. One of @currystar posts on this pre-vote that started to change my mind on the whole caboodle.
If we really do need more homes then there will not be 40% falls in prices UK wide. We have an increase in demand that is still outstripping supply.
People go into the rented sector.
What a house price crash means is that the volume of houses being sold crashes. People are too sacred to buy. So that 500k that someone would have paid for a house with a 400k mortgage doesn't happen. That means there is 400k not slashing around in the real economy. Multiply that by many tens of thousands of times and you can see why a house price crash is terrible for a fragile UK economy. It effectively takes many billions out of the real economy, as well as hits the construction industry, as well as directly reduces tax intake through stamp duty, as well as hits associated industry sectors...solicitors etc.....
This scenario which is now happening in London and other affluent areas will spread outwards. This will be combined with foreign businesses who invest in the UK and have access to the common market reviewing their decisions. Add years of uncertainty and the odd political crisis and constitutional crisis.
Brexit is a monumental clusterfuck for Britain PLC.
The places like Ireland or Spain that popped their housing bubbles had a few hard years but are now growing quite quickly. Better or worse than the slow grind of stasis? Surely the jury is out?
I presume, Mr Knox, that this is you in MAXIMUM IRONY mode
I suspect he's realising he is a Scouser (I'ts never their fault) and is having some kind of breakdown.
Not all scousers are Andy Burnham jellies. I for one voted leave and I am very glad I did. Vindicated by the latest chapter opened in Turkey accession negotiations and the other false prophecies (calais border moved, Scottish independence, etc. etc.)
Turkey will not join the EU in your or my lifetime.
I'm a lot younger than you then. I foresee a Cyprus reunification forced through with European money and an accelerated accession.
Firstly, what would the EU gain from having Turkey as a member? Secondly, do you really think it is sufficiently popular in every single one of the 27 remaining countries that wouldn't be vetoed?
Can’t see Greece voting for it for one. And although it’s a long time since I was in Bulgaria the memory of the hosility of, at least, our guide towards Turkey, still lingers.
I can't see the French or the Dutch going for it either. It would pretty much ensure Marine Le Pen would be the next President of France.
So, you have to simultaneously believe that the EU apparatchiks in Brussels are desperate to get Turkey in (they're not), that the Turkish government is willing to make wholesale changes to their country to satisfy accession terms (they're not), that Greece and Cyprus would be in favour (they'd rather leave the EU than let Turkey in), and that it wouldn't be politically popular in even one single EU capital to block their accession.
This is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Here is an argument in favour of Brexit. I am in favour of Brexit. Therefore I will look for reasons why this argument must be valid.
Roger accused me (me!) of logic chopping when I derided Leaves use of Turkey as a bogeyman. You give an excellent summary of why it was outrageous of them to use it. Immigration is a problem for many people, right now. Turkey is about as relevant as phlogiston.
Does anyone know when the EPLP NEC member departs? Is it entwined with Article 50 or do the Labour Party have to manually remove the post from their constitution...
I only ask because I doubt the current EPLP NEC member supports Corbyn and he is no doubt a Eurosceptic... will this strengthen the control of the hard left?
Assume the EPLP member will remain as long as we still have an EPLP, i.e. at least two years. Article 50 is merely a statement of intent and doesn't change a thing.
There is zero chance of our EU friends agreeing to an EEA deal if it is seen as a temporary solution. Even if they were to agree to it, it would be an unmitigated disaster, for the very obvious reason that all it does is prolong the business uncertainty. You might as well simply delay triggering Article 50, it would have the same economic effect.
We aren't exactly in the good books right now - UKIP won the last Euro elections (Remember those ?)
"The Justice Secretary admitted he was 'limited', unglamorous and did not really want to be PM - but insisted he had no choice but to betray the former London mayor."
It's all going so well.
The only people suitable to be PM are those that are reluctant!
Yes; when asked why he wanted to do the job Cameron is alleged to have replied that he thought he’d be rather good at it.
And until the last battle he was least lucky, although that luck then ran horribly out.
It has to be May, for all these reasons we've discussed. And it has to be done quickly, very quickly.
And then she has to stand up and say: "we're moving to EEA. We will then address the problem of Free Movement, once we know how many people are coming, and how the economy is performing outside the EU. At present we expect a sharp drop in net migration, anyway".
That's a perfectly reasonable fudge, and all true. If it turns out in three years the economy can't survive without Free Movement, then fuck it. So be it. Everyone will have been terrified into servitude.
I think today you must be channelling the Spirit of The Somme....
I don't think I would want Sean in my trench. No backbone.
There is zero chance of our EU friends agreeing to an EEA deal if it is seen as a temporary solution. Even if they were to agree to it, it would be an unmitigated disaster, for the very obvious reason that all it does is prolong the business uncertainty. You might as well simply delay triggering Article 50, it would have the same economic effect.
We aren't exactly in the good books right now - UKIP won the last Euro elections (Remember those ?)
"While anti-Corbyn MPs believe they need to rally around a single challenger, there is no consensus among members as who the obvious choice would be. In a head-to-head with Corbyn, Angela Eagle would lose by 40 per cent to Corbyn’s 50 per cent, Tom Watson by 39 per cent to 50 per cent, and Dan Jarvis by 35 per cent to 52 per cent."
Basic tactical error of the Labour rebels is that they needed to have a credible alternative to Corbyn who would win in the membership election.
By not having a candidate to beat Corbyn, the rebels have demonstrated how weak they are and passed the initiative to Corbyn and Co.
David Miliband 6.2/1 on betfair....
If I were Angela Eagle, trailing Corbyn by only 10% I would be confident of beating him. After all every major figure in the PLP past and present could come out in support.
Corbyn beat Burnham, Cooper, Kendal, and various other candidates last time. Which new candidate would do better than them?
Excellent wagering from Mike Smithson.Just like Galloway and Corbyn at 100-1,you only need one in a year and your income is guaranteed to be better than National Savings.What to do with Andrea depends on your attitude to risk-a defensive strategy is to lay off purely as a stake saver for a no-lose bet.One key event which could be an important factor in her chances is the endorsement of Rupert Murdoch who is likely to take a business approach and ditch Gove as Lord Rothermere has done.He could switch to May as well.The other factor is the release of animal spirits which leads the bettor to bet with his loins and not his brain.
Homebuilders hard hit by Brexit - might damage their confidence going forward. One of @currystar posts on this pre-vote that started to change my mind on the whole caboodle.
If we really do need more homes then there will not be 40% falls in prices UK wide. We have an increase in demand that is still outstripping supply.
People go into the rented sector.
What a house price crash means is that the volume of houses being sold crashes. People are too sacred to buy. So that 500k that someone would have paid for a house with a 400k mortgage doesn't happen. That means there is 400k not slashing around in the real economy. Multiply that by many tens of thousands of times and you can see why a house price crash is terrible for a fragile UK economy. It effectively takes many billions out of the real economy, as well as hits the construction industry, as well as directly reduces tax intake through stamp duty, as well as hits associated industry sectors...solicitors etc.....
This scenario which is now happening in London and other affluent areas will spread outwards. This will be combined with foreign businesses who invest in the UK and have access to the common market reviewing their decisions. Add years of uncertainty and the odd political crisis and constitutional crisis.
Brexit is a monumental clusterfuck for Britain PLC.
The places like Ireland or Spain that popped their housing bubbles had a few hard years but are now growing quite quickly. Better or worse than the slow grind of stasis? Surely the jury is out?
I think we have to identify the reason why house prices didn't crash in 2008. My inkling (and I don't have the facts to hand as I'm traveling) is that the lowering of interest rates attached to a lack of other investment options resulted in a continuation of btl purchases that picked up the slack which would have otherwise have caused a crash.
There is zero chance of our EU friends agreeing to an EEA deal if it is seen as a temporary solution. Even if they were to agree to it, it would be an unmitigated disaster, for the very obvious reason that all it does is prolong the business uncertainty. You might as well simply delay triggering Article 50, it would have the same economic effect.
We aren't exactly in the good books right now - UKIP won the last Euro elections (Remember those ?)
There is zero chance of our EU friends agreeing to an EEA deal if it is seen as a temporary solution. Even if they were to agree to it, it would be an unmitigated disaster, for the very obvious reason that all it does is prolong the business uncertainty. You might as well simply delay triggering Article 50, it would have the same economic effect.
Then say it's THE solution, plus Free Movement. Bite the bullet. We'll still have LEFT which is what voters demanded.
But tell the voters net migration is coming down anyway, which it will be, in spades. There won't be so much work for Polish brickies and Romanian car washers, for quite a while. And do something on benefits.
Again, for all that I am flapping around like a headless chicken on crystal meth (and I am, it's what I do), I am the only one here proposing solutions. Everyone else is either saying Brexit is Bad, and not much else, or just pretending all is fine - which it clearly fucking isn't.
Other than a fall in sterling what precisely is not fine at the moment? Especially from a not-in-London perspective.
There is zero chance of our EU friends agreeing to an EEA deal if it is seen as a temporary solution. Even if they were to agree to it, it would be an unmitigated disaster, for the very obvious reason that all it does is prolong the business uncertainty. You might as well simply delay triggering Article 50, it would have the same economic effect.
We aren't exactly in the good books right now - UKIP won the last Euro elections (Remember those ?)
Britain Elects @britainelects 2h2 hours ago On a General Election this year: Support: 52% Oppose: 32% (via BMG / 29 - 30 Jun)
General Election this year:
Support: 52% █████████████████████████
Oppose: 32% ███████████████▌
Voters at the general election selected more Conservative MPs than from other parties. We have a parliamentary government where the MPs chose the government and the governing party choose their Prime Minister.
The Conservative manifesto spelt out that there would be a referendum on the EU membership.
So the government is following the constitution and the path set out. There should not be a general election until 2020.
We don't have a written constitution. We do have a parliamentary democracy and there are ways in which a general election can be called quite properly and constitutionally.
Plenty of our constitution is written, though not all. What it isn't is codified.
Comments
Why? Three reasons:
Firstly, lots of London trades at £2,000/square foot, up from £350 less than two decades ago. I used to own a beautiful flat in Marylebone, which I bought in 2003. It was 1,200 square feet, and I paid £470,000 for it. Those flats now sell for £2.1m. In a period during which UK GDP per capita has risen (what) 20%, Prime London has gone up 4x. To go back to the same ratio of earnings they had in 2003 would need prices to fall at least 60%. If they were to go back to 1996 levels, it'd probably be more like 75%. (My friend Matt bought a decent sized two bedroom flat on Alderney Street in Pimlico for £115,000 back in 1996...)
Secondly, one of the major drivers of house price inflation in London has been foreign buyers making investments in the UK 'off plan'. One of my colleagues is renting in a new block by Victoria and reckons he is pretty much the only resident. These properties were bought because the UK was seen as a safe haven. Now, it is likely that Britain will prosper out of the EU in the medium to long term. But, in the near term, foreign buying is likely to dry up - simply because uncertainty has increased.
Thirdly, I don't think people realise how thinly traded some of these property markets are. In the year to July 2015, just 225 houses were sold for more than £2m in London. But there are probably 10,000 homes that are valued at more than £2m! If just a small number of people decide they want to sell (and there will be a lot of investment bankers moving to Paris, Dublin, Warsaw and Frankfurt if we don't make up our minds soon), then it will totally overwhelm the number of buyers.
In the long-run it will be healthy to have property prices reset. But in the short term, as SeanT observes, it will be incredibly painful.
Ian Bremmer
The absurdity of politics, as beautifully captured by an FT Brexit comment. https://t.co/1MEOm0SYoZ
However, the chart I showed is dodgy in a different way. It's adjusted for RPI inflation, which is fine, but the key thing for most people, and especially young people, is affordability. How many people have been getting RPI (or better) pay rises since 2008? Not many I'd guess.
I've yet to dig out an income multiplier vs house price graph, which would have been more useful.
I was going to join both the Tory and Labour parties so I could have a say in their both appointing a sensible leader. I don't believe in the childish idea of joining the party you oppose to vote for a crap leader (a la the pathetic Platoite Tories for Corbyn) – which I think is counter to the spirit of party politics and decidedly un-civic – but do care for my country. I would therefore vote Theresa for the Conservatives and Yvette for Labour. Sadly, the Tories have a rule whereby you have to have been a member for at least 90 days so there is no point paying my £25.
What I'm getting at, is how much of the UK's economic growth between 1996 and 2006 was purely down to rises in property prices and how much was from growing economic productivity.
Did the housing bubble over those ten years hide an actual fall in GDP. Surely on those numbers it is possible that it did and the UK was in a technical depression.
Your 10-20% drop in GDP is of course just nonsense caused by you not drinking enough tea.
That's very good.
I hope once we have got the Sunday papers out of the way, we can get on with choosing a new PM, the country is becoming a laughing stock.
Britain has some negotiating strength at the table - it would be a piss poor performance of our negotiating team if the EU were able to come out of the process with making no concessions whatsoever to our positions.
I agree (as a committed remainer) that Project Fear might well be accurate - but I don't think it matters. Voters wanted to Take Back Control. A Leaver can press the A50 button any time between now and May 2020 and claim success on that one. Then it's just a bit of reassurance that the voters were right. Everyone likes to be right. So long as the economy doesn't tank entirely, how can the "experts" claim to know what it would've been like otherwise.
I worry that we underestimate the chances of an authoritative sounding arch-leaver at the next election. Especially one that's not associated with the £350m/week for the NHS!
It's a good problem to have.
I can't see Fox making the final two. I think Gove's unlikely to as well. Crabb or Leadsom, then, to meet May in the last pair.
If she's down to 5-6 I'd be tempted to just hedge there.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/01/putin-dares-britain-to-go-through-with-brexit/amp/?client=ms-android-oneplus#
MichaelGove shd stand down. Let's all rally behind #TheresaMay who will unite us & provide new leadership & stability.
As an aside were you at the BBA roundtable a few days ago, I'm much less worried about the future now that I've had time to digest it and we've discussed it at work. I think even outside of the passporting region we'd be OK, it would take a bit of adjustment but I no longer think we'd be so damaged as to lose out prime position in Europe.
The problem is that the answer is very concerning. Basically the UK is still the sick man of Europe, nothing has changed since the 70s other than various sticking plasters have been applied to mask the problem (house prices and immigration propped up by debt and stealing Scotland's oil revenues).
WIthout those sticking plasters, the underlying UK economy is unsalvagable. We aren't Greece, we are much, much worse than Greece.
It also means that getting Scotland out of the UK (and indeed onto the Euro or a new currency) is extremely urgent.
We are long past that milestone. It reminds me of that old Bob Monkhouse joke: "They laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian ... They're not laughing now."
In principle though - and as a lefty - I agree. So much of our planning framework favours entrenched interests and the already wealthy.
and Scott P for not issuing any warnings.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/07/iain-dale-how-women-could-soon-lead-our-two-main-parties-plus-scotlands-leading-three-and-two-welsh-parties.html
Secondly, do you really think it is sufficiently popular in every single one of the 27 remaining countries that wouldn't be vetoed?
"The Justice Secretary admitted he was 'limited', unglamorous and did not really want to be PM - but insisted he had no choice but to betray the former London mayor."
It's all going so well.
We're certainly ahead of our European peers. France and Spain have flat lined, Italy has declined. Germany is still the number one (bar the tiddlers like the Scandis).
My point - really - is all about house prices (and tax take). Losing 20% of bankers wouldn't stop London from being the preeminent financial services centre, but it would hole the London property market below the waterline.
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/748870572797530113
"...once Article 50 is invoked, we should enter negotiations on the basis of seeking a UK-EU trade agreement. On goods, the UK has a record trade deficit with the EU, widening to £23.9 billion in the first three months of 2016, so a deal should be relatively straightforward here. However, for services, governments in Berlin and Paris will be under pressure from financial districts of Frankfurt and Paris to reduce London’s role as the global financial centre. Here I believe there will need to be a trade-off on other areas, such as support for EU programmes on research and innovation, student exchange, maintaining our participation in the European Investment Bank, aid to ‘new’ EU states, and perhaps cooperating and offering assets for EU operations of mutual interest, such as protecting the EU’s borders.
Of course, for financial services there will be other issues to consider such as regulatory equivalence and passporting of services, since all companies wishing to sell into the EU’s Single Market would need to show that they meet the standards set within it. Initially, this would present no real barriers since as all EU legislation and type approval standards are already applied in the UK. Over time, we would be in a similar position to the USA, which has recently adjusted its data protection standards to allow US companies to access European digital markets."
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/07/syed-kamall-with-self-belief-and-hard-work-we-can-make-the-most-of-leaving-the-eu.html
What a house price crash means is that the volume of houses being sold crashes. People are too sacred to buy. So that 500k that someone would have paid for a house with a 400k mortgage doesn't happen. That means there is 400k not slashing around in the real economy. Multiply that by many tens of thousands of times and you can see why a house price crash is terrible for a fragile UK economy. It effectively takes many billions out of the real economy, as well as hits the construction industry, as well as directly reduces tax intake through stamp duty, as well as hits associated industry sectors...solicitors etc.....
This scenario which is now happening in London and other affluent areas will spread outwards. This will be combined with foreign businesses who invest in the UK and have access to the common market reviewing their decisions. Add years of uncertainty and the odd political crisis and constitutional crisis.
Brexit is a monumental clusterfuck for Britain PLC.
"FUXIT
All things considered, the only sane response."
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/whats-up-with-the-u-k-a-handy-lexicon-of-exiting
So, you have to simultaneously believe that the EU apparatchiks in Brussels are desperate to get Turkey in (they're not), that the Turkish government is willing to make wholesale changes to their country to satisfy accession terms (they're not), that Greece and Cyprus would be in favour (they'd rather leave the EU than let Turkey in), and that it wouldn't be politically popular in even one single EU capital to block their accession.
This is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Here is an argument in favour of Brexit. I am in favour of Brexit. Therefore I will look for reasons why this argument must be valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom) so that is what people see in the EU parliament. With Boris, Dave, Gove (soon) gone - the face of Brexit right now in the EU is Nigel Farage.
And until the last battle he was least lucky, although that luck then ran horribly out.
I'm a PB Tory, and I approve this massage ..
I've never looked at Northern Ireland's public disorder and thought "you know what, I want London to be like that"
"if Gove becomes PM"