I do wonder if Brexit will go through, now. This is chaos.
The clock's ticking and the EU want us out so they can integrate into a Superstate without the pesky Brit's holding them back...
If we did call Brexit off we'd have to give up the rebate. Join the Euro. Submit to the army. Etc.
You do the Math.
Not if we Remained (remember: we haven't left yet). We'd be EU members under the same terms as now (but we wouldn't get Cameron's deal).
The EU would welcome this, as being so much less hassle for everyone. Plus they'd get to laugh at us for being a bunch of clowns, and fair enough.
Nope. The EU is on the record that if we abandon Brexit, we can only stay as members if we lose all our opt outs. That includes the euro and Schengen.
Nah that's bollocks.
Indeed - we just lose the Cameron concessions, which Leavers said were worthless anyway.
The EU wants us to stay, always has, so it would presumably be happy to just continue on the former basis. Macron indicated as much recently, echoing the Germans in doing so.
We'd have egg on our face, and we'd have wasted a bit of money, a fair bit of time and a lot of political capital, but that would be about it. Can't see it happening though.
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
Perhaps it's a chance to get Labour on board with a contributory benefits system.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
Renting feels like such an almighty waste. I could have paid for a deposit on a reasonable house with all the money I've spent on rent in the last five or so years, or made considerable progress paying down a mortgage.
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
To be fair to them that is the rational outcome. It's just the EU isn't interested
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Immigration skyrocketed, and housing supply hasn't kept up with demand. They don't really have any choice.
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Oh, and I voted Remain, so you are doubly an idiot.
When are talks 'talks'?
The EU has not said that Cecilia Malmstrom will be given a mandate to negotiate a trade deal as part of the A50 process and there has been no change in their position since the guidelines were published. You may not be lying, but you are making something out of nothing.
The longer she stays the more likely it is Corbyn becomes PM.
I bet the party would take back Dave and George in a heartbeat.
You're like a broken record. So boring. No one would take George back, he is damaged goods and despised. Perhaps you need to move on and look at talented future politicians rather than sleazy journalists.
That's a bit tricky when he has one of the ex-Chancellor's ball sacs permanently lodged in his trachea.
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Oh, and I voted Remain, so you are doubly an idiot.
When are talks 'talks'?
The EU has not said that Cecilia Malmstrom will be given a mandate to negotiate a trade deal as part of the A50 process and there has been no change in their position since the guidelines were published. You may not be lying, but you are making something out of nothing.
Still, there is no denying that their initial position was no talks until the exit deal was signed.
Chuka Umunna MP, Phil Wilson MP, Madeleine Moon MP, Maria Eagle MP, Liz Kendall MP, Stella Creasy MP, Wes Streeting MP, Mike Gapes MP, Kate Green MP, Lord Michael Cashman, Angela Smith MP, Ian Murray MP, Rushanara Ali MP, Karen Buck MP, Stephen Doughty MP, Stephen Timms MP, Lord Spencer Livermore, Catherine McKinnell MP, Lord Peter Hain, Tulip Siddiq MP, Peter Kyle MP, Ruth Cadbury MP, Bridget Phillipson MP, Pat McFadden MP, Ann Clwyd MP, Thangam Debbonaire MP, Chris Bryant MP, Andy Slaughter MP, Daniel Zeichner MP, Alison McGovern MP, Darren Jones MP, Kerry McCarthy MP, Ben Bradshaw MP, Clare Moody MEP, Seb Dance MEP, Luciana Berger MP, Lord George Foulkes, Catherine Stihler MEP, David Martin MEP, Jude Kirton-Darling MEP, Mary Honeyball MEP, Paul Brannen MEP, Richard Corbett MEP, Julie Ward MEP, Derek Vaughan MEP, Lucy Anderson MEP, David Lammy MP, Lord John Monks, Meg Hillier MP, Adrian Bailey MP and Lady Meta Ramsay
To be fair to them that is the rational outcome. It's just the EU isn't interested
Indeed, but they certainly aren't interested. If they were, we wouldn't have needed the referendum in the first place.
Was EU immigration a burning issue when the Tory party was tearing itself apart over Maastricht or when William Hague ran a single issue General Election campaign against the Euro?
Was EU immigration a burning issue when the Tory party was tearing itself apart over Maastricht or when William Hague ran a single issue General Election campaign against the Euro?
Not that I recall, but there's no doubt that immigration was a crucial factor in the referendum result.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax.
Yes, find a rainbow and dig up the gold.
Your point was a good one: had Labour won, under Corbyn/McDonnell, a lot of the money they'd expect to squeeze out of the populace would have simply disappeared.
I had contingency plans to transfer £10k over to my cousin in Canada (who I trust implicitly) to hold for me in trust, and my parents in an offshore Jersey account.
I am now looking at selling my London flat and using the proceeds to buy a house in Barbados. Negligible transaction costs, no IHT, negligible income tax and closely tied to the dollar, so a good hedge for when the £ gets debauched.
That would be just the start.
It is more exotic that what I had in mind, but our plans are similar
I recommend Guernsey as a closer alternative - you show me any town in the U.K. population 64,000 with two Waitrose supermarkets and three M&S food stores. Half an hour from Gatwick.
I have not been in Guernsey in years. Pre-teens IIRC. I thought they had an immigration policy which is highly exclusive? They might not let me in
Depending on what one is spending, I think the aim should be to get citizenship as well as a property.
Grand Cayman is a bit awkward and wants you to live there for 9 years first. I haven't looked into getting Barbados citizenship, but for the price of my London flat, I can have a 4-bedroom house with a pool and sea views. A £600k property would cost £18k in transaction costs to buy versus £38k in London just on the stamp duty.
It's not worth what it costs to live here.
Let me know if you go there. I will pop over on my yacht and visit
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
No, I mean the timetable which has now been modified, the one which claimed that we couldn't even START talking about a trade deal until after we have left. It now turns out that we can start in a few weeks' time. It's an unqualified victory for the UK, and of course for common sense, but it's helpful that the UK press is pandering to the illusion that this is a 'win' for the EU27. We need to make sure they get some meaningless or illusory 'wins'.
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax.
Yes, find a rainbow and dig up the gold.
Your point was a good one: had Labour won, under Corbyn/McDonnell, a lot of the money they'd expect to squeeze out of the populace would have simply disappeared.
I had contingency plans to transfer £10k over to my cousin in Canada (who I trust implicitly) to hold for me in trust, and my parents in an offshore Jersey account.
I am now looking at selling my London flat and using the proceeds to buy a house in Barbados. Negligible transaction costs, no IHT, negligible income tax and closely tied to the dollar, so a good hedge for when the £ gets debauched.
That would be just the start.
It is more exotic that what I had in mind, but our plans are similar
I recommend Guernsey as a closer alternative - you show me any town in the U.K. population 64,000 with two Waitrose supermarkets and three M&S food stores. Half an hour from Gatwick.
I have not been in Guernsey in years. Pre-teens IIRC. I thought they had an immigration policy which is highly exclusive? They might not let me in
You're thinking of Jersey. In Guernsey all you have to do is buy a house in the "Open Market" - 1700 properties reserved for non-locals - prices similar to South East England. No CGT & no IHT. When I went for my first visit I asked if there was much crime. "Oh yes, there was a car stolen last month....."
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
How long can Labour keep this split under control? How long can they conceal, from their mainly Remainer voters, that the Corbyn leadership is Hardline Leave?
Labour canbide their time. Watch the Tories make a hash of it, then pick up what pieces they like.
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
How long can Labour keep this split under control? How long can they conceal, from their mainly Remainer voters, that the Corbyn leadership is Hardline Leave?
It only becomes a huge issue if there is another election before Brexit. But the split is very lopsided - it is Corbyn and McDonnell on one side and most MPs, CLPs, members and unions on the other side.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
How long can Labour keep this split under control? How long can they conceal, from their mainly Remainer voters, that the Corbyn leadership is Hardline Leave?
Labour canbide their time. Watch the Tories make a hash of it, then pick up what pieces they like.
When push comes to shove Labour will show themselves to be a party of remain. Most of their voters are, and their MPs. Yes Corbyn wants to nationalise and is a eurosceptic but he would certainly not die on that hill if the prize is getting in to government. So the labour position is likely to shift more explicitly towards an EEA Brexit at best if in government, while maintaining the have cake and eat it stance in opposition
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
Wasn't cutting APD one of their proposals? Not a bad idea for the whole UK...
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Evening all. I can't see this government lasting to the end of the year. Theresa May has a lot to answer for, bringing about a hard left Labour government. My only hope is that Corbyn does not win a Blair style landslide and that the Conservatives rebuild sensibly in opposition.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Oh, and I voted Remain, so you are doubly an idiot.
When are talks 'talks'?
The EU has not said that Cecilia Malmstrom will be given a mandate to negotiate a trade deal as part of the A50 process and there has been no change in their position since the guidelines were published. You may not be lying, but you are making something out of nothing.
Still, there is no denying that their initial position was no talks until the exit deal was signed.
And the position had changed by March, prior to Davis stating the fight over the timetable would be the row of the summer. If the EU changed its position as the result of UK persuasion, it is puzzling why Davis would not want to proclaim that from the rooftops instead of stoking the fires of confrontation. Perhaps in pre-election mode he wanted to build a narrative of Us versus Them. I suspect that that this approach cost the Tories a lot of Remain votes on 8th June. Not only has Davis made himself look very silly, he probably also helped to ensure the government was emasculated. A bit more nuance and lateral thinking will be required from here on in.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
Renting feels like such an almighty waste. I could have paid for a deposit on a reasonable house with all the money I've spent on rent in the last five or so years, or made considerable progress paying down a mortgage.
You've been renting America though, haven't you? Wonder what the situation is there, re renting?
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
How long can Labour keep this split under control? How long can they conceal, from their mainly Remainer voters, that the Corbyn leadership is Hardline Leave?
Labour canbide their time. Watch the Tories make a hash of it, then pick up what pieces they like.
When push comes to shove Labour will show themselves to be a party of remain. Most of their voters are, and their MPs. Yes Corbyn wants to nationalise and is a eurosceptic but he would certainly not die on that hill if the prize is getting in to government. So the labour position is likely to shift more explicitly towards an EEA Brexit at best if in government, while maintaining the have cake and eat it stance in opposition
Yep - if push did come to shove, I suspect Labour MPs would ignore a three line whip ordering them to back a hard Brexit. But Corbyn and McDonnell would never go through the lobbies with the Tories anyway, so the problem may well solve itself - unless there is another pre-Brexit election.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Oh, and I voted Remain, so you are doubly an idiot.
When are talks 'talks'?
The EU has not said that Cecilia Malmstrom will be given a mandate to negotiate a trade deal as part of the A50 process and there has been no change in their position since the guidelines were published. You may not be lying, but you are making something out of nothing.
Still, there is no denying that their initial position was no talks until the exit deal was signed.
And the position had changed by March, prior to Davis stating the fight over the timetable would be the row of the summer. If the EU changed its position as the result of UK persuasion, it is puzzling why Davis would not want to proclaim that from the rooftops instead of stoking the fires of confrontation. Perhaps in pre-election mode he wanted to build a narrative of Us versus Them. I suspect that that this approach cost the Tories a lot of Remain votes on 8th June. Not only has Davis made himself look very silly, he probably also helped to ensure the government was emasculated. A bit more nuance and lateral thinking will be required from here on in.
I would have thought the UK government would be pleased about the current timetable. It means the future trading relationship can be discussed much earlier than originally planned.
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
When do you think the crash is coming?
I am hoping for no earlier than January next year. The end of this year would be very inconvenient for me.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
Renting feels like such an almighty waste. I could have paid for a deposit on a reasonable house with all the money I've spent on rent in the last five or so years, or made considerable progress paying down a mortgage.
You've been renting America though, haven't you? Wonder what the situation is there, re renting?
Not sure it is all that different from the UK, they share a very similar home ownership rate.
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
How long can Labour keep this split under control? How long can they conceal, from their mainly Remainer voters, that the Corbyn leadership is Hardline Leave?
Labour is fine as long as they are in opposition and clearly outvoted by the government. They just need to be a smidgin more soft on Brexit than the Tories, to keep their leavers onside by 'respecting the vote' whilst positioning themselves to blame the Tories for the economic mayhem that will ensue once Tory Brexit becomes a reality.
The problems for Labour start if they find themselves in a position of actual influence. Most of them are remainers, but they are constrained by the referendum and their subsequent pro-A50 stance and manifesto. Which is why, if Labour does find itself in a critical position, I still maintain that a second referendum then becomes a very attractive position for Labour to support, as the only way to resolve their internal impasse by passing the decision back to the electorate.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
Perhaps they want the bridge to Stranraer?
Get the SNP to pay for it! (Nearly) everybody happy!
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
When do you think the crash is coming?
Sir Vince will know. He predicted all six of the last two one recessions....
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
How long can Labour keep this split under control? How long can they conceal, from their mainly Remainer voters, that the Corbyn leadership is Hardline Leave?
Labour canbide their time. Watch the Tories make a hash of it, then pick up what pieces they like.
When push comes to shove Labour will show themselves to be a party of remain. Most of their voters are, and their MPs. Yes Corbyn wants to nationalise and is a eurosceptic but he would certainly not die on that hill if the prize is getting in to government. So the labour position is likely to shift more explicitly towards an EEA Brexit at best if in government, while maintaining the have cake and eat it stance in opposition
Brexit is way down the pecking order of things on Corbyn's list. I dont think he would make a battle over it. He seems very little bothered by Brexit either way.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
Perhaps they want the bridge to Stranraer?
Get the SNP to pay for it! (Nearly) everybody happy!
With the minor problem that Stranraer isn't near anywhere that anyone would want to go, coming from either direction.
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
How long can Labour keep this split under control? How long can they conceal, from their mainly Remainer voters, that the Corbyn leadership is Hardline Leave?
Labour is fine as long as they are in opposition and clearly outvoted by the government. They just need to be a smidgin more soft on Brexit than the Tories, to keep their leavers onside by 'respecting the vote' whilst positioning themselves to blame the Tories for the economic mayhem that will ensue once Tory Brexit becomes a reality.
The problems for Labour start if they find themselves in a position of actual influence. Most of them are remainers, but they are constrained by the referendum and their subsequent pro-A50 stance and manifesto. Which is why, if Labour does find itself in a critical position, I still maintain that a second referendum then becomes a very attractive position for Labour to support, as the only way to resolve their internal impasse by passing the decision back to the electorate.
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Oh, and I voted Remain, so you are doubly an idiot.
When are talks 'talks'?
The EU has not said that Cecilia Malmstrom will be given a mandate to negotiate a trade deal as part of the A50 process and there has been no change in their position since the guidelines were published. You may not be lying, but you are making something out of nothing.
Still, there is no denying that their initial position was no talks until the exit deal was signed.
And the position had changed by March, prior to Davis stating the fight over the timetable would be the row of the summer. If the EU changed its position as the result of UK persuasion, it is puzzling why Davis would not want to proclaim that from the rooftops instead of stoking the fires of confrontation. Perhaps in pre-election mode he wanted to build a narrative of Us versus Them. I suspect that that this approach cost the Tories a lot of Remain votes on 8th June. Not only has Davis made himself look very silly, he probably also helped to ensure the government was emasculated. A bit more nuance and lateral thinking will be required from here on in.
I would have thought the UK government would be pleased about the current timetable. It means the future trading relationship can be discussed much earlier than originally planned.
You'd have thought so. Makes you wonder why Davis was rejecting it last month. Can't imagine why that was :-D
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
For most who live in an owned house it isn't an investment - it's a wasting asset. It's true that some who are a few years in to three or four decades of debtorhood complain about how terrible it is that house prices aren't rising as fast as they'd prefer, in response to which at least one can experience the feeling of "thank goodness I'm not as stupid as they are". (That's even if it's very sad to realise what some young people get roped into by estate agents and, behind them, by moneylenders. For example, when relocating and selling a house for job reasons, some will do the most idiotic things, like getting a second mortgage, letting the house they're moving from, and then complaining that it doesn't sell.) But most are aware that if you own a house, even a mortgaged one, you can paint your bathroom walls green if you like, and you also avoid paying rent, and you can't be turfed out at the end of the lease, whereas if you're renting you're weaker on all three fronts.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
When do you think the crash is coming?
When interest rates start to go back up to normal rates.
Plenty of Oppose Prevent placards outside the Finsbury Park Mosque this evening. Not sure how that's relevant to a vigil for those killed/injured in the attack last night.
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
That talks about the rebate, but specifies the other opt outs are permanent.
The other opt-outs are codified in treaties, so it would take a massive amount of work to remove them.
Bit this is all academic, as we're leaving.
Your two statements are in direct contradiction. If we're leaving, then it takes no work at all to remove our opt-outs since they will cease to apply. We just need to be presented with a new accession treaty which we will sign on March 30th 2019.
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
I think you are completely missing the point. The EU has completely backed down from their absurd position, and accepted the UK position that the talks have to be in parallel (after an initial discussion) and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (this is even explicitly mentioned in their guidelines). This is just common sense, of course; you can't get very far discussing any exit payment if you don't know what you'te exiting to, and you can't make much progress on the Irish border if you don't know what the customs arrangements and any tariffs are going to be.
Sure, there was a bit of theatre by DD, and, yes, the climbdown by the EU27 was gradual. But the substance has gone our way; I wouldn't claim it as a victory for the UK, more a simple recognition of reality by the EU27.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
Renting feels like such an almighty waste. I could have paid for a deposit on a reasonable house with all the money I've spent on rent in the last five or so years, or made considerable progress paying down a mortgage.
You've been renting America though, haven't you? Wonder what the situation is there, re renting?
And - where would you live while using your rent money to save up a deposit?
In Cambridge, for example, you need about 150k-200k *in deposit* these days. Where is that coming from? That's a decade of saving *if* you can somehow save a grand a month?!
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Oh, and I voted Remain, so you are doubly an idiot.
When are talks 'talks'?
The EU has not said that Cecilia Malmstrom will be given a mandate to negotiate a trade deal as part of the A50 process and there has been no change in their position since the guidelines were published. You may not be lying, but you are making something out of nothing.
Still, there is no denying that their initial position was no talks until the exit deal was signed.
And the position had changed by March, prior to Davis stating the fight over the timetable would be the row of the summer. If the EU changed its position as the result of UK persuasion, it is puzzling why Davis would not want to proclaim that from the rooftops instead of stoking the fires of confrontation. Perhaps in pre-election mode he wanted to build a narrative of Us versus Them. I suspect that that this approach cost the Tories a lot of Remain votes on 8th June. Not only has Davis made himself look very silly, he probably also helped to ensure the government was emasculated. A bit more nuance and lateral thinking will be required from here on in.
No the EU position had not changed at that point. Indeed it didn't become clear what their position was until Barnier showed a modicum of common sense over the last few days.
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
When do you think the crash is coming?
When interest rates start to go back up to normal rates.
I was paying 12% on my first mortgage in 1992.
I have advised Fox jr to stay out of the market.
I do find it amusing that the same people who seem to complain about house prices being too high are also those who moan about policies which will increase interest rates - probably the best way of making sure house prices drop. We need a good bout of negative equity to burst the bubble of houses being considered investments instead of homes.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't that people would (or should) just accept their lot in life and hope that the government doesn't let the scumbags screw them over too much. I know too many middle earners who are open to Corbyn because the property market in this country is broken. Too few people own too many homes and the young are being treated like pension funds for older middle classes who have gamed the system. It's time to break that cycle and stuff the middle classes so the young have as much of a chance at home ownership as their parents did.
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
I think you are completely missing the point. The EU has completely backed down from their absurd position, and accepted the UK position that the talks have to be in parallel (after an initial discussion) and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (this is even explicitly mentioned in their guidelines). This is just common sense, of course; you can't get very far discussing any exit payment if you don't know what you'te exiting to, and you can't make much progress on the Irish border if you don't know what the customs arrangements and any tariffs are going to be.
Sure, there was a bit of theatre by DD, and, yes, the climbdown by the EU27 was gradual. But the substance has gone our way; I wouldn't claim it as a victory for the UK, more a simple recognition of reality by the EU27.
We're getting there, aren't we? The EU set out its formal position; Davis rejected it, saying there would be a row over it; he then accepted it. Davis made an idiot of himself because he felt confrontation would play well for the election. It didn't. The Tories saw their majority disappear, losing a string of seats in which Remain voters formed a sizeable bulk of the electorate. Silly David. Still, as you note what we have now is good news for the UK, so Davis making himself look stupid is neither here nor there.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
I think you are completely missing the point. The EU has completely backed down from their absurd position, and accepted the UK position that the talks have to be in parallel (after an initial discussion) and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (this is even explicitly mentioned in their guidelines). This is just common sense, of course; you can't get very far discussing any exit payment if you don't know what you'te exiting to, and you can't make much progress on the Irish border if you don't know what the customs arrangements and any tariffs are going to be.
Sure, there was a bit of theatre by DD, and, yes, the climbdown by the EU27 was gradual. But the substance has gone our way; I wouldn't claim it as a victory for the UK, more a simple recognition of reality by the EU27.
We're getting there, aren't we? The EU set out its formal position; Davis rejected it, saying there would be a row over it; he then accepted it. Davis made an idiot of himself because he felt confrontation would play well for the election. It didn't. The Tories saw their majority disappear, losing a string of seats in which Remain voters formed a sizeable bulk of the electorate. Silly David. Still, as you note what we have now is good news for the UK, so Davis making himself look stupid is neither here nor there.
Yes, the only reason for the election result was Davis' stance on the EU's negotiating timetable.....
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
When do you think the crash is coming?
When interest rates start to go back up to normal rates.
I was paying 12% on my first mortgage in 1992.
I have advised Fox jr to stay out of the market.
I do find it amusing that the same people who seem to complain about house prices being too high are also those who moan about policies which will increase interest rates - probably the best way of making sure house prices drop. We need a good bout of negative equity to burst the bubble of houses being considered investments instead of homes.
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
I think you are completely missing the point. The EU has completely backed down from their absurd position, and accepted the UK position that the talks have to be in parallel (after an initial discussion) and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (this is even explicitly mentioned in their guidelines). This is just common sense, of course; you can't get very far discussing any exit payment if you don't know what you'te exiting to, and you can't make much progress on the Irish border if you don't know what the customs arrangements and any tariffs are going to be.
Sure, there was a bit of theatre by DD, and, yes, the climbdown by the EU27 was gradual. But the substance has gone our way; I wouldn't claim it as a victory for the UK, more a simple recognition of reality by the EU27.
We're getting there, aren't we? The EU set out its formal position; Davis rejected it, saying there would be a row over it; he then accepted it. Davis made an idiot of himself because he felt confrontation would play well for the election. It didn't. The Tories saw their majority disappear, losing a string of seats in which Remain voters formed a sizeable bulk of the electorate. Silly David. Still, as you note what we have now is good news for the UK, so Davis making himself look stupid is neither here nor there.
Yes, the only reason for the election result was Davis' stance on the EU's negotiating timetable.....
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Indeed, what we need is a way of forcing private landlords to sell (either by ramping up taxes or just calling rent at such a low level they give up) and ensuring that first time buyers are able to buy, even if it needs government assistance.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
When do you think the crash is coming?
The market has already clearly turned downwards. The government's Plan A is to allow inflation to tick upwards, reducing their debt burden at the cost of a squeeze on living standards, whilst keeping interest rates low so effectively providing additional stimulus via negative real interest rates. They'll keep this going as long as they can; meanwhile the housing market remains stagnant and so becomes slowly more affordable in real terms. Maybe, just perhaps, they'll be able to keep this plate spinning for a fair while.
The problem is that, after seven years of austerity, public tolerance for a further squeeze on living standards appears low. Further, having sympathised with the JAMs from the outset, and announced the end of austerity more recently, a minority government will find it exceptionally difficult to exercise any sort of restraint upon pay increases. Yet, as soon as any sort of inflationary spiral shows signs of getting out of control, the BoE will be forced to step in and push up interest rates. Add in the potential shock, either to sentiment or the real economy, from the uncertainty of Brexit and it is hard to see even the Mrs May of April, who commanded everything before her, charting a safe voyage through to a soft landing for the economy.
Higher interest rates will expose a lot of our so-called zombie companies, home-buyers who have over-extended on their mortgages, and the bolder of our new class of indolent landlords. The collapse would hit housing severely, and put the Tories out of power for a generation (even though, as in the US, Spain and Ireland, after several years of severe pain a housing crash would actually do the real economy something of a favour).
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
I think you are completely missing the point. The EU has completely backed down from their absurd position, and accepted the UK position that the talks have to be in parallel (after an initial discussion) and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (this is even explicitly mentioned in their guidelines). This is just common sense, of course; you can't get very far discussing any exit payment if you don't know what you'te exiting to, and you can't make much progress on the Irish border if you don't know what the customs arrangements and any tariffs are going to be.
Sure, there was a bit of theatre by DD, and, yes, the climbdown by the EU27 was gradual. But the substance has gone our way; I wouldn't claim it as a victory for the UK, more a simple recognition of reality by the EU27.
We're getting there, aren't we? The EU set out its formal position; Davis rejected it, saying there would be a row over it; he then accepted it. Davis made an idiot of himself because he felt confrontation would play well for the election. It didn't. The Tories saw their majority disappear, losing a string of seats in which Remain voters formed a sizeable bulk of the electorate. Silly David. Still, as you note what we have now is good news for the UK, so Davis making himself look stupid is neither here nor there.
Yes, the only reason for the election result was Davis' stance on the EU's negotiating timetable.....
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't that people would (or should) just accept their lot in life and hope that the government doesn't let the scumbags screw them over too much. I know too many middle earners who are open to Corbyn because the property market in this country is broken. Too few people own too many homes and the young are being treated like pension funds for older middle classes who have gamed the system. It's time to break that cycle and stuff the middle classes so the young have as much of a chance at home ownership as their parents did.
That talks about the rebate, but specifies the other opt outs are permanent.
The other opt-outs are codified in treaties, so it would take a massive amount of work to remove them.
Bit this is all academic, as we're leaving.
Your two statements are in direct contradiction. If we're leaving, then it takes no work at all to remove our opt-outs since they will cease to apply. We just need to be presented with a new accession treaty which we will sign on March 30th 2019.
If we leave the EU without a deal we leave on that day, but if a deal can be done quickly, say by the end of September 2018 we could leave earlier, no doubt the leaving date will be specified in the agreement.
It's funny, the worries about the housing market on here remind me of the worries about peak oil a decade ago.
We're going to have a similar switch in perspectives in the UK - and especially London - regarding house prices.
Between now and 2020, net immigration to the UK will turn negative. Partly that will be because we leave the EU, partly it's because our economy is very fragile and we're likely to hit a serious economic roadblock, partly it's because immigrants feel less welcome (see the dramatic drop in the number of EU nationals applying to be nurses in the UK), partly it will be because there is a natural number of EU citizens returning home, partly it will be because there will likely be some drop off in investment levels in the UK.
And this happens at the same time that an unprecedented amount of new housing comes on the market in London. There are now more residential units under construction in London that at any time since the immediate post war building boom.
Finally, of course, interest rates will rise.
All this has to be put against the backdrop of us not having the same number of children as historically. The UK TFR is 1.8. Now, that's better than Germany, but it's still more than 10% below replacement level.
In other words, absent immigration (which will be negative), the number of people in the UK will decline. Falling numbers of people, declining divorce rates, and an increased number of properties means dramatic falls in house prices. I really wouldn't advise being leveraged and long prime London real estate.
The since the guidelines were published. You may not be lying, but you are making something out of nothing.
Still, there is no denying that their initial position was no talks until the exit deal was signed.
And in.
No the EU position had not changed at that point. Indeed it didn't become clear what their position was until Barnier showed a modicum of common sense over the last few days.
Dated 29th April:
4. On the date of withdrawal, the Treaties will cease to apply to the United Kingdom, to those of its overseas countries and territories currently associated to the Union, and to territories for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible. The main purpose of the negotiations will be to ensure the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal so as to reduce uncertainty and, to the extent possible, minimise disruption caused by this abrupt change.
To that effect, the first phase of negotiations will aim to: provide as much clarity and legal certainty as possible to citizens, businesses, stakeholders and international partners on the immediate effects of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union; settle the disentanglement of the United Kingdom from the Union and from all the rights and obligations the United Kingdom derives from commitments undertaken as Member State.
The European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase.
5. While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU. We stand ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions to this end in the context of negotiations under Article 50 TEU, as soon as the European Council decides that sufficient progress has been made in the first phase towards reaching a satisfactory agreement on the arrangements for an orderly withdrawal.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't that people would (or should) just accept their lot in life and hope that the government doesn't let the scumbags screw them over too much. I know too many middle earners who are open to Corbyn because the property market in this country is broken. Too few people own too many homes and the young are being treated like pension funds for older middle classes who have gamed the system. It's time to break that cycle and stuff the middle classes so the young have as much of a chance at home ownership as their parents did.
Yup.
Yet the political problem we face is that either a Corbyn government, or a May government re-elected with a big majority, would probably have had the courage to at least start down a path to putting things right.
Where we are right now offers the least chance of any bold decisions to sort out the mess we are in.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
We actually don't, house prices have plateaued, what we need is an effective transfer of 2.5m homes from private landlords to first time buyers. That still leaves a reasonable private rental market but at the same time the leeching of younger people's income by older people won't be as bad. The Tory party needs to get ahead of the game here or Corbyn will win and introduce huge property taxes on primary residences to build social housing for rent, entrenching Labour's advantage.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't that people would (or should) just accept their lot in life and hope that the government doesn't let the scumbags screw them over too much. I know too many middle earners who are open to Corbyn because the property market in this country is broken. Too few people own too many homes and the young are being treated like pension funds for older middle classes who have gamed the system. It's time to break that cycle and stuff the middle classes so the young have as much of a chance at home ownership as their parents did.
Yup.
Yet the political problem we face is that either a Corbyn government, or a May government re-elected with a big majority, would probably have had the courage to at least start down a path to putting things right.
Where we are right now offers the least chance of any bold decisions to sort out the mess we are in.
I think we need to do it anyway, force Labour to back us. If they don't help us then it will show they are more interested in playing politics than actually helping young people get onto the property ladder.
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
I think you are completely missing the point. The EU has completely backed down from their absurd position, and accepted the UK position that the talks have to be in parallel (after an initial discussion) and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (this is even explicitly mentioned in their guidelines). This is just common sense, of course; you can't get very far discussing any exit payment if you don't know what you'te exiting to, and you can't make much progress on the Irish border if you don't know what the customs arrangements and any tariffs are going to be.
Sure, there was a bit of theatre by DD, and, yes, the climbdown by the EU27 was gradual. But the substance has gone our way; I wouldn't claim it as a victory for the UK, more a simple recognition of reality by the EU27.
We're getting there, aren't we? The EU set out its formal position; Davis rejected it, saying there would be a row over it; he then accepted it. Davis made an idiot of himself because he felt confrontation would play well for the election. It didn't. The Tories saw their majority disappear, losing a string of seats in which Remain voters formed a sizeable bulk of the electorate. Silly David. Still, as you note what we have now is good news for the UK, so Davis making himself look stupid is neither here nor there.
Yes, the only reason for the election result was Davis' stance on the EU's negotiating timetable.....
Nope - but the confrontational stance the Tories developed and their No Deal Brexit threat alarmed a lot of Remain voters. For instance, my guess is that Warwick & Leamington did not return a Labour MP because voters here have suddenly become red blooded socialists.
That talks about the rebate, but specifies the other opt outs are permanent.
The other opt-outs are codified in treaties, so it would take a massive amount of work to remove them.
Bit this is all academic, as we're leaving.
Your two statements are in direct contradiction. If we're leaving, then it takes no work at all to remove our opt-outs since they will cease to apply. We just need to be presented with a new accession treaty which we will sign on March 30th 2019.
If we leave the EU without a deal we leave on that day, but if a deal can be done quickly, say by the end of September 2018 we could leave earlier, no doubt the leaving date will be specified in the agreement.
That's an unrelated matter. The point is that once we've left we don't have any opt-outs. Everything will depend on the exit treaty.
The only way we can keep our opt-outs is if we revoke Article 50, which probably requires unanimous agreement from the other members.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
I think we may have to.
The housing crash will solve this problem, if at some considerable cost both to landlords and those first time buyers who have joined the market relatively recently.
When do you think the crash is coming?
When interest rates start to go back up to normal rates.
I was paying 12% on my first mortgage in 1992.
I have advised Fox jr to stay out of the market.
I do find it amusing that the same people who seem to complain about house prices being too high are also those who moan about policies which will increase interest rates - probably the best way of making sure house prices drop. We need a good bout of negative equity to burst the bubble of houses being considered investments instead of homes.
What sorts of policies? Genuinely curious.
Primarily those which increase inflation. So we see everyone jumping up and down about the jump in inflation last week but a period of inflation would force the BoE to act and raise interest rates.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yes, QE and easy money is effecting a wealth transfer toward the wealthy, and the pattern of property ownership in the country is progressively returning to the early 20th century situation where a minority of owners let to a majority of renters.
Given the social progress that was achieved after the landowning class was forced to relinquish its hold on property after the First World War, coupled with the boom in housing after the Second, it is urgent (and very much in the Conservative Party interest) to find a way to put the decline in home ownership into reverse.
For all the talk of the need for more housebuilding, which is not unimportant, the principal causes of our housing crisis are financial - low interest rates, cheap mortgages, QE, government support for the housing market, and excessive openness to foreign investors (/criminals). These latter issues are not ones that the Tories appear particularly willing or able to tackle.
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
I think you are completely missing the point. The EU has completely backed down from their absurd position, and accepted the UK position that the talks have to be in parallel (after an initial discussion) and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (this is even explicitly mentioned in their guidelines). This is just common sense, of course; you can't get very far discussing any exit payment if you don't know what you'te exiting to, and you can't make much progress on the Irish border if you don't know what the customs arrangements and any tariffs are going to be.
Sure, there was a bit of theatre by DD, and, yes, the climbdown by the EU27 was gradual. But the substance has gone our way; I wouldn't claim it as a victory for the UK, more a simple recognition of reality by the EU27.
We're getting there, aren't we? The EU set out its formal position; Davis rejected it, saying there would be a row over it; he then accepted it. Davis made an idiot of himself because he felt confrontation would play well for the election. It didn't. The Tories saw their majority disappear, losing a string of seats in which Remain voters formed a sizeable bulk of the electorate. Silly David. Still, as you note what we have now is good news for the UK, so Davis making himself look stupid is neither here nor there.
Yes, the only reason for the election result was Davis' stance on the EU's negotiating timetable.....
Nope - but the confrontational stance the Tories developed and their No Deal Brexit threat alarmed a lot of Remain voters. For instance, my guess is that Warwick & Leamington did not return a Labour MP because voters here have suddenly become red blooded socialists.
I thought Brexit was quite far down the list of priorities for Labour voters?
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
We actually don't, house prices have plateaued, what we need is an effective transfer of 2.5m homes from private landlords to first time buyers. That still leaves a reasonable private rental market but at the same time the leeching of younger people's income by older people won't be as bad. The Tory party needs to get ahead of the game here or Corbyn will win and introduce huge property taxes on primary residences to build social housing for rent, entrenching Labour's advantage.
But those 2.5m homes already have people living in them. Are you suggesting they should be moved out to make way for more deserving buyers?
One of the big problems we have is builders insisting on building 4 and 5 bedroom houses on estates instead of cheaper 1 or 2 bedroom houses. Go and look at any new housing estate being built in Eastern England and you will almost everything is 'executive' housing which is way out of the price range of first time buyers.
That talks about the rebate, but specifies the other opt outs are permanent.
The other opt-outs are codified in treaties, so it would take a massive amount of work to remove them.
Bit this is all academic, as we're leaving.
Your two statements are in direct contradiction. If we're leaving, then it takes no work at all to remove our opt-outs since they will cease to apply. We just need to be presented with a new accession treaty which we will sign on March 30th 2019.
If we leave the EU without a deal we leave on that day, but if a deal can be done quickly, say by the end of September 2018 we could leave earlier, no doubt the leaving date will be specified in the agreement.
That's an unrelated matter. The point is that once we've left we don't have any opt-outs. Everything will depend on the exit treaty.
The only way we can keep our opt-outs is if we revoke Article 50, which probably requires unanimous agreement from the other members.
Why would we want opt outs if we are opting out of the whole thing?
That talks about the rebate, but specifies the other opt outs are permanent.
The other opt-outs are codified in treaties, so it would take a massive amount of work to remove them.
Bit this is all academic, as we're leaving.
Your two statements are in direct contradiction. If we're leaving, then it takes no work at all to remove our opt-outs since they will cease to apply. We just need to be presented with a new accession treaty which we will sign on March 30th 2019.
If we leave the EU without a deal we leave on that day, but if a deal can be done quickly, say by the end of September 2018 we could leave earlier, no doubt the leaving date will be specified in the agreement.
That's an unrelated matter. The point is that once we've left we don't have any opt-outs. Everything will depend on the exit treaty.
The only way we can keep our opt-outs is if we revoke Article 50, which probably requires unanimous agreement from the other members.
Why would we want opt outs if we are opting out of the whole thing?
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't that people would (or should) just accept their lot in life and hope that the government doesn't let the scumbags screw them over too much. I know too many middle earners who are open to Corbyn because the property market in this country is broken. Too few people own too many homes and the young are being treated like pension funds for older middle classes who have gamed the system. It's time to break that cycle and stuff the middle classes so the young have as much of a chance at home ownership as their parents did.
Yup.
Yet the political problem we face is that either a Corbyn government, or a May government re-elected with a big majority, would probably have had the courage to at least start down a path to putting things right.
Where we are right now offers the least chance of any bold decisions to sort out the mess we are in.
I think we need to do it anyway, force Labour to back us. If they don't help us then it will show they are more interested in playing politics than actually helping young people get onto the property ladder.
If only you are right.
My judgement, however, is that the current political setup is likely to deliver us the most timid government in living memory. It already has to (try and) jump off the cliff of Brexit, despite our best interests, and is very unlikely to have any political capital left to do anything else.
Just as during the GE, Labour will oppose even proposals that are 'right' and that benefit the many rather than the few, transfixed as they are by a totally unexpected shot at being in power.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
We actually don't, house prices have plateaued, what we need is an effective transfer of 2.5m homes from private landlords to first time buyers. That still leaves a reasonable private rental market but at the same time the leeching of younger people's income by older people won't be as bad. The Tory party needs to get ahead of the game here or Corbyn will win and introduce huge property taxes on primary residences to build social housing for rent, entrenching Labour's advantage.
But those 2.5m homes already have people living in them. Are you suggesting they should be moved out to make way for more deserving buyers?
One of the big problems we have is builders insisting on building 4 and 5 bedroom houses on estates instead of cheaper 1 or 2 bedroom houses. Go and look at any new housing estate being built in Eastern England and you will almost everything is 'executive' housing which is way out of the price range of first time buyers.
In Outer London the problem is the opposite - value is maximised by building lots of one- and two-bed flats, many sold to BTL investors, whereas the community need is for family housing.
4. On the date of withdrawal, the Treaties will cease to apply to the United Kingdom, to those of its overseas countries and territories currently associated to the Union, and to territories for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible. The main purpose of the negotiations will be to ensure the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal so as to reduce uncertainty and, to the extent possible, minimise disruption caused by this abrupt change.
To that effect, the first phase of negotiations will aim to: provide as much clarity and legal certainty as possible to citizens, businesses, stakeholders and international partners on the immediate effects of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union; settle the disentanglement of the United Kingdom from the Union and from all the rights and obligations the United Kingdom derives from commitments undertaken as Member State.
The European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase.
5. While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU. We stand ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions to this end in the context of negotiations under Article 50 TEU, as soon as the European Council decides that sufficient progress has been made in the first phase towards reaching a satisfactory agreement on the arrangements for an orderly withdrawal.
A general framework is of no use when looking at specifics of issues like the Irish border. As Davis quite rightly pointed out there is no way this issue can be resolved until we actually know what sort of trade relationship we will have with the EU after Brexit. This is why Barnier is already making noises about softening the approach and having to slap down some in the European Parliament. The position as they first articulated it - including your interpretation of the 29th APril document - is a non starter.
That talks about the rebate, but specifies the other opt outs are permanent.
The other opt-outs are codified in treaties, so it would take a massive amount of work to remove them.
Bit this is all academic, as we're leaving.
Your two statements are in direct contradiction. If we're leaving, then it takes no work at all to remove our opt-outs since they will cease to apply. We just need to be presented with a new accession treaty which we will sign on March 30th 2019.
If we leave the EU without a deal we leave on that day, but if a deal can be done quickly, say by the end of September 2018 we could leave earlier, no doubt the leaving date will be specified in the agreement.
That's an unrelated matter. The point is that once we've left we don't have any opt-outs. Everything will depend on the exit treaty.
The only way we can keep our opt-outs is if we revoke Article 50, which probably requires unanimous agreement from the other members.
Why would we want opt outs if we are opting out of the whole thing?
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
We actually don't, house prices have plateaued, what we need is an effective transfer of 2.5m homes from private landlords to first time buyers. That still leaves a reasonable private rental market but at the same time the leeching of younger people's income by older people won't be as bad. The Tory party needs to get ahead of the game here or Corbyn will win and introduce huge property taxes on primary residences to build social housing for rent, entrenching Labour's advantage.
But those 2.5m homes already have people living in them. Are you suggesting they should be moved out to make way for more deserving buyers?
One of the big problems we have is builders insisting on building 4 and 5 bedroom houses on estates instead of cheaper 1 or 2 bedroom houses. Go and look at any new housing estate being built in Eastern England and you will almost everything is 'executive' housing which is way out of the price range of first time buyers.
That's the opposite problem of London. I guess the terraced house owners are moving out to those executive houses by doing a let to buy kind of deal.
4. On the date of withdrawal, the Treaties will cease to apply to the United Kingdom, to those of its overseas countries and territories currently associated to the Union, and to territories for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible. The main purpose of the negotiations will be to ensure the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal so as to reduce uncertainty and, to the extent possible, minimise disruption caused by this abrupt change.
To that effect, the first phase of negotiations will aim to: provide as much clarity and legal certainty as possible to citizens, businesses, stakeholders and international partners on the immediate effects of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union; settle the disentanglement of the United Kingdom from the Union and from all the rights and obligations the United Kingdom derives from commitments undertaken as Member State.
The European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase.
A general framework is of no use when looking at specifics of issues like the Irish border. As Davis quite rightly pointed out there is no way this issue can be resolved until we actually know what sort of trade relationship we will have with the EU after Brexit. This is why Barnier is already making noises about softening the approach and having to slap down some in the European Parliament. The position as they first articulated it - including your interpretation of the 29th APril document - is a non starter.
Thanks to the collapse in the pound I'm almost there
It's got a long way to go yet. GBPUSD is headed under parity. I think we topped out around the GBPUSD1.30 level the week before last, after a choppy corrective recovery from $1.1450 when we had the overnight flash crash. GBPUSD 0.84 is the long term target area from the analysis I've done, it'll be a fun ride to see it get there over the next few years.
Thanks to the collapse in the pound I'm almost there
It's got a long way to go yet. GBPUSD is headed under parity. I think we topped out around the GBPUSD1.30 level the week before last, after a choppy corrective recovery from $1.1450 when we had the overnight flash crash. GBPUSD 0.84 is the long term target area from the analysis I've done, it'll be a fun ride to see it get there over the next few years.
Comments
We'd have egg on our face, and we'd have wasted a bit of money, a fair bit of time and a lot of political capital, but that would be about it. Can't see it happening though.
Brexit means Brexit, old chap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
I look forward to your grovelling apology.
Oh, and I voted Remain, so you are doubly an idiot.
Edit: And even as recently as the end of March this year, they were claiming the exit deal had to be finalised before trade talks could begin:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/world/europe/uk-brexit-eu-donald-tusk.html
re: c*nt
The EU has not said that Cecilia Malmstrom will be given a mandate to negotiate a trade deal as part of the A50 process and there has been no change in their position since the guidelines were published. You may not be lying, but you are making something out of nothing.
Chuka Umunna MP, Phil Wilson MP, Madeleine Moon MP, Maria Eagle MP, Liz Kendall MP, Stella Creasy MP, Wes Streeting MP, Mike Gapes MP, Kate Green MP, Lord Michael Cashman, Angela Smith MP, Ian Murray MP, Rushanara Ali MP, Karen Buck MP, Stephen Doughty MP, Stephen Timms MP, Lord Spencer Livermore, Catherine McKinnell MP, Lord Peter Hain, Tulip Siddiq MP, Peter Kyle MP, Ruth Cadbury MP, Bridget Phillipson MP, Pat McFadden MP, Ann Clwyd MP, Thangam Debbonaire MP, Chris Bryant MP, Andy Slaughter MP, Daniel Zeichner MP, Alison McGovern MP, Darren Jones MP, Kerry McCarthy MP, Ben Bradshaw MP, Clare Moody MEP, Seb Dance MEP, Luciana Berger MP, Lord George Foulkes, Catherine Stihler MEP, David Martin MEP, Jude Kirton-Darling MEP, Mary Honeyball MEP, Paul Brannen MEP, Richard Corbett MEP, Julie Ward MEP, Derek Vaughan MEP, Lucy Anderson MEP, David Lammy MP, Lord John Monks, Meg Hillier MP, Adrian Bailey MP and Lady Meta Ramsay
https://twitter.com/SiySportsNews/status/877213294427348992
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/
On 13th May 2017 David Davis rejected the EU's timetable and said the fight over it would be "the row of the summer":
https://www.ft.com/content/01396086-38ae-11e7-821a-6027b8a20f23?mhq5j=e1
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/how-brexit-talks-work-row-10421200
On 19th June 2017, David Davis agreed to the EU's timetable:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-caves-into-eu-timetable-demand-on-first-day-of-brexit-talks-2017-6
It is possible, I suppose, that David Davis had not read the EU's 29th March document. That would be quite worrying, though. So best to assume he is not a complete fool and that instead he has just backed down from a bit of pre-election bravado. It makes him look rather foolish, but it is good news for the UK.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
The problems for Labour start if they find themselves in a position of actual influence. Most of them are remainers, but they are constrained by the referendum and their subsequent pro-A50 stance and manifesto. Which is why, if Labour does find itself in a critical position, I still maintain that a second referendum then becomes a very attractive position for Labour to support, as the only way to resolve their internal impasse by passing the decision back to the electorate.
Bit this is all academic, as we're leaving.
I was paying 12% on my first mortgage in 1992.
I have advised Fox jr to stay out of the market.
Sure, there was a bit of theatre by DD, and, yes, the climbdown by the EU27 was gradual. But the substance has gone our way; I wouldn't claim it as a victory for the UK, more a simple recognition of reality by the EU27.
In Cambridge, for example, you need about 150k-200k *in deposit* these days. Where is that coming from? That's a decade of saving *if* you can somehow save a grand a month?!
https://twitter.com/daviddavismp/status/735770073822961664
The problem is that, after seven years of austerity, public tolerance for a further squeeze on living standards appears low. Further, having sympathised with the JAMs from the outset, and announced the end of austerity more recently, a minority government will find it exceptionally difficult to exercise any sort of restraint upon pay increases. Yet, as soon as any sort of inflationary spiral shows signs of getting out of control, the BoE will be forced to step in and push up interest rates. Add in the potential shock, either to sentiment or the real economy, from the uncertainty of Brexit and it is hard to see even the Mrs May of April, who commanded everything before her, charting a safe voyage through to a soft landing for the economy.
Higher interest rates will expose a lot of our so-called zombie companies, home-buyers who have over-extended on their mortgages, and the bolder of our new class of indolent landlords. The collapse would hit housing severely, and put the Tories out of power for a generation (even though, as in the US, Spain and Ireland, after several years of severe pain a housing crash would actually do the real economy something of a favour).
We're going to have a similar switch in perspectives in the UK - and especially London - regarding house prices.
Between now and 2020, net immigration to the UK will turn negative. Partly that will be because we leave the EU, partly it's because our economy is very fragile and we're likely to hit a serious economic roadblock, partly it's because immigrants feel less welcome (see the dramatic drop in the number of EU nationals applying to be nurses in the UK), partly it will be because there is a natural number of EU citizens returning home, partly it will be because there will likely be some drop off in investment levels in the UK.
And this happens at the same time that an unprecedented amount of new housing comes on the market in London. There are now more residential units under construction in London that at any time since the immediate post war building boom.
Finally, of course, interest rates will rise.
All this has to be put against the backdrop of us not having the same number of children as historically. The UK TFR is 1.8. Now, that's better than Germany, but it's still more than 10% below replacement level.
In other words, absent immigration (which will be negative), the number of people in the UK will decline. Falling numbers of people, declining divorce rates, and an increased number of properties means dramatic falls in house prices. I really wouldn't advise being leveraged and long prime London real estate.
4. On the date of withdrawal, the Treaties will cease to apply to the United Kingdom, to those of its overseas countries and territories currently associated to the Union, and to territories for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible. The main purpose of the negotiations will be to ensure the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal so as to reduce uncertainty and, to the extent possible, minimise disruption caused by this abrupt change.
To that effect, the first phase of negotiations will aim to:
provide as much clarity and legal certainty as possible to citizens, businesses, stakeholders and international partners on the immediate effects of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union;
settle the disentanglement of the United Kingdom from the Union and from all the rights and obligations the United Kingdom derives from commitments undertaken as Member State.
The European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase.
5. While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU. We stand ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions to this end in the context of negotiations under Article 50 TEU, as soon as the European Council decides that sufficient progress has been made in the first phase towards reaching a satisfactory agreement on the arrangements for an orderly withdrawal.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/29-euco-brexit-guidelines/
Davis made his row of the summer threat in May.
Where we are right now offers the least chance of any bold decisions to sort out the mess we are in.
The only way we can keep our opt-outs is if we revoke Article 50, which probably requires unanimous agreement from the other members.
Given the social progress that was achieved after the landowning class was forced to relinquish its hold on property after the First World War, coupled with the boom in housing after the Second, it is urgent (and very much in the Conservative Party interest) to find a way to put the decline in home ownership into reverse.
For all the talk of the need for more housebuilding, which is not unimportant, the principal causes of our housing crisis are financial - low interest rates, cheap mortgages, QE, government support for the housing market, and excessive openness to foreign investors (/criminals). These latter issues are not ones that the Tories appear particularly willing or able to tackle.
One of the big problems we have is builders insisting on building 4 and 5 bedroom houses on estates instead of cheaper 1 or 2 bedroom houses. Go and look at any new housing estate being built in Eastern England and you will almost everything is 'executive' housing which is way out of the price range of first time buyers.
My judgement, however, is that the current political setup is likely to deliver us the most timid government in living memory. It already has to (try and) jump off the cliff of Brexit, despite our best interests, and is very unlikely to have any political capital left to do anything else.
Just as during the GE, Labour will oppose even proposals that are 'right' and that benefit the many rather than the few, transfixed as they are by a totally unexpected shot at being in power.