Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

honeybadger

Members
  • Content Count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About honeybadger

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

518 profile views
  1. Liechtenstein is in the EEA, which has an emergency brake for for unusually high levels of immigration, which has been invoked by Liechtenstein. But the other three freedoms still hold: goods, services and capital. Chequers proposes to have only one freedom out of four: goods. No country has anything close to this. As the European side has repeatedly said, it would undermine the Single Market. So, for the third time: Chequers can't work.
  2. 'Access' is a weasel word -- it's not clear what you mean. Chequers proposed that we would be a part of the single market for goods only. But that is not allowed: the EU has repeatedly made it clear that we cannot be in the single market for goods if we don't accept the other four freedoms (services, capital, people). Chequers has never been a viable option. Here's your original statement that I took issue with: I repeat: you are just wrong, it precisely *does* violate the single market rules. You cannot be in the single market for just one of the freedoms. Those are the rules.
  3. You don't appear to know what the EU Single Market is. From Wikipedia: The Chequers proposal aimed to preserve free movement of goods only. That is, only one out of the four freedoms. That is why the EU has repeatedly stated that Chequers is unacceptable. Here is a useful article in the Independent listing some of the many times they've pointed this out: All the times the EU has said 'no' to to Theresa May's Chequers Brexit trade plan For instance, two weeks after Chequers was published we have this (from the article):
  4. Firstly, you didn't even say 'most' remainers in your original post. Here's what you said: As I stated, the claim above is not supported by the facts. Now you've shifted to a new position: that 'those that are actively trying to stop Brexit' are doing it because of house prices. But you've provided no evidence. I think it's likely that young people are heavily involved in campaigning to stop Brexit, given that they voted so strongly against it. And young people are against high house prices. So I think your new claim is probably nonsense, but feel free to provide some evidence to prove me wrong.
  5. This doesn't fit the facts. Young people (18-24) voted overwhelmingly to remain despite being much less likely to own property, while older people preferred to leave (How Britain Voted, YouGov).
  6. Indeed, that makes sense. I was in Greece on holiday recently and noticed billboards advertising a scheme to get permanent residency through the purchase of a property for EUR 250k or greater. No doubt many UK citizens will be eyeing those billboards with interest this summer.
  7. Interesting stuff. I don't know how it works, but I'd have thought there would be a deadline for registration.
  8. I did take a look at removals -- many of them are just getting rid of duplicates.
  9. Well, I got another reply when asking about some specific entries from 2005 that only started appearing in 2017. The response was as follows: They've been surprisingly responsive, but without giving very much detail. I don't think it's really worth pursuing further, given the small number of datapoints that are involved.
  10. Not sure if this is what you're after, but I can easily look up any entry in the official LR data. Send me a message if that would be of interest.
  11. I'm also not inclined to assume a nefarious cause. Nevertheless, it would be nice to understand the regions of almost constant upward slope in the plots. I can't think of a good explanation for that.
  12. Here's the response: It doesn't really provide a concrete answer to the specific question I asked, so I wrote back to ask for clarification on the particular entries I gave.
  13. I see what you mean, but I'm not thrilled about the idea of linking rent to the price of imported goods. In the event of (another) large GBP devaluation, rents would then go up, even if wages did not. Rather than coming up with a perfect measure, I think perhaps it would best to not allow rent to change over the course of the contract. Landlords would have to set a price that incorporates their inflation predictions, and then see whether they can command that price in the market. I don't really see why they should have protection against inflation by law. After all, they are engaged in investment/speculation, which entails risk.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.