Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

14stFlyer

Members
  • Posts

    549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 14stFlyer

  1. In what way have they resisted and in what way have they chosen to enter conflict? Please answer. As requested I will answer as best I can by continuing with the Devil’s Advocate position. The EU would not agree to SM/CU without dynamic alignment, ECJ control and U.K. being an EU satellite: clearly unacceptable. The EU would not agree a FTA without the creating of an internal U.K. border in the Irish Sea in order to protect the EU SM: clearly unacceptable. So, the U.K. could not leave. It is in this way they have resisted the reality of the U.K. as a sovereign equal after Brexit. Enter BJ and his pals. Political expediency says have to leave. So, sign something that contains clauses that are clearly unacceptable and unenforceable with the expectation that a working compromise will be found. EU (surprise, surprise) want deal enforced as written, with clear diversion of trade, and barriers to the U.K. internal market: clearly unacceptable. So we are where we are today. Obviously both U.K. and EU have choices from here. U.K. could do their best to fulfil the NIP knowing that this will result in serious economic and political difficulties in NI. Or they could choose a route of non compliance and see what reprisals come from EU. They appear to be going for the latter. EU could do their best to make the implementation of the NIP as easy as possible and move towards a normalised trade with the U.K. again. Or they could ask for every i to be dotted and t crossed and thereby go down a route of legal reprisals, and, in the longer term, a trade war. They appear to be going for the latter. I hope you can see both my anger with the UK govt’s malicious agreement, and also with the EU’s intransigence.
  2. Nope. The U.K. position can be simply rationalised as “we want to be treated as economic equals”. The EU has so far resisted this and so has chosen to enter a conflict. No one knows where this conflict will lead us, but there is no doubt that positions like not allowing U.K. medicines to be used in U.K. territory and effectively stopping U.K. sausages being eaten in U.K. territory is not the way to diffuse such a conflict. i M playing Devil’s advocate to a degree, but there is no doubt in my mind that this is a valid position to take if you start from the assumption of U.K. and EU as sovereign equals.
  3. I agree. A good definition for me is “Leadership is the art of motivating and uniting a group of people to act toward achieving a common goal”. I see BJ’s influence as divisive and directionless, both for Brexit, and for other aspects of his premiership such as CoVid. For me, he does not have a clear vision or goal and is simply seeing where events take him, and then reacting in the most politically expedient way. I suppose it is possible to say there is more of a plan. In which case, he is using division and xenophobia to motivate a more selective “we”. But then I am definitely a “they”!
  4. If we are not coercing NI to leave the U.K. then NI is part of U.K. That means that the border with Ireland is the border with the EU. Your own inflexible logic can be used both ways Bob8. It essentially proves that the current NIP is unenforceable and contravenes the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement. But I completely agree with your logic as stated in previous posts (repeatedly). The U.K. cannot leave. And yet it has. So what remains? How long can the fudge of our leaving (without creating / enforcing a border) be sustained? I think Boris and other Brexiteers think it can be sustained for long enough for an “on the ground” reality to form. In effect they are saying “Let’s do as little as possible and see what things look like in ten years’ time... “.
  5. Dominic Cummings @Dominic2306 Think outcome wd have been Macron insisting on checks between Ireland and the SM! Cos we'd have refused ANY checks anywhere & Ireland wd not have dared build anything either So Bob8, it is clear that, at least for “mastermind” Cummings, your impossible combination has different outcomes. How can he not see that this is an unacceptable outcome for the EU? I believe that the outcome that our government actually may now be hoping for is a fudge where we are in/out of the single market and customs union (according to how you read the small print) and also not accepting/accepting EU regulations (according to how to read the small print). Duplicity of the worst kind.
  6. Utter nonsense. If you believe that the EU are moving ahead completely unguided then fine. I believe they are smart enough to have guessed that we would end up here (either in “unicorn territory” according to thecrashingisles, or “a horrible messy compromise “ according to Bob8). I am sure they are following a route, as I said before, I am just confused as to where they think it will end up. “The EU has not taken any offensive action, it is simply wanting the UK to stick to the agreement it signed.” Agree with this. I would claim that the U.K. government has not taken any offensive action yet either. Just offensive inaction!
  7. Sorry Yelims. I still don’t see an end point from the EU view and approach. What is the EU trying to do by going down this route? How does it think we will end up? Is a complete breakdown in relations and a hard border in Ireland an acceptable outcome? Is a collapse of the U.K. to their advantage? in contrast, I can see the British government end point reasonably clearly (effectively EU and U.K. treated as equals through recognition of standards and joint resolution). I don’t necessarily like the tactics employed, but the end point is at least a realistic and might be considered “fair” outcome.
  8. I completely agree. Except with your last comment that EU digging its heels in will be bad for Boris. This last is not in my mind a proven fact, just your hope (and mine!)
  9. I am still not clear where the EU think this will end up. The path has been, in my view, pretty predictable until now, and all I can see ahead is further lack of implementation, delay and disagreement, followed by yet another kick of the can down the road and into the long grass. When, if ever, will the U.K. government and EU finally accept that we can never truly leave as a United Kingdom? And what will their response be when they do accept this?
  10. I do not want buy to let landlords, those with second homes, and those single or pensioner couples living in large detached properties to be taxed on death. That is too late. What we need to do is incentivise redistribution of housing NOW. Not in twenty or thirty year’s time.
  11. Ok. I am happy that an approach to house building and the economy that removes props and seeks to return house prices towards the cost to make them rather than the price society can extort from young people iappears simpler and preferable to a land value tax or system like Zugs mentions. The issue is that I do not think it can be achieved without “collateral damage” harming people who have not benefited in the first place. Young families who have bought by mortgaging to the hilt are not the ones with the unfair and unearned income from the last 20 years. Retired boomers with gold plated pensions, wealthy second-homers and Buy to let landlords are.
  12. A tax on assets, or more particularly, a land value tax. Young people are not angry at the earned income that a hard working boomer generation rightfully have, they are angry at the £100k - 1m of unearned income in the form of house price increase that is not deserved, and should be redistributed.
  13. No. Boomers are not all evil millionaire landlords. But it does appear that most of them are happy to stick to age discriminatory policies that perpetuate social inequality and heap the problems that their generation have caused on the young. Wealthy Boomers (and Gen X) need to wake up and smell the coffee. They have a choice now to accept that it is at least partially their responsibility to pay for pensions and social care for poorer pensioners, as the greed-rewarding society they lived in created these issues. if they do not take the opportunity to encourage such wealth distribution now and force the young to pay, I think wealthy pensioners will be forced to pay later through social unrest and financial collapse. come on guys, be remembered as part of the solution, rather than the cause of the problem.
  14. Only because schools are out so fewer tests are being undertaken.
  15. The EEs came in long before FoM under the SAWs (Seasonal Agricultural Workers) Scheme. So? My kids and their mates have got summer jobs. I am seeing more young brits serving in bars, driving in cars, stacking the jars. As a remainer, I actually recognise this as a positive effect of Brexit. So far...
  16. Happy with this. If Remain voters have learned that lying is a successful strategy, it is from Brexit Politicians, not Brexit voters. And we will have learned nothing good for our long term future in my view. I think we have two choices. 1. We can bang the Rejoin drum and keep driving a wedge down the middle of the electorate. Or: 2. We can work with the sane and sensible leave voters (and yes they do exist) who realise what a sh1t show this Johnson government are. Isolate the small hardcore of racists and disaster capitalists that still think this is going well and we can change the direction Brexit is taking to one involving honesty towards and cooperation with our European neighbours.
  17. Erm. We lost the argument. That is the whole point. And you are right Pig, there is no point or “mileage” at all trying to continue an argument that we have already lost. I do think 24gray is right though: acceptance of what has happened is important if we are bring back a sense of unity that we need in order to change the direction we are currently moving in. Firing lasers at opposition sportsmen, and spitting at Danish children, is not what it means to be British.
  18. Indeed, the increase in deaths is a one off (probably!), but the drop off in births is here to stay. Combine this trend to more stable population levels with controlled levels of immigration and we could finally have less pressure on house building and a stop to the homelessness and damaging scramble for too few homes we have had over the last 20 years. Musical chairs does not work when there are more chairs than there are kids playing.
  19. ... Even if you are a stockbroker.
  20. The ”market” deeming your asset to be worth more does nothing in terms of adding value to society or enhancing the milk of human kindness, whereas your work does.
  21. Simple one for me. Money should be earned through effort. Significant amounts of unearned income through asset appreciation is unfair and detrimental to society. Creates an unequal society of haves and have nots. Success in this society is based on what you have, not on who you are and how much you contribute to the society.
  22. But the 1920s were an exact replica of today. A huge run up in private sector consumption followed by the Great Depression. Except we have not had the long party 🎈 🥳 🦠
×
×
  • 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.