Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Confounded

  1. 8 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

    Yes, no deal is better than May's deal but staying in would be the best option, so hopefully A50 can still be be revoked before 29th March.

    If May gets her wretched deal through on the 3rd attempt we need to chuck her, and Corbyn, and all their cronies out PDQ, appoint a new government and hold a referendum on whether to rejoin the EU on the best terms we can get.

    A good scenario would be if the EU takes control and refuses to allow a short extension of A50 insisting on an extension long enough for us to hold a GE and appoint a new government that is capable of starting from square one with a new and properly worded referendum.

    This is why I am supporting no deal as it is the best and most democratic direction. I will be disappointed if the EU force through  May’s  deal when parliament and the people do not want it.

  2. 29 minutes ago, A.steve said:

    I have a hunch... It's a little mad - but that should make it right at home on HPC.

    I think that EU-integration correlates with wanting centralisation of control and expansion of credit, and EU-withdrawal correlates with wanting devolution of control and credit contraction.

    I think there's a small correlation between credit expansion/contraction and the rate of (CPI/RPI) inflation - and a large correlation with the returns on speculative leveraged investment.

    I think that individuals, today, are considerably influenced by their perception of their speculative position and level of leverage.  I recognise that leverage implies debt and cash in equal nominal value - and that, as a consequence, there's a conceptual scale... on which every individual has a place (even if no-one can calculate it, and the individual might not be able to identify even their own status with accuracy) that ranks people's relative speculative positions.

    Essentially - with a very broad brush - those whose beliefs about themselves are consistent with them believing that they are more leveraged than average are motivated to be pro-EU-integration, while those whose beliefs about themselves are consistent with them believing that they are less leveraged than average are motivated to be pro EU-withdrawal.

    On this basis, given that the UK voting demographic was biased towards EU-withdrawal, I'd expect them to be less leveraged than the average... while the UK MP demographic is biased towards EU-integration, I'd expect them to be more leveraged than average.

    Obviously, people's beliefs about their own position do not imply reality (though I'd expect a correlation) and leverage comes in many forms (both direct and indirect) which makes it hard to measure.

    Does thinking of the Brexit position in terms of extremes of pro EU-withdrawal or pro EU-integration make more sense if one assumes that the motivation of people (whether they realize it or not) is actually their perception of the leverage inherent in their own speculative financial position?   Does this help explain why, now, as ever in the past, this issue has resulted in a roughly even split of opinion?


    Not really what I was looking for in answers but I do take your point. Having been a HPC veteran from 2006 and positioned myself to be very flexible in work and in terms of financial resilience I guess that is why I am as comfortable with no deal as staying in. 

  3. 1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

    A lot of leavers don't give a toss about this DB. They just want to get on with it and leave. How would you explain a hard Brexit is in fact a terrible idea to (and for) these people. They won't listen. They think Johnson, Farage and Rees-Mogg are heroes.

    Because No Deal brexit has never been discussed in the media without hyperbole and emotion, can you explain some of the key reasons why a no deal brexit will be bad. Remember we are on HPC and quoting institutions or government bodies dire prediction does not count. Also remember we will have a £39b buffer to smooth short term pain. Not a wnd up question, I genuinely want to be convinced the route we are travelling is the right route and that no deal is not needed.

  4. 2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

    The £90bn deficit is there for a reason, it won't disappear just because we leave the EU and isn't a bargaining chip we can cash in, as WTO rules would prevent us from singling out EU goods for tariffs.  It is comprised of goods that we cannot make ourselves or source at a better price/quality from outside the EU. It was pretty much unaffected by the 15% post vote fall in the £ so from that we can reasonably conclude is largely insensitive to price rises/tariffs.

    That aside, the urgent need to do dozens maybe hundreds of deals before trade stops and shortages appear will force us to agree pretty much whatever we are offered. It is a lunatic position for any country to voluntarily put itself in.     


    Can you provide me a list of these mystical products? In the same way we can’t punish the EU under the WTO terms they can not punish us. As we make new arrangements that deficit may reduce as we do deals with more flexible nations, maybe the EU will play hard ball or maybe we will continue a positive relationship. 

    If under duress something similar to last nights deal gets done, what leverage do we have in those negotiations, of which we face years of. With the prospect of the backstop looming and the Spanish fighting us over Gibraltar etc. I can only see us being in a very weak negotiating position. Are you happy to proceed with last nights deal? Will it be good for Britain? Or would we be best to stay in?

    If I was given the choice of May’s deal or stay in I would vote stay in (as I feel 70% would choose). If given the choice of Mays deal or no deal I would vote for no deal (as I feel 70% would choose) 

  5. 13 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

    But that never was the only option the EU offered us a range of deals, including the widest and deepest FTA deal ever offered to a third country.

    Unfortunately, May's red lines made all of these impossible, so because she gambled on forcing the EU to cave in and lost we are no left with pretending that there is a No Deal option.

    No Deal is just another form of deal and one that the terms of will be dictated to us by the EU. 

    £90b deficit says we will have some say in those terms! 

    I agree when May took over and David Davis left a sensible deal disappeared for me. We have years of negotiating ahead whichever path we take, WTO has been my prefered root and nothing I have seen has changed my mind on it. 

  6. 33 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

    A deal was/is not impossible, we were given a range of options for a deal but shunned all of them.  Instead we held out for a deal that was not on offer, in part because we still believed the "they need us more than we need them" nonsense.

    What is to say we won't do the same when we try to negotiate the dozens of trade deals we will need to replace what we currently det via our EU membership.

    NB we will still be paying the £39bn, that will be the first item on the agenda when we come to negotiate all the agreements needed to keep trade flowing and food in the shops in the event of a "no deal" exit. The only differences are likely to be will be that we will most be paying it up front and because the £ will tank it will be a lot more than £39bn.

    Ok, a better deal than staying in the EU was never going to be negotiated! The point is we chose as a nation to leave, in my circle of close friends and family I know only 2 that voted leave. My Aunt was one of them and my Uncle argued very much like you and the others on this thread, he even called her stupid for her decision in front of me. Despite having only a few days earlier voted remain I found myself very much on her side despite idolising my uncle most my life for his guidance.

    It will be a negotiation, if we have to pay to get access to their goods and it is necessary I am sure we will. What if they need items we produce, with such a deficit surely we have some tools negotiate with. The pound may well fall but there are many scenarios that will effect that in the near, medium and long term. You are arguing like it is the week after the brexit vote, people voting to leave are ignorant and based their decision on a few months of dubious campaigning and not drawing on their life experience of being in the EU and seeing what it had morphed to into. The old duffers (don’t think I am one as it was my 40th birthday on the 24th June 2016, not a day to forget....) may well be drawn on life knowledge rather than a sticker on a bus the BBC likes to believe guided peoples votes. 

    Within my familiy and cirlce on friends there has been a shift to leave and leave on WTO if that is the only option.

  7. 52 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

    No. The last referendum was won by bringing all voters with incompatible versions of brexit together just to get past the 50% mark. The result is as expected absolute chaos.

    Therefore we won't make the same mistake again. If we have a second referendum each choice must be very clear and defined and remain should be an option because of this. 

    We've seen that people don't want May's withdrawal deal so the referendum choice should be:

    Remain vs "WTO terms"

    If you believe the majority want WTO terms then this is your chance and no further delaying and messing around. 

    EDIT: For the record, I think that is a completely dumb referendum to have because what WTO terms mean for our economy is understood only by few people. But since we had the first dumb referendum, we have already opened Pandora's box and we're stuck. People don't want May's WA and there is no other unicorn deal, so it has to be Remain vs "WTO terms".

    Are you included in the few people who know what WTO trade would do to this country?

    We have had people on here say WTO would takes years/decades to negotiate. Yet had the deal gone through last night it was going to take the same amount of time, only we would be in the grasp of the EU during the process. 

    Since the 24th June 2016  (as stated before I marginally voted to stay to keep the status quo) it seemed logical to me no deal would be achieved. It also seemed pretty logical to me that if you buy more from someone than they buy from you it should at least mean they negotiate fairly even if we did not exert the upper hand. 

    We also have the small matter of £39billion that could be used to facilitate the trade deal and smooth the inevitable bumps. 

    So nearly 3 years has past, a deal has proven to be impossible and we have a choice of leaving or staying. 3 years has been wasted let’s not waste any more time. 

  8. 8 hours ago, Dave Beans said:

    No deal offers complete instability...The govt are suggesting that it will throw open the borders and the UK tariffs on 90% of imports; thus we are likely to get shonky medicines that kill (along with weapons, immigrants and so on, whilst destroying local industries with cheap imports that they cannot compete against.  So much for taking back control.

    Our 60 plus trade deals are gone, and will be replaced with four (AFAIK at the moment).  In the end, we will be spending ten years climbing back into the single market.  I want to leave, and no deal is a way of leaving, but its not the best way of doing so..

    There is a lot of conjecture and fear in there. People who spout this fear seem to feel taking back control means we will become a child who will injure and self harm. No doubt there will be some bumps and taking time is no issue, we will be building a new future and direction. 

    Anyway if the amendments appease the ERG then we will have a deal today, interesting times..

  9. 1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

    By what magic does a WTO vote not create years of uncertainty. 

    It has taken +40yrs for the EU with the worlds largest (and generally reckoned the best) trade negotiation team to come close to agreeing all the trade deals it would like to have. How long do you think it will take us starting from a position of extreme self inflicted weakness and with a tiny and inexperienced trade negotiation team.  

    Anyone who thinks leaving without a deal is a clean break or that it is within the gift of UK politicians to get it sorted is going to be sadly disappointed. 

    No deal will offer no immediate stability (we should have bitten that bullet 2 years ago)  but I suspect the 80/20 would come into play with this situation where after 2 years of WTO negotiations we would likely have resolve 80% of the most important deals by then with many years of refinement (should we choose to).

    Saying it took 40+ years to negotiate deals demonstrates the European treacle many want to escape. 500 pages in May’s deal just demonstrates that again. One thing that I am certain of is as a net importer from Europe they have an incentive to want to trade with us, as we will with them. 

    Anyway with May’s current breakthrough it is possible this is all academic and the deal will get voted for tomorrow. Interesting times. 

  10. 51 minutes ago, jonb2 said:


    Pretty succinct commentary, still baffled why we did not use the last 2 years to negotiate WTO trade deals, we would be done by now. As he states we are either in or out, we chose out (I voted in but it was as close as the final result for me in making that decision) so the day after the vote I wanted a WTO approach as we were going to create years of uncertainty otherwise. I know a lot of people who voted in but now just want to leave cleanly on 29th March. Will the politicians understand how far public opinion has swung on this since the referendum and get this sorted.

  11. 11 minutes ago, peter_2008 said:

    Indeed you are right. According its annual report below, Persimmon built about 16,000 houses in total in 2018. So that's over £60,000 profit per house. I don't know... that's like saying instead of being dickslapped 125 times, I have ONLY been dickslapped 60 times...I suppose it is quantitatively better.



    I spotted that this morning quantitive error this morning, I have not posted for years but that deserves a hat tip as could not have put it better myself!

    For the rule of thumb of 1/3 land 1/3 building cost and 1/3 profit their numbers seem pretty normal. In the world of lower and lower interest rates that rule of thumb has held true, it is just the government has stepped in to extend the “norm” now interest rate have nowhere to go.  

  • 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.