Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

Just now, GrizzlyDave said:

I’ve given it a great deal of consideration.

Rock the Kasbah.

Except you now support the steady-as-she-goes Norway option that won't change anything fundamental, so you've clearly got cold feet whether you admit it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, crouch said:

Very disingenuous.

We were a declining power then and that decline would have continued anyway. The direct loss of sovereignty amplified that loss of power. Heath lied about loss of sovereignty because - and this is my interpretation - he took the view that joining the EEC was a part of the UK adjusting to its changed position in the World - which is your view. I do not criticize Heath like the annotator of that paper; he had reasons for his stance.

But again this is all of a trade off. Our interests in the 28 are submerged so power is diluted and we have a very direct loss of internal sovereignty, a direct constitutional and huge change to our internal workings.

Outside we are on our own so have, at least potentially, much less power than being part of the EU but we have no cession of internal sovereignty.

This is an overall trade off which you continually insist is only about the economic when it is not and which is just that: a trade off; it is not nirvana on the one hand and purgatory on the other it is more of this and less of that.

Not true, we were on the "winning" side on well over 90% of the EU votes, often being the swing voter. Our membership of the EU has acted far more as a force multiplier than it diluted our sovereignty.  

I don't insist that it only about the economic, I happen to think we are a more influential and sovereign country inside than outside of the EU, we are trading huge amounts of real power and influence in return for an illusion of sovereignty.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

The screwed up thing about this system is that people who are already wealthy and own their home can do this. Reduce working hours down to whatever is needed, redirect money into pension and suddenly you're below certain thresholds and qualify for credits which take you back up over someone who is earning just a little bit more, with no owned home and longer hours.

I fundamentally disagree with all targeted and means tested benefits. Same goes for the youth rail scheme as does the first time buyers exemption from stamp duty as does pensioners benefits. All of them should go and we should have progressive scaling income, wealth and land taxes, all out in the open.

But of course, we can't because all it takes is the next government to bribe a certain demographic with some targeted tax exemptions and they'll be in power and we're back to where we started. The system is broken.

Did you see the house of lords last night discussing NHS pensions?  That was an eye opener.

NHS medics are cutting hours and retiring early because they are above the allowed pension contribution and total pension fund limit.  Which is £1 million.

Oh to have these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Except you now support the steady-as-she-goes Norway option that won't change anything fundamental, so you've clearly got cold feet whether you admit it or not.

No I don’t have cold feet. I would happily have a no deal exit. However I am aware that I live in a country where many do not want this; so I am prepared to compromise and accept a Norway option.

I don’t think steady as she goes is possible for the UK anymore. Everyone is sick of this two party FPTP system. Even if we were to stay in the EU; I now see fundamental change what ever the future direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Submissions from the AfD which are debunked as being erroneous.

The AfD are not the only submissions and there are many who did not submit who would differ. Your implications that this matter is closed is simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The absolute state of this...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/09/channels-4s-move-out-of-london-will-cost-at-least-50m

90% of Channel 4 staff will quit as they can’t face a move from their metropolitan London bubble to Leeds!

What’s your problem with that?  It shows the power of employees over the company they work for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

What’s your problem with that?  It shows the power of employees over the company they work for.

You’re a Londoner, aren’t you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

 

This is opinion. Many will differ. In any case the proceedings you quote admit that there are contingencies where actual losses could occur. If that is the case then the issue cannot be closed. It assumes the continued existence of the Euro and that begs the original question.

The architecture is not there and if it is not there the Euro is probably unsustainable ( as many people believe) and if it is unsustainable then it could lead to loss. The "obituary" makes a gigantic assumption and begs the very question which were the related subject of the proceedings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The absolute state of this...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/09/channels-4s-move-out-of-london-will-cost-at-least-50m

90% of Channel 4 staff will quit as they can’t face a move from their metropolitan London bubble to Leeds!

Staff have options elsewhere.
Leeds gains well paid jobs.
C4 cuts operating costs.
London loses some well paid jobs cutting demand for property.
London commercial landlords lose income and feel downward pressure on rents.

Its a win, win, win, win, win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hotblack42 said:

Staff have options elsewhere.
Leeds gains well paid jobs.
C4 cuts operating costs.
London loses some well paid jobs cutting demand for property.
London commercial landlords lose income and feel downward pressure on rents.

Its a win, win, win, win, win.

All good points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dorkins said:

That high flying engineer on £51k will be living in a 2 bed terrace next to a retired postie whose wife never went back to full time work after having kids (the engineer's wife will work full time of course).

Very high marginal tax rates at £51k, 40% PAYE + 2% NI + 18% child benefit withdrawal per child. Plus you lose the marriage tax allowance (£250) the instant you go from £49,999 to £50,000.

Why are you belittling a postie who happened to be fortunate enough to have a job and work hard to buy a small terrace you couldn't swing a cat in, brought up their kids and still live in the same house because their pay increments have never been enough for them to move.......not all posties bought their own home. Who knows one day a postie job might no longer exist.....why you blaming this on low paid but very respected workers.....a high flyer is no better a person than any other worker.....people should not be judged and valued on the size of  their pay packet or for that matter what house they happen to live in, or whether they are married or not, nobody should pair up just for the ability to share buying a house, asking for trouble.....;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Not true, we were on the "winning" side on well over 90% of the EU votes, often being the swing voter. Our membership of the EU has acted far more as a force multiplier than it diluted our sovereignty.  

The dilution factor has to be there irrespective of what you say; it is inherent in the relationship. What you call the "winning" side implies that we got our way in 90% of arguments. What "our" way was might be a consensus reached in bureaucratic channels based on compromise. Or alternatively you may be right but this tells us nothing, merely that we agree with others.

 

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't insist that it only about the economic, I happen to think we are a more influential and sovereign country inside than outside of the EU, we are trading huge amounts of real power and influence in return for an illusion of sovereignty.   

A wholly legitimate trade off. Mine is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, crouch said:

Dear oh dear. The original declassified FCO paper on the loss of internal sovereignty which shows precisely what I'm talking about:

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/FCOsovereignty2.pdf

As to your last para. it's laughable. Sovereignty is ceded by treaty - that is by agreement - so how can anyone deny the "legitimacy to a political process conducted at the level of the EU." if it has been agreed by treaty? Absurd.

Why refer to a paper written half a century about what might happen within the EEC when we know what actually did happen? We ended up with a single market with common regulations to aid international trade within the EEA while the UK government retains the freedom to do pretty much what it likes when it comes to defence, foreign policy, health, education, benefits (including the state pension), transport, police etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

You're the liar.  Heath made the case publicly for pooling sovereignty.  Indeed that case had been made decades previously by people like Eden.

See this:

https://www.richardmilton.net/the-secret-edward-heath-kept-from-the-british-people/

And a quote of Heath's from this:

"“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

A liar is one who intentionally deceives. If I lie I only do so to the significant, not the insignificant. I do not lie to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

If you can pour extra income into a pension then you can sit below the threshold; and benefit from the tax saving. But granted we need money for today, as well as for tomorrow.

Yes, the answer to the UK's dysfunctional system for taxing wages is always 'bung it in the pension and sort it out later' rather than 'fix the system for taxing wages'. National insurance should surely go, it is crazy that a worker on £25k pays more tax than a landlord collecting £25k in rents.

It's a good example of an issue which the UK government has always had the power to fix but which it just chose not to. The UK's political and economic problems are pretty much all home-grown.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kzb said:

Did you see the house of lords last night discussing NHS pensions?  That was an eye opener.

NHS medics are cutting hours and retiring early because they are above the allowed pension contribution and total pension fund limit.  Which is £1 million.

Oh to have these problems.

We get the system we created.......big winners, many losers......now falling away over the tipping point, what goes up must come down, less growth, fewer jobs that have the potential to grow, less investment because of  less liquid/disposible money around to spend/consume......the wealthy spend less and hoard more, the poor spend everything they get and more.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

Except you now support the steady-as-she-goes Norway option that won't change anything fundamental, so you've clearly got cold feet whether you admit it or not.

Yes, becoming an EFTA rule-taker is in some ways the opposite of rocking the kasbah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The absolute state of this...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/09/channels-4s-move-out-of-london-will-cost-at-least-50m

90% of Channel 4 staff will quit as they can’t face a move from their metropolitan London bubble to Leeds!

Stamp duty kills labour mobility. Another home-grown problem and pretty much a pure unforced economic policy error.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, winkie said:

Why are you belittling a postie who happened to be fortunate enough to have a job and work hard to buy a small terrace you couldn't swing a cat in, brought up their kids and still live in the same house because their pay increments have never been enough for them to move.......not all posties bought their own home. Who knows one day a postie job might no longer exist.....why you blaming this on low paid but very respected workers.....a high flyer is no better a person than any other worker.....people should not be judged and valued on the size of  their pay packet or for that matter what house they happen to live in, or whether they are married or not, nobody should pair up just for the ability to share buying a house, asking for trouble.....;)

Who is blaming anything on posties? I'm just pointing out that you now need two well above average incomes to buy a worse lifestyle (more hours of work for the same house) than a single median worker was able to buy 30-40 years ago.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Trump Invective said:

Does anyone see the process going any way other than as follows:

 

  1. No renegotiation of deal (why would the EU bother?)
  2. Parliament rejects no deal
  3. Second referendum in the autumn

...guaranteed it will be either a general election or another referendum or both a general election and another referendum.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Why refer to a paper written half a century about what might happen within the EEC when we know what actually did happen? We ended up with a single market with common regulations to aid international trade within the EEA while the UK government retains the freedom to do pretty much what it likes when it comes to defence, foreign policy, health, education, benefits (including the state pension), transport, police etc.

The subject was not what would happen in the EEC but the cession of the internal sovereignty of the UK. 

We are subject to EU law and there has been a decisive shift away from parliamentary sovereignty as a result of membership, a huge change to the constitution. The courts now have far more prominence than before because effectively they are the "enforcers" of EU law in the UK. I'm uncomfortable with that. I am not alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, crouch said:

The subject was not what would happen in the EEC but the cession of the internal sovereignty of the UK. 

We are subject to EU law and there has been a decisive shift away from parliamentary sovereignty as a result of membership, a huge change to the constitution. The courts now have far more prominence than before because effectively they are the "enforcers" of EU law in the UK. I'm uncomfortable with that. I am not alone.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the maximum parts per billion of lead in household paint being decided at EU level by a panel of technical experts (many of them British) and then that regulation being enforced across the continent by the European Commission backed by the ECJ. There would have to be such a regulation at UK level anyway, might as well have a common one which helps trade to flow. Which directives are you unhappy with? Or even just which areas of competency?

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 224 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.