Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dorkins said:

a. Real disciplines like engineering and medicine don't fix systems by "doing something radical", they work by correctly identifying the problem and applying an appropriate solution.

b. Brexit (even WTO Brexit) is not radical, it is just replacing single market membership with WTO-capped tariffs or a free trade agreement. Whoopdedoo. Radical would be introducing a land value tax, eliminating taxpayer subsidies for land, refusing to bail out the banks etc. If anything it looks like Brexit will be used as a political justification to do the opposite of these things in the form of "emergency measures needed to stabilise the economy".

It's not a real discipline like engineering or even medicine.  We don't vote for political parties based on computer-modelling the effect of their policies on GDP.  Perhaps we should but we don't.

We have hordes of swamp creatures identifying problems and other hordes of swamp creatures applying appropriate solutions.  Look where that has got us.  It's called Problem-Reaction-Solution.

If Brexit isn't radical why are you all so excited by it?  Hopefully it is just the start.

 

Share this post


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

Something I forgot to mention before:  the people making these doom laden forecasts are the very same people that completely missed forecasting the 2007 crash. 

"Who saw that coming ?" wailed the chancellor at the time.  Well we did.

We saw it coming because we had a better grasp of the role of private sector credit in a monetary economy. That same perspective  suggests that Brexit will deliver a terrible negative shock to the UK as Osborne's echo housing bubble unwinds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Independence as a fully sovereign state, the ability to set your own laws, set your own trade policy and trade deals, control your own borders, have your judges rule on laws not a foreign court. Yes - pretty much what 90% of the world outside the EU does - but apparently totally impossible for the worlds fifth largest economy. No one ever suggests that small set of islands off China - also known as Japan - should just become a province of Beijing to boost their economy?

Ireland is often quoted on here - and its a case in point. The Irish opted for independence and a free state in 1922 even though it was almost certainly - as was proved to be the case - going to make them economically worse off than staying in the UK. It took them a long time to turn things round - but they did.  Why - because they wanted independence and the full ability as a people to control their own destiny. Were the Irish wrong - because back then they didn't think the only thing that mattered was money GDP and house prices?

Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, BJ.... With our record of choosing leaders over the last 20 years, the less power they have, the better... Seriously!

Share this post


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

You're going to keep doing this "Remainers say/do/don't understand X" broad brush thing, aren't you? Sigh.

Only for as long as they give the distinct impression that that's the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

We saw it coming because we had a better grasp of the role of private sector credit in a monetary economy. That same perspective  suggests that Brexit will deliver a terrible negative shock to the UK as Osborne's echo housing bubble unwinds.

IF such a shock happens and it causes a reset of the housing market so that prices quickly become what most here would regard as sensible, would it change any remainers here view of Brexit? Would HPC make it a price worth paying?

Just pondering whether there is any benefit in the unknown future which remainers here would accept as sufficient?

BTW this question is purely hypothetical, I don't believe a really fast HP crash - reset is going to happen under these or any circumstances. At best we may get a decade(s) long decline. But if it did .... ?

[Also for me hypothetical as I don't agree Brexit will cause meltdown but no point to discuss that here, opinions are entrenched, time will tell].

Edited by ebull
formatting

Share this post


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

It may not be simple to identify cause and effect, or even just empirical "whatever works"-type solutions, but without these all solutions are just the political/economic equivalent of applying leeches.

You could apply that to almost every political argument ever made - most of them are really just smokescreens for "I like / dislike the idea of..." Which in itself is fine

Quote

My guess is this will be the outcome of Brexit, whatever form it takes. The economic inequality will be just as high, the hatred of foreigners and ethnic minorities living in the UK just as intense, nothing fixed.

The economic inequality issue isn't Brexit-related - claiming that people voted for Brexit because of it is largely a strawman. As is the hatred of foreigners and ethnic minorities; yes, there's some, from the same pondlife that's always behaved like that - perhaps they've become a bit more vocal, but they're really a dying breed. I'm more concerned about the intolerance and bigotry that's rapidly spreading against anyone who questions whatever the current trendy on-message opinion is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Independence as a fully sovereign state, the ability to set your own laws, set your own trade policy and trade deals, control your own borders, have your judges rule on laws not a foreign court. Yes - pretty much what 90% of the world outside the EU does - but apparently totally impossible for the worlds fifth largest economy. No one ever suggests that small set of islands off China - also known as Japan - should just become a province of Beijing to boost their economy?

Ireland is often quoted on here - and its a case in point. The Irish opted for independence and a free state in 1922 even though it was almost certainly - as was proved to be the case - going to make them economically worse off than staying in the UK. It took them a long time to turn things round - but they did.  Why - because they wanted independence and the full ability as a people to control their own destiny. Were the Irish wrong - because back then they didn't think the only thing that mattered was money GDP and house prices?

Let's take Ireland as our model then.  England can escape the imperial superstate of the UK and become a modern European nation on an equal footing with the rest in the EU.

Share this post


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

IF such a shock happens and it causes a reset of the housing market so that prices quickly become what most here would regard as sensible, would it change any remainers here view of Brexit? Would HPC make it a price worth paying?

Just pondering whether there is any benefit in the unknown future which remainers here would accept as sufficient?

BTW this question is purely hypothetical, I don't believe a really fast HP crash - reset is going to happen under these or any circumstances. At best we may get a decade long decline. But if it did .... ?

[Also for me hypothetical as I don't agree Brexit will cause meltdown but no point to discuss that here, opinions are entrenched, time will tell].

A BRINO deal now and soft EFTA style Brexit 5 years down the line is the best we can hope for after Remain.

Which is what I believe we'll get from Johnson on Oct 31st; if he's still PM.

Anything else would be disastrous socially and economically and almost certain to lead to mass protests and a campaign of civil disobedience (the storming of parliament etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Independence as a fully sovereign state, the ability to set your own laws, set your own trade policy and trade deals, control your own borders, have your judges rule on laws not a foreign court. Yes - pretty much what 90% of the world outside the EU does - but apparently totally impossible for the worlds fifth largest economy. No one ever suggests that small set of islands off China - also known as Japan - should just become a province of Beijing to boost their economy?

Ireland is often quoted on here - and its a case in point. The Irish opted for independence and a free state in 1922 even though it was almost certainly - as was proved to be the case - going to make them economically worse off than staying in the UK. It took them a long time to turn things round - but they did.  Why - because they wanted independence and the full ability as a people to control their own destiny. Were the Irish wrong - because back then they didn't think the only thing that mattered was money GDP and house prices?

That's the Leave fantasy, every bit of which is nonsense.

  • Trade policy/laws cannot be set in isolation they are set by the most powerful states, a club that we have decided to leave.
  • We control our own borders today, in fact we already have more powers to control our borders than we choose to use.
  • Why should I care whether a British or European judge rules on laws, overall the ability to refer cases to the European court seems to have worked out well (que leaver demonstrating ignorance by harping on about the ECHR).
  •  Almost all of the 90% of the world outside of the EU have their own trade blocks/agreements. No one has ever previously decided to tear up all of their trade agreements to start again from a position of such weakness. Almost no one trades on WTO terms.
  • Comment about Ireland is beyond ridiculous, Ireland was deliberately kept in poverty by policies imposed upon them from London. Ironically it was joining the EU and breaking with Sterling that really turned things round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:
  •  Almost all of the 90% of the world outside of the EU have their own trade blocks/agreements.

I'm an ardent Remainer but I do find this point a bit disingenuous.  It's clearly the case that the EU is more ambitious and advanced than anything else anywhere in the world, and doesn't have any precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Briefly returning to the topic of house prices. On Friday I went to a seminar given by one of the major forecasting firms (work NDA means I cannot say which) on preparing for the possibility of a no deal exit. 

One item covered was the BoEs preparation for such an event. As for the night of the referendum, they have already agreed and signed off their plans for dealing with the fallout. Along the lines of immediate provision of liquidity, a cut in interest rates to 0%, a multi year programme of QE and FLS on steroids to force down mortgage rates particularly on high LTV loans. 

The driver for this seemed to be an belief that to avoid a deep recession asset prices must be held up in £ terms, and that the strain of a no deal should be taken by the exchange rate.

The more cynical among the audience seemed to think that this strategy was more about creating a post Brexit window of opportunity, before inflation hits, for the Tories to win an election than protecting the long term interests of the country.   

 

 

 

   

Share this post


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

I'm an ardent Remainer but I do find this point a bit disingenuous.  It's clearly the case that the EU is more ambitious and advanced than anything else anywhere in the world, and doesn't have any precedent.

It's more developed certainly but the logic behind creating a level playing field for free trade is leading others along the same path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It's more developed certainly but the logic behind creating a level playing field for free trade is leading others along the same path.

Feature creep, overlooking why they didn't go to that level of integration in the first place.

Share this post


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

It started the day after the vote. Remainers ranting about thick racists. I saw friends frothing at the mouth on facebook. Since then Leavers have picked up the baton and give as good as they get...but it started with the poor losers. Now I don’t give a monkies. Quite enjoy watching it and lobbing the odd grenade in. We are leaving. The economy may suffer to varying degrees, but in my view, and millions of others, it is a price worth paying. Get over it.

Are you having a laugh ? Did you not notice decades of 'thick racist's' groomed by the DM,  BJ's EU poison in the DT and irritation (tbf it used to be mere irritation) over family dinner tables up and down the land ? :)

 

You do realise that you radicalised remainers 

Share this post


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

Why should he return it? He's not saying that all agricultural subsidy is bad but the structure of subsidy that is the CAP is bad.

Before we joined the EU  we subsidised particular sectors of agriculture for whatever reason ( strategic food supplies; social reasons ) but imported food at World prices.

He is not against subsidy; just the structure that is the CAP.

Why should he keep it? Oh yes because it served a purpose for him to take the shilling. No doubt he’s now taking an even larger shilling from elsewhere. Like all good hypocrites. 

Share this post


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

This is also disingenuous.  We shouldn't feel constrained by the lowest common denominator.

Why "lowest common denominator"? You're putting words in my mouth there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thecrashingisles said:

They are my words but they reflect your argument which is that if no-one else is doing it, we shouldn't either.

That still doesn't explain the use of "lowest common denominator," which carries implications of low quality. In any case whilst "everyone else does it this way" isn't a particularly compelling argument in its own right it is valid to ask why are we doing things differently?

That's not related to the feature creep argument though. I base that on the concept that when an idea is first put in to practice those doing so have a good idea of what they want to achieve and want it to look like. Now of course some change will happen after that - tweaks to adjust teething problems and a bit of evolution of the concept as peoples' outlook changes, but numerous small changes that are introduced without the level of consideration that went in to the original concept can significantly change it under our noses (whether deliberately or otherwise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

That still doesn't explain the use of "lowest common denominator," which carries implications of low quality. In any case whilst "everyone else does it this way" isn't a particularly compelling argument in its own right it is valid to ask why are we doing things differently?

That's not related to the feature creep argument though. I base that on the concept that when an idea is first put in to practice those doing so have a good idea of what they want to achieve and want it to look like. Now of course some change will happen after that - tweaks to adjust teething problems and a bit of evolution of the concept as peoples' outlook changes, but numerous small changes that are introduced without the level of consideration that went in to the original concept can significantly change it under our noses (whether deliberately or otherwise).

Nothing fundamental has happened in the development of the EU that wasn't intended at the beginning.  Mission creep is the wrong concept to talk about - integration was the mission.

Share this post


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

Why should he keep it? Oh yes because it served a purpose for him to take the shilling. No doubt he’s now taking an even larger shilling from elsewhere. Like all good hypocrites. 

Of course it serves a purpose; all subsidies are meant to "serve a purpose". No doubt if the UK sets up its own system post Brexit he will take that. It doesn't make him a hypocrite.

As for the "no doubt...." this is just a sneer.

Share this post


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

Nothing fundamental has happened in the development of the EU that wasn't intended at the beginning.  Mission creep is the wrong concept to talk about - integration was the mission.

I think this is quite right.

In the 1920s two officials of the League of Nations, Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter, a British civil servant, conceived a United States of Europe ruled by unelected technocrats. They had seen at first hand how the League of Nations had been destroyed by national veto and they also wished to avoid the need to consult people in elections. The EU is composed of the same four institutions as was the League of Nations:  a commission, a council of ministers, a parliament and a court.

The timeline on these matters was:

"During his term as the League of Nations deputy-secretary general (1920-23), Monnet became frustrated by member states power of veto and became committed to the idea of an entirely new ‘supra-national’ form of government, beyond the control of national governments, politicians or electorates.

In 1931, Salter published ‘The United States of Europe’ proposing that the method used to unify Germany in the 19th century should be used to create a United Europe, i.e. by establishing a Zollverein or  ‘common market’, funded by a common tariff on all goods imported from outside with “a political instrument to determine how the distribution [of those funds] should be made”.

Salter also proposed an institutional structure based on the League of Nations, with a “Secretariat” as the central source of authority – a permanent body of international civil servants, loyal to the new organisation  (not to the member countries) – essentially government by “Supranational” bureaucracy."

It was indeed all intended to be undemocratic from the start.

Edited by crouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Briefly returning to the topic of house prices. On Friday I went to a seminar given by one of the major forecasting firms (work NDA means I cannot say which) on preparing for the possibility of a no deal exit. 

One item covered was the BoEs preparation for such an event. As for the night of the referendum, they have already agreed and signed off their plans for dealing with the fallout. Along the lines of immediate provision of liquidity, a cut in interest rates to 0%, a multi year programme of QE and FLS on steroids to force down mortgage rates particularly on high LTV loans. 

The driver for this seemed to be an belief that to avoid a deep recession asset prices must be held up in £ terms, and that the strain of a no deal should be taken by the exchange rate.

The more cynical among the audience seemed to think that this strategy was more about creating a post Brexit window of opportunity, before inflation hits, for the Tories to win an election than protecting the long term interests of the country.   

 

Seems like Bozo and Cummings are looking to create a third housing bubble, subsidised with QE/FLS as was Osborne's (a necessity given the near-record levels of household indebtedness). The imported food/fuel inflation is going to be murderous but the Batshit vote will be shielded from much of it by the triple lock. Economic suicide, ofc. Another half trillion on the national debt by 2025 while private sector debt/GDP is driven ever higher into the death zone.

 

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Briefly returning to the topic of house prices. On Friday I went to a seminar given by one of the major forecasting firms (work NDA means I cannot say which) on preparing for the possibility of a no deal exit. 

One item covered was the BoEs preparation for such an event. As for the night of the referendum, they have already agreed and signed off their plans for dealing with the fallout. Along the lines of immediate provision of liquidity, a cut in interest rates to 0%, a multi year programme of QE and FLS on steroids to force down mortgage rates particularly on high LTV loans. 

The driver for this seemed to be an belief that to avoid a deep recession asset prices must be held up in £ terms, and that the strain of a no deal should be taken by the exchange rate.

The more cynical among the audience seemed to think that this strategy was more about creating a post Brexit window of opportunity, before inflation hits, for the Tories to win an election than protecting the long term interests of the country.   

 

 

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...

  • 259 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.