If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

buglawton wrote: »

Would the people outside of the overheated S.E. realty be better served? Jury's on that one as far as I'm concerned.

the UK only really has one arguably expensive market and that is London. The rest of the regions vary from cheap to affordable.

Therefore a house price crash in the 85% of the regions that are not London would not be welcome at all especially as it would result in LTV going up and thus the interest you would be charged going up. Also a house price crash in the north and midlands would leave a lot of places undevelopable so new builds there would crash.

HornetSaver

cells wrote: »

the UK only really has one arguably expensive market and that is London. The rest of the regions vary from cheap to affordable.

Therefore a house price crash in the 85% of the regions that are not London would not be welcome at all especially as it would result in LTV going up and thus the interest you would be charged going up. Also a house price crash in the north and midlands would leave a lot of places undevelopable so new builds there would crash.

Obviously at this stage we are debating an assumption of our own, based on an assumption by Gideon.

But with that huge caveat, those who are and are not happy about the housing market in the SE and London both agree that it's a result of too many people wanting to live in too few houses to sustain a lower price point. Both Remain and Leave agree that leaving the EU would result in fewer low-earning economic migrants. So why on earth would any housing slump be uniform?

If Gideon's assertion were to prove correct, surely this slump would apply to London and SE England, with minor adjustments in certain places such as the SW and the biggest cities outside of this area, and little if any impact in less economically developed areas?

cells

HornetSaver wrote: »

Obviously at this stage we are debating an assumption of our own, based on an assumption by Gideon.

But with that huge caveat, those who are and are not happy about the housing market in the SE and London both agree that it's a result of too many people wanting to live in too few houses to sustain a lower price point. Both Remain and Leave agree that leaving the EU would result in fewer low-earning economic migrants. So why on earth would any housing slump be uniform?

If Gideon's assertion were to prove correct, surely this slump would apply to London and SE England, with minor adjustments in certain places such as the SW and the biggest cities outside of this area, and little if any impact in less economically developed areas?

Its a difficult question to answer with certainty. The only thing I am 100% certain of is that the idea of London becoming cheap post Brexit is very very very silly.

We are not going to deport 3 million foreigners from London to make claptons propaganda piece of 'young Londoners cant afford family sized homes near minimium wage' somehow happen

Going forward a Brexit + a full stop in EU migrants into the UK (not likely imo) might reduce the future price from going even higher than it otherwise might do but guess what when a terrace house in Hackney costs £1.5 million today it does not matter one bit if we vote in if we vote out or anything else those prices are not going down to £150,000


Maybe Clapton would like to comment. If we vote Brexit are the £1m plus terrace homes in Hackney going to go down to a price where a single teacher earning £30k pa can buy with a 4x income mortgage?

HornetSaver

cells wrote: »

Its a difficult question to answer with certainty. The only thing I am 100% certain of is that the idea of London becoming cheap post Brexit is very very very silly.

I agree.

If price growth in London were 18% lower than forecast over a two year period, the idea that this would amount to London becoming cheap is very very very silly.

cells

HornetSaver wrote: »

Obviously at this stage we are debating an assumption of our own, based on an assumption by Gideon.

But with that huge caveat, those who are and are not happy about the housing market in the SE and London both agree that it's a result of too many people wanting to live in too few houses to sustain a lower price point. Both Remain and Leave agree that leaving the EU would result in fewer low-earning economic migrants. So why on earth would any housing slump be uniform?

If Gideon's assertion were to prove correct, surely this slump would apply to London and SE England, with minor adjustments in certain places such as the SW and the biggest cities outside of this area, and little if any impact in less economically developed areas?

It is also far from certain how much of an impact migrants had on London house prices. London was booming well before the mass migration of the eastern EU.

Between 1995 - 2000 a period of much lower migration and population growth inner London house prices almost doubled (up 96% in Hackney)

The odd thing about London is not that it is expensive today, it is that it was so so cheap in 1995!


London would have got expensive regardless of the migrants as it did from 1995-2000. London finally recovered after decades of crap governance and a failing economy. You can also see this clearly in the price differential between inner London and outter London. Back in 1995 a terrace home in Hackney cost about the same as one in Enfield. Today the same terrace house in Hackney costs twice as much as the same terrace house in Enfield. Clearly inner London boomed on the back of very high wages and the high skill sector earning 100s of k a year not on polish shop workers getting £7.20 an hour

HornetSaver

Well, the boom in London from 1995 to 2000 was mirrored though most of the country to be fair. 2000-2003 is actually the period where London and the Home Counties raced ahead despite prices elsewhere stabilizing (or at least, the part that can't be put down to Eastern Europe).

cells

HornetSaver wrote: »

I agree.

If price growth in London were 18% lower than forecast over a two year period, the idea that this would amount to London becoming cheap is very very very silly.

Even on this part of the forum most people dont realise that London is a tale of two stories. Inner London which has gone berserk and outter London which has not (to the same extent)

Back in 1995 a terrace house in hackney cost £90k and in Enfield £80k now in 2016 the same terrace house in Enfield costs £370k and in Hackney it is £826k

Polish immigrants didn't push up the price of inner London relative to outer London by two times! They are not the ones buying terrace homes for £826k with wages of £7.20ph

Inner London boomed due to the boom in financial services. Things like Private equity guys getting paid £500k a year they are the ones bidding and buying £1m terrace homes not the poor migrants. While they are in town 'normal' people wont get a seat on those musical chairs. Personally I am happy that London has such workers paying ~£200k a yr in taxes it beats not having them and all of the rest of us having to pay higher taxes to make up the loss

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you accept that if we both levied tariffs on each other the EU (and us) would both be worse off with higher unemployment.

Yes.

One of the issues I have not seen debated is this statement:

• if we could not reach agreement with the EU on a new arrangement, our trading arrangements would revert to WTO rules. This would provide the most complete break with the EU. It does not entail accepting free movement, budgetary contributions or implementing EU rules. But it would cause a major economic shock to the UK. WTO rules mean that the EU, and all countries with which we currently have trade deals, would have no choice but to apply WTO tariffs on exports from the UK – putting our companies at a competitive disadvantage. Meanwhile, the UK would face a difficult choice between either raising tariffs on imports from the EU or lowering tariffs on imports from all countries. Raising tariffs would have knock on effects on UK jobs and incomes, as well as on the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for international investment. Lowering tariffs would deny the UK revenue, and undermine our negotiating position in future trade deals.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504661/Alternatives_to_membership_possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU_Accessible.pdf

Or as the WTO puts it:

1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally
Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

Now I am not an expert on WTO rules but the above seems to be a problem. I believe it means that if we import cars into the UK (say from the EU) and agree to apply a 0% tariff to it you need to use the same tariff to import cars from anyone else (eg Japan, US, Korea).

The EU will have to apply the same tariff on cars that they import from us as they do on other nations with which they do not have a trade agreement. But they will have more trade agreements than us so may not be bothered.

Do you think that applying these will cause unemployment?

Or have I misunderstood the WTO rules? maybe some one else knows?

cells

HornetSaver wrote: »

Well, the boom in London from 1995 to 2000 was mirrored though most of the country to be fair

.

Incorrect, Inner London was on fire from 1995-2000 up 96% on those five years while say Birmingham only just about kept up with inflation up 18% over the same 5 years.

Sadly Land Reg data does not go back pre Jan 1995

2000-2003 is actually the period where London and the Home Counties raced ahead despite prices elsewhere stabilizing (or at least, the part that can't be put down to Eastern Europe).

No. Everywhere was on fire in 2000-2003
Inner London was up about 65% while Birmingham up about 55%

---

If we look at 1995 to when poland joined, 1 May 2004

Jan 1995 - 1 May 2004
Inner London up 250%
Birmingham up 120%


Prices were booming well before the eastern Europeans joined. The UK was booming but especially inner London which is why it powered ahead of the rUK on house prices

BobQ

cells wrote: »

Personally I am happy that London has such workers paying ~£200k a yr in taxes it beats not having them and all of the rest of us having to pay higher taxes to make up the loss

I suspect they are ones working as self employed consultants piling the cash into pensions, VCTs and off shore trusts, channelling their money through companies that let them pay less than 20% tax on the income (and those are ones not evading tax!)