We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
If we vote for Brexit what happens
Comments
-
MobileSaver wrote: »As ukcarper pointed out the first three were general economic measures and as for the last two... Help To Buy only accounted for 2% of property transactions over the last 3 years so hardly propping up the market!
You say the first 3 were "general economic measures" as though the uk property market is just a minor side branch of the uk economy... the fact is the property market IS the uk economy!:rotfl:0 -
glasgowdan wrote: »Wow, are you still going?
You don`t think a major German bank in trouble is worthy of discussion on a Brexit thread? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
You do crack me up sometimes! Remind me never to buy a house through your office!
http://news.sky.com/story/deutsche-bank-why-we-should-all-be-deeply-concerned-105969620 -
I've been surprised how little visible effect the result seems to be having in Dundee. Registers of Scotland data shows prices are up slightly (about 2%) over the past year, and there doesn't seem to have been a striking change to what I've seen coming on/going under offer. I'd have expected the city to have been more badly affected than most by Brexit (university and tech sectors are important employers here, and quite a number of the jobs there are taken by EU citizens).
Dundee hasn't really seen any pre-Brexit house price boom, but I can't notice any particular Brexit effect on the housing market either.0 -
bitsandpieces wrote: »I've been surprised how little visible effect the result seems to be having in Dundee. Registers of Scotland data shows prices are up slightly (about 2%) over the past year, and there doesn't seem to have been a striking change to what I've seen coming on/going under offer. I'd have expected the city to have been more badly affected than most by Brexit (university and tech sectors are important employers here, and quite a number of the jobs there are taken by EU citizens).
Dundee hasn't really seen any pre-Brexit house price boom, but I can't notice any particular Brexit effect on the housing market either.
We haven`t had Brexit yet, just the referendum.0 -
iantojones40 wrote: »You say the first 3 were "general economic measures" as though the uk property market is just a minor side branch of the uk economy... the fact is the property market IS the uk economy!:rotfl:
Remarks like that just show how little you know0 -
Crashy_Time wrote: »We haven`t had Brexit yet, just the referendum.0
-
setmefree2 wrote: »Sorry? We are already an independent member of the WTO as are All EU member states, as is the EU in its own right.Opinions differ as to whether we are or aren't.
I guess it doesn't hurt to apply in any case which also tells the EU we don't intend to wait cap in hand relying on their benevolence.setmefree2 wrote: »Whilst it's true that some Remainers insist that technically the UK is not a member of the WTO on the basis that it does not currently have it's own schedules and there’s a minority of legal opinion backing this up, but it’s unlikely anyone is going to question Britain’s membership itself. We were a founding member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt), the WTO’s predecessor, and we’re a founding member of the WTO.
However, good article here on the problems the UK faces not having its own "schedules".
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/09/27/fox-slip-up-at-wto-shows-he-has-no-brexit-planIt has been suggested the UK would be able to copy and paste the EU’s terms into its own schedule of commitments. While some WTO trading partners may be happy to accept this, it is unlikely that all other WTO members will, without at least some discussion, or at best delay, given the much smaller market which the UK represents. This idea has also been dismissed by the WTO’s current director-general, Roberto Azevêdo, who likened the likely complexity of the UK’s post Brexit negotiations at the WTO to “accession” negotiations.
The UK would be required to negotiate the long list of commitments and concessions relating to its entire trade portfolio, with tariff lines running into the thousands, as well as access to other markets for its services, particularly its key export, financial services.
It has been suggested that the UK could avoid protracted negotiations by adopting a free trade approach, i.e. imposing no barriers to entering the country, such as duty free countries including Macau and Hong Kong. This would enable the UK to be compliant with WTO rules but is unlikely to be a palatable solution to UK industries or voters. It also does not mean other WTO countries would reciprocate by lowering barriers to entry for UK businesses, meaning the UK would have lost a significant lever in trade negotiations with trading partners.
This would also throw up the practical issue of a possible shortage of UK resources both to negotiate trade matters but also police and enforce existing measures, which the WTO director-general has also highlighted. The UK government will have to set up a body (or appoint an existing Government department, possibly the new Department for International Trade) to replace the current role of the European Commission regarding the WTO, including conducting negotiations, hearing and assessing trade complaints from UK traders, managing WTO disputes and trade policy reviews.
In addition, the UK will lose the benefit of the preferential trade agreements concluded by the EU. In practical terms this is likely to mean that to remain compliant with WTO rules, the UK would have to raise MFN tariffs on imports from those countries, and they would raise their own surcharges on British exports.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4c100baa-cbf4-4744-bc1b-eb6b586df8ed0 -
In a recent paper, I argue that this is wrong. In my view, the UK is currently bound, in its own name, by schedules annexed to the GATT 1994 and the GATS, and will continue to be bound by these schedules after Brexit. Furthermore, I suggest that the UK should submit a separate schedule reflecting its formerly shared concessions and commitments as a rectification that does not reduce existing concessions and commitments. I also argue that, in accordance with customary international law on state succession, the UK has a right to succeed to the EU’s rights and obligations in respect of its territory under the plurilateral WTO Government Procurement Agreement.This follow-up post considers what these commitments actually are and then how to give legal effect to these commitments in a new schedule. It also looks at the UK’s post-Brexit position in relation to the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA).Here, one can distinguish between unquantified and quantified concessions and commitments. It is not difficult to identify an obligation requiring the UK to impose a duty of no more than X percent on imports of a given product, or to allow commercial presence in a given services sector, as set out in its current (shared) EU schedule. Problems arise when the UK’s commitments represent a share of a fixed EU-wide quantity.
The main problem concerns EU-wide tariff rate quotas, because there is no express WTO rule for dividing shared quotas. One might be tempted to say that the question should be resolved by agreement. Certainly, this would be desirable, but it is legally unnecessary. The UK has a commitment concerning tariff rate quotas, and it is fundamentally a question of interpretation what this commitment means. Even if there is no express WTO rule, as a matter of legal theory there must be a rule (or else there would be a prohibited non liquet).Typically, in such situations, rules are derived from general principles. In the present case, a relevant principle might be that set out in Article XIII:2 GATT 1994, which aims for quotas to mimic the respective comparative advantages of WTO members that would be manifest in the counterfactual absence of those quotas. Based on this principle, one proposition might be that the UK’s tariff rate quota commitment depends on total imports from all sources over a representative period of, usually, three years. Such a quota would include the EU, which would in any case have a right under Article XIII GATT 1994 to access any UK quota for products that it has a substantial interest in exporting to the UK.
This approach is also supported by the possibility of a claim for compensation (under Article XXIII:1(b) GATT 1994 and Article 26 DSU) for measures that nullify or impair benefits that could not reasonably have been expected at the time those benefits were agreed. Arguably, third countries could not reasonably have expected that tariff rate quotas negotiated would be allocated to any countries that were EU member states at the time. Offering tariff rate quotas based on total imports would, arguably, be sufficient to satisfy those expectations. But for good measure, the UK could add 10 percent, drawing inspiration from the Understanding on Article XXVIII concerning compensation for withdrawn concessions.0 -
I get the impression that the scale of benefits fraud is vastly overblown
Quite the opposite, vastly under estimated.
If I wanted to know what the life of an RNLI boatman was like, I'd speak to one with long service, same with a wildlife cameraman. Same with an Australian Aborigine, indeed Ray Mears often sits transfixed learning of their lives in the bush.
But somehow when it comes to my 25 years public facing experience, all of a sudden 'that doesn't count, it's just anecdote'. Also note I obviously have spent huge amounts of time with others in my line of work and also letting agents (to include one that worked from my own office here for years), and we all know the same reality of what really goes on in peoples personal financial lives.
Any of you with long service in a sector will have a detailed understanding of the daily reality you face, and I would not presume to dismiss this in favour of the musing of an academic that supposedly knows your daily reality better than you do.
Academics are usually far removed from the landscapes they seek to understand and time and again in life we learn these people are the last to know. For example an academic expert in child protection was likely very late to know what was going on in the mass 15yr child abuse scandals in Rotherham and elsewhere -BUT A COPPER OR PARENT ON THE GROUND WOULD HAVE KNOWN0 -
But somehow when it comes to my 25 years public facing experience, all of a sudden 'that doesn't count, it's just anecdote'.Don't blame me, I voted Remain.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards