Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Rusty_Shackleton

Herzlos wrote: »

Agreed. Would we rather press on with a vague answer and a tenuous mandate, to negotiation something we don't know with people who we want to maintain a good relationship with. Or do we spend a bit of time and figure out what we actually want, and then try to negotiate that.

And this is exactly why brexiters are so keen to shout down any debate, let alone talk of further votes... because when it comes to calmly thinking about it, the scam will be exposed, and they'll have to confront that they don't know, let alone agree on, what it actually is that they want, and the whole thing will collapse. Whether that ends in us remaining/reentering or an offshore tax haven pariah state who knows, but regardless, that anger will turn to grief and disillusion, and I think they'll be a lot of misery coming up for an awful lot of people.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Agreed. Though my next question is a biggie. Make what work? What are we actually trying to achieve?

Honestly? I think we need a tactical approach to the negotiations which exposes the true EU27 priorities.

And that might not be easy.

There is nothing written to suggest that Polish concerns over their existing migrants in the UK marries up well with Spanish tomato growers.

Some of the EU have clearly said that UK can not be seen as getting a better deal. But what does that mean in practice?

Right now, we don't know.

We do know what the UK wants. We want all our cake and to eat it ! You might consider it unrealistic, but you know what it means.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Honestly? I think we need a tactical approach to the negotiations which exposes the true EU27 priorities.

And that might not be easy.

There is nothing written to suggest that Polish concerns over their existing migrants in the UK marries up well with Spanish tomato growers.

Some of the EU have clearly said that UK can not be seen as getting a better deal. But what does that mean in practice?

Right now, we don't know.

We do know what the UK wants. We want all our cake and to eat it ! You might consider it unrealistic, but you know what it means.

So our entire plan essentially is to hope that infighting within the EU will benefit us somehow rather than pushing us closer to the default of WTO?

I agree we should be trying to play politics and leverage any advantages as we can, but we still need an actual plan or end goal on top of that. Lets say the infighting between Poland and Spain lets us get a lot more than we wanted; what are we actually going to ask for? Why will the other EU25 agree to it?

always_sunny

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Since the country is clearly divided and having an identity crisis anyway, why would it do harm to at least look like we're trying to have an adult discussion and resolve differences?

Because it doesn't matter whether you're divided as a country, that is something you (as a country) should have thought about it before not after.
That's the bit that it's not sinking in.

Even if after consultation, events, etc in the next few years, the UK realises it's the dumbest idea ever, it doesn't matter, it's past the point of no return so all they could do is reapply to join the EU.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

So our entire plan essentially is to hope that infighting within the EU will benefit us somehow rather than pushing us closer to the default of WTO?
...

Maybe that is closer to the truth than we would like to admit?

ie one big game of chicken.

It sounds a little childish but isn't that how things work out on other EU matters?

The Turkish leader is continually prodding the EU to leverage the migrant crisis to Turkey's advantage.

There seems to be a bit of a stand off when it comes to refugee quotas and places like Hungary or Poland.

It's not so much infighting. It's coming to some kind of accommodation.

The analogy of divorcing all your 27 wives has it's limits, but in some ways it feels the same!

Rusty_Shackleton

kabayiri wrote: »

Honestly? I think we need a tactical approach to the negotiations which exposes the true EU27 priorities.

And that might not be easy.

There is nothing written to suggest that Polish concerns over their existing migrants in the UK marries up well with Spanish tomato growers.

Some of the EU have clearly said that UK can not be seen as getting a better deal. But what does that mean in practice?

Right now, we don't know.

We do know what the UK wants. We want all our cake and to eat it ! You might consider it unrealistic, but you know what it means.

I think the priorities of the EU27 are pretty clear, and have been most succinctly put by the German car industry's response to the idea that they would pressure Merkel to give us a good deal so they can keep selling us cars: to them, the absolute priority is the integrity of the single market. Everything else is secondary. Funny enough, to most of Europe, the EU is valued and important, even if not perfect.

Given the political and social turmoil currently going on in the UK, I think any opportunism of one of the EU27 to get their own way will be overridden by their sense of self-preservation in the EU. We're acting as a stark warning, the EU haven't got to do anything to us when we've done the job for them. Plus the EU is accustomed to negotiating and compromising, and none of the EU27 are likely to be offered a raw deal individually by the EUs overall position with us, so limiting the room for any opportunism to present itself as reasonable.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Maybe that is closer to the truth than we would like to admit?

ie one big game of chicken.

It definitely is. WTO will hurt all of us pretty badly.

The Turkish leader is continually prodding the EU to leverage the migrant crisis to Turkey's advantage.

But Turkey seems to know what it wants (I haven't been keeping up with it).

What advantage are we trying to get from the EU?

Say, the EU decides to just give up, and says "OK, we fold, what do you want?". What is our hypothetical answer? What are we actually trying to achieve?

Rusty_Shackleton

For Fella or anyone following our discussion on right wing violence being equivocated to that supposedly of the left, this article says what I've been trying to far more eloquently than I can

http://www.newstatesman.com/world/2017/08/it-ok-punch-nazi

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

You seem to have this very middle class notion that wealth is evenly distributed, and that every child has a parent/grandparent that owns a house.

But you're completely missing that wealth begets wealth, something like 60% of BTL landlords own more than 1 rental property. i.e. their children will inherit at least 3 houses between them.

With home ownership at 64%, that means 36% do not have a home to pass on, whilst the home they own will be passed on to someone else (unless it's in one of the few social houses left).

So some people will inherit a lot of money and/or multiple houses, some will inherit a little money and a single house, and some will inherit less than that.

When the generation above me passes on, I expect to inherit half a house (currently paid off) and the equity on 1/3rd of a flat. And in my wider social group I'm one of the better off. I expect most of us will get less than that.

You are wrong

For a start you need to look at UK born stats not averages that include recent migrants who are mostly private renters. For instance something like 15% of UK born are private renters but 75% of recent migrants (in the UK 0-5 years) are private renters.

You then have to look at the ownership levels of pensioners as they are the ones gifting and leaving Inheritances. Ownership for pensioners is something like 80%

For a UK born household say a couple age 30. The man has Two sets of grand parents and the woman has two sets of grand parents. So there is an 80% chance both sets own and a 96% chance at least 1 set of grand parents own. So only 4% of British born with British born parents will not inherit at least half a house.


What's more the rental to ownership figures are skewed by the fact that some private rentals are necessary. For instance I rented for 15% of my likely adult life and then bought in my late 20s. I think that is not abnormal. What this means is that most private renters are temporary before they become owners (or get a council house). Just like me I was a renter for 7 years and will be an owner for 50 years depending in how long I live.

So while private renting is indeed almost 20% of the stock, 3/4th of that number should be ignored as they are only temporary renters before they become owners


Believe me I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and the conclusion is quite clear
The UK is a very rich country and wealth is spread very far to most the population. Not only will most British born youngsters revive free housing most of them will receive the same again in cash/stocks/businesses/furniture/antiques/commercial property/farm land/ etc


Of course there is a small number who will get nothing and nor will their spouse.
But that number is very small

Mostly people do not quite see or understand it until it lands on their lap.
One of my friends for instance got a £500k house gifted to him a couple of years ago when he got married. Five years before that he was a true lefty always angry and bitter.

Inheritances are also the reason why the ideas of left wing young ones will usher in a perminant socialist as their right wing grand parents die off never seem to come true.

The young ones not only inherit their grandmas house and their granddads pension they also inherit their politics. Not so keen to tax and spend when they are the subject of the taxing

cogito

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

For Fella or anyone following our discussion on right wing violence being equivocated to that supposedly of the left, this article says what I've been trying to far more eloquently than I can

http://www.newstatesman.com/world/2017/08/it-ok-punch-nazi

You have commented on every response to your posts except mine at #3131. Is there a reason for this?