Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

A_Medium_Size_Jock

I do realise that there are many who have a dislike for Boris Johnson but here he is absolutely correct:
"Boris Johnson says EU has legal duty to discuss future trade relations"

“Article 50 makes it very clear that the discussion about the exit for a country must be taken in the context of a discussion of the future arrangements, and that’s what we are going to do,” Johnson said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/boris-johnson-says-eu-has-legal-duty-to-discuss-future-trade-relations

Here is Article 50 to see for yourself, the relevant part being in Para:2:

the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Are you saying you prioritize retirement incomes for some over living conditions for the next generation?

I can't see how you came to that conclusion.

There are 2 problems, both with different solutions.

High house prices - build more. Even without immigration we need more houses as people are living less densely than before.

Work/revenue drop from falling birth rate - immigration.

Now you might say that falling population will take care of the house prices eventually and you'd be right. But then you get new problems like a lack of workforce and tax revenue. Lower house prices are fine, as long as the increase in pension contributions and tax don't wipe out the saving.

Herzlos

setmefree2 wrote: »

Where are you going to house them?

Or don't you care?

Just let them come....?

Maybe we should have had a referendum on investing in infrastructure.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

Maybe we should have had a referendum on investing in infrastructure.

We just had a general election on that.

Moby

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/james-cusick-adam-ramsay-crina-boros/revealed-tory-mps-using-taxpayers-cash-to-fund-sec

Senior MPs including Liam Fox, Andrea Leadsom and Jacob Rees-Mogg have used their expenses to fund a 'party within a party' inside Westminster – effectively holding the government hostage over its negotiations with the EU


Taxpayers’ money is being used to fund an influential group of hard-line pro-Brexit Conservative MPs who are increasingly operating as a “party-within-a-party”, openDemocracy can reveal today.

Despite expenses rules stating that MPs cannot claim for research or work “done for, or on behalf of, a political party”, the European Research Group has received over a quarter of a million pounds from MPs who claimed the public cash through their official expenses.

gfplux

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I do realise that there are many who have a dislike for Boris Johnson but here he is absolutely correct:
"Boris Johnson says EU has legal duty to discuss future trade relations"



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/boris-johnson-says-eu-has-legal-duty-to-discuss-future-trade-relations

Here is Article 50 to see for yourself, the relevant part being in Para:2:

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

The EU told Britain the order of the talks before the first round of talks started in June.
1) The three most important issues to be discussed first. Citizens rights, Irish border and financial settlement. Make sufficient progress over the past and then move on to...
2) The future relationship between Britain and the EU which would include trade.

Prior to that first day in June Davis went around the TV and radio studios saying "there will be a huge row over the summer if trade is not discussed at the same time as the three most important items"

He then agreed the sequence of talks that the EU asked for, on the FIRST DAY of talks.
So it does not matter what it says elsewhere that is what David Davis agreed.
He and Britain are perfectly able to change their mind if they wish. I think we know what message that will send to the world.
One way would be for Davis to fall on his sword. Explain he got it wrong, he was confused, tired and emotional. Then it would be possible with a new British lead negotiator to press re-set.
Good luck with that approach.

As for Boris Johnson. I though he did an OK job as London Mayor. Keeping London on the front pages around the world was good for tourism. I am not sure many Londoners would agree with me.
However I first saw his true colours when he decided which side of the Brexit debate would suite his career prospects. Then becoming the lead representative in front of the red bus lie. Further being appointed foreign secretary an obvious desperate move by May has led to the "Bumbling fool" making himself and Britain if not a laughing stock around the world has reduced Britains standing just when Britain needs friends and respect as it launches itself out of the EU.

Sad day as its the last day at the beach for a while.

buglawton

andrewf75 wrote: »

I don't follow your argument.
Of course demand for labour fluctuates, but my point is that whether people come under EU free movement to fill jobs or whether they come in under a post-Brexit points system will make little difference to overall numbers. Very few surplus people have come in from the EU. Its largely demand and supply.

Supply has been artificially boosted by Mediterranean countries with deep structural unemployment (caused imo by bad EU policies or local 'socialist' labour and business laws). And also by new Eastern Bloc EU entrant countries where the average casual work wage is £2-£3/hour. Britain is a uniquely easy and attractive country for this labour surplus to go to.

The EU has been using the UK as a mat to sweep its regional unemployment problems under, instead of embarking on deep market reform and joined-up regional rebalancing. It's frightened of this mat being removed - that's the unspoken agenda.

So to dismiss the entire migration issue as just another working of supply and demand is to totally miss the social dimension.

On its own part the UK desperately needs to address its indigenous training and productivity issues instead of relying so much on the shortcut of using migrant workers who gained their education and training at another countrys expense.

Rinoa

gfplux wrote: »

The EU told Britain the order of the talks before the first round of talks started in June.
1) The three most important issues to be discussed first. Citizens rights, Irish border and financial settlement. Make sufficient progress over the past and then move on to...
2) The future relationship between Britain and the EU which would include trade.

Prior to that first day in June Davis went around the TV and radio studios saying "there will be a huge row over the summer if trade is not discussed at the same time as the three most important items"

He then agreed the sequence of talks that the EU asked for, on the FIRST DAY of talks.
So it does not matter what it says elsewhere that is what David Davis agreed.
He and Britain are perfectly able to change their mind if they wish. I think we know what message that will send to the world.
One way would be for Davis to fall on his sword. Explain he got it wrong, he was confused, tired and emotional. Then it would be possible with a new British lead negotiator to press re-set.
Good luck with that approach.

As for Boris Johnson. I though he did an OK job as London Mayor. Keeping London on the front pages around the world was good for tourism. I am not sure many Londoners would agree with me.
However I first saw his true colours when he decided which side of the Brexit debate would suite his career prospects. Then becoming the lead representative in front of the red bus lie. Further being appointed foreign secretary an obvious desperate move by May has led to the "Bumbling fool" making himself and Britain if not a laughing stock around the world has reduced Britains standing just when Britain needs friends and respect as it launches itself out of the EU.

Sad day as its the last day at the beach for a while.

It probably doesn't really matter how the talks were sequenced and, in the spitit of co-operation, David Davis agreed to the EU's time table. Possibly hoping this small compromise may smooth later negotiations.

Sadly he overlooked the EU's natural arrogance in making lists of demands and their 100% refusal to deviate from them.

The talks will almost certainly fail due to EU intransigence and regretfully your continued Luxembourg residency will be at the mercy of Brussels. Good luck.

If it helps, I hear Skegness beach is very bracing.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Moby wrote: »

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/james-cusick-adam-ramsay-crina-boros/revealed-tory-mps-using-taxpayers-cash-to-fund-sec

Senior MPs including Liam Fox, Andrea Leadsom and Jacob Rees-Mogg have used their expenses to fund a 'party within a party' inside Westminster – effectively holding the government hostage over its negotiations with the EU


Taxpayers’ money is being used to fund an influential group of hard-line pro-Brexit Conservative MPs who are increasingly operating as a “party-within-a-party”, openDemocracy can reveal today.

Despite expenses rules stating that MPs cannot claim for research or work “done for, or on behalf of, a political party”, the European Research Group has received over a quarter of a million pounds from MPs who claimed the public cash through their official expenses.

Yet another non-story attempt Moby?
Lefties seek to discredit Tories, what a shocker!
Because "Opendemocracy" is a bit of a misnomer, isn't it?
It may in fact be more appropriately named "Left-Biased Democracy".

The founders of the website have been involved with established medias and political activism with the UK Labour Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDemocracy

They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/opendemocracy/

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Rinoa wrote: »

It probably doesn't really matter how the talks were sequenced and, in the spitit of co-operation, David Davis agreed to the EU's time table. Possibly hoping this small compromise may smooth later negotiations.

Sadly he overlooked the EU's natural arrogance in making lists of demands and their 100% refusal to deviate from them.

The talks will almost certainly fail due to EU intransigence and regretfully your continued Luxembourg residency will be at the mercy of Brussels. Good luck.

If it helps, I hear Skegness beach is very bracing.

Quite so and well said. :T

Note if you will the very first few words of gfplux's post:

gfplux wrote: »

The EU told Britain

"Told".
Not "asked", "suggested" or "recommended" but "told".
That alone was a great indication of the domineering stance which the EU were determined to take in the so-called "negotiations".