EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[bramling]

I think London is distorting the entire market. I bought my house in 2005 at the age of 22 for £100k, certainly not at the top of the market, but had to sell at a £15k loss (plus the amount I'd spent on renovation) in 2012 after separating from my wife I'd bought the house with. House prices up here still aren't back to where they were in 2005.

London, though, is spreading its effects further and further out. Because people can no longer buy in London, they are spreading their wings out into the commuter towns. This makes the nice commuter towns out of reach, pushing first time buyers into the less desirable towns. Luton saw a 20% increase in average house prices last year. Great if you live in Luton and work in central London, terrible if you live in Luton and work in Luton. My (new) wife worked in Amersham and didn't get London weighting on her NHS wage, and I doubt she was alone. So the people who work in Luton can't afford to live there, they move further out again, and the price inflation effect ripples out as far as Swindon or Grantham.

Something has to give in London, but the problem isn't interest rates. The problem is foreign capital flight, particularly from China and Russia, and the solution is to prevent that from happening. I blame the Russians and the Chinese for much of what is happening in London.

Surely the massively increased and increasing population in London must be having an effect. If demand increases without supply increasing then prices will rise. With free movement of people from the entire EU what's the point in building just to end up in the same position all over again?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Surely the massively increased and increasing population in London must be having an effect. If demand increases without supply increasing then prices will rise.

The problem is demand for the property market and population is no longer linked in London. There are vast swathes of London where the homes are occupied for merely days in the year, if that, those properties are bought as somewhere safe to park one's capital away from prying eyes in their home country. You see this with apartment blocks that are advertised off plan by developers...to people in Singapore and Beijing, not Clapham or Battersea.

London's population isn't as high as it was in the 1930s, although it is expected to pass that peak sometime in 2018-2020.

 

[Howardh]

Of course, me being me, I never miss the opportunity to state that as far as I am concerned, living in the rural area of the aforesaid "triangle" that borders Prestbury to Mottram St Andrew, is where the crème de la creme choose to reside...

In other words, Premiership footballers

£280k gets you a three-bed with a view of nothing but greenery in a wee village in the Bowland Fells; http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-64429079.html
(Links to ad for house in country with gorgeous views of Bowland fells). Nearest Tube station's a bit of a walk, but there is a bus three times a day.

 

[meridian2]

Of course, me being me, I never miss the opportunity to state that as far as I am concerned, living in the rural area of the aforesaid "triangle" that borders Prestbury to Mottram St Andrew, is where the crème de la creme choose to reside...

I know it well. Fur coat no knickers country. Wine bars, nail bars, footballers in Maseratis, the Essex of the north. Which is a little harsh on Essex! However there must be some nice bits.

 

[Barn]

Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away.

For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes.

So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.

 

[SteveP29]

I know it well. Fur coat no knickers country. Wine bars, nail bars, footballers in Maseratis, the Essex of the north. Which is a little harsh on Essex! However there must be some nice bits.

Pound shop millionaires they get called round here

 

[ExRes]

As this is the EU referendum thread I'm a little surprised that the dear lady on Question Time has not been mentioned, as anyone who voted leave is considered to be a raging racist etc etc then surely it's reasonable to assume that anyone that voted remain did so in order to ensure there will be an ample supply of foreigners to serve them coffee and sandwiches

 

[bramling]

As this is the EU referendum thread I'm a little surprised that the dear lady on Question Time has not been mentioned, as anyone who voted leave is considered to be a raging racist etc etc then surely it's reasonable to assume that anyone that voted remain did so in order to ensure there will be an ample supply of foreigners to serve them coffee and sandwiches

Why on earth would anyone voting leave be automatically racist?

Firstly, not everyone will have voted leave in connexion with immigration / free movement etc. There are plenty of other good reasons to leave the EU.

Secondly, in any case it's not racist to consider it unacceptable that the numbers entering the country are much higher than the numbers leaving. Not at all.

 

[radamfi]

If you are racist then it is more logical to prefer being in the EU, because substantial immigration will still be required even outside the EU and without free-movement within the EU, the immigration will be more likely to come from outside Europe.

 

[ExRes]

Why on earth would anyone voting leave be automatically racist?

Firstly, not everyone will have voted leave in connexion with immigration / free movement etc. There are plenty of other good reasons to leave the EU.

Secondly, in any case it's not racist to consider it unacceptable that the numbers entering the country are much higher than the numbers leaving. Not at all.

1) They're not, but it seems to be taken for granted by many on this forum and in many other places that they are simply because they don't support EU membership

2) I agree with you

3) I agree with you again

 

[Dave1987]

Well now Mrs May is going back on all the promises made to the Scottish regarding devolution during the independence referendum. Her speech today had the definite tone of demanding the Scots heed to their Westminster masters. Now I'm all for keeping the UK together but they voted to remain part of the UK of the premise of greater devolution. If Mrs May is going to go back on those promises then the Scots voted to remain based on lies and false promises. This all reminds me of Mrs Mays comments when Brown took over from Blair. She said there should be a GE called as the electorate didn't vote for Brown as PM. Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot and she takes over from Cameron she didn't think the same! Just a slight bit of hypocrisy there. I've been a Tory supporter all my life, especially under Cameron yet May is making me utterly despise the Tory party!

 

[Senex]

Well now Mrs May is going back on all the promises made to the Scottish regarding devolution during the independence referendum. Her speech today had the definite tone of demanding the Scots heed to their Westminster masters. Now I'm all for keeping the UK together but they voted to remain part of the UK of the premise of greater devolution. If Mrs May is going to go back on those promises then the Scots voted to remain based on lies and false promises. This all reminds me of Mrs Mays comments when Brown took over from Blair. She said there should be a GE called as the electorate didn't vote for Brown as PM. Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot and she takes over from Cameron she didn't think the same! Just a slight bit of hypocrisy there. I've been a Tory supporter all my life, especially under Cameron yet May is making me utterly despise the Tory party!

It was a curious speech. The tenor of it was indeed that the Scots should behave themselves, accept what the English had voted for, obey their Westminster masters, and be happy to put up with whatever hard Brexit she, in thrall to the Tory English hard Brexit brigade, managed to negotiate. But there is something odd about arguing that it is incumbent on the four distinct nations of the United Kingdom to remain in a political union whilst arguing for that same United Kingdom to leave a different union -- especially when Scottish arguments about power residing not at home but in a foreign capital (London) are remarkably similar to United Kingdom arguments about power residingnot at home but in a foreign capital (Brussels). I thought the hypocrisy level was more than just a slight bit!

 

[EM2]

It's not just that. It's also odd to argue "We're leaving our biggest market and that's great. You want to leave your biggest market and that's madness".

 

[AM9]

I know it well. Fur coat no knickers country. Wine bars, nail bars, footballers in Maseratis, the Essex of the north. Which is a little harsh on Essex! However there must be some nice bits.

Not quite all of Essex, in fact I suspect that Prestbury and its immediate environs has a Chigwellian culture, i.e. plenty of cash but quite vulgar displays of chav opulence. Chigwell had West Ham United to thank for it, Cheshire draws on Manchester bladder kickers to keep the builders busy.
The rest of Essex west of the A130 is dominated by the remnants of Thatcher's Essex man model and east of it has been UKIP country but what are they for now?

 

[HSTEd]

The Scots were promised greater devolution after the indepedence referendum, and they recieved it. There seems to be little basis in the Scottish National Party demanding new powers repatriated from Brussels because they demand it.

Additionally we cannot have a union where a tenth of the population effectively dictates constitutional arrangements to the remainder. If Scotland wants to stay in the EEA and the rest of the UK don't then why should Scotland get its way at the expense of the rest?
Either Scotland is for the Union or it is not, it can't have it both ways.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away.

For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes.

So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.

Well, that looks at one side of the equation but the other side is also shown during the visitation to Scrooge by the Ghost of Christmas Present who reveals symbolic destitute children clinging to the inside of his robe which them reminds Scrooge of his own words uttered previously..."Are there no prisons, no workhouses"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I know it well. Fur coat no knickers country. Wine bars, nail bars, footballers in Maseratis, the Essex of the north. Which is a little harsh on Essex! However there must be some nice bits.

Thankfully, in the more rural parts of the area in question in which the Sidorczuk residence is situated are more akin to the better rural parts of West Sussex, where you will find a haven from the scourge of the players of Association Football who are recent additions to the area.

Essex is the last county that I hoped anyone with both taste and discernment would deign to make comparisons to Cheshire.

 

[EM2]

Essex is the last county that I hoped anyone with both taste and discernment would deign to make comparisons to Cheshire.

The negative image of Essex stems from portrayals of 'Essex girls' dancing around their handbags and the shallow materialists of 'The Only Way Is Essex'.
It would be like judging Cheshire on Aintree Ladies Day and 'Hollyoaks'.

Winsford, Sandbach and Northwich are no better or worse than Basildon, Harlow and Rayleigh, and conversely I'd put Finchingfield and Thaxted up against anything that Cheshire can offer for picturesqueness.

 

[EM2]

...it's reasonable to assume that anyone that voted remain did so in order to ensure there will be an ample supply of foreigners to serve them coffee and sandwiches

It's always been made clear by Remain voters that this country needs immigration to survive.

 

[ExRes]

It's always been made clear by Remain voters that this country needs immigration to survive.

What she was saying, and many others have said it without causing a public furore, is that immigrants are required to carry out the subservient roles that 'decent' people are too good for, now if that had been said by someone who had voted to leave then I'm sure it wouldn't have been swept gently aside by the media and the remain camp, would it?

 

[EM2]

What she was saying, and many others have said it without causing a public furore, is that immigrants are required to carry out the subservient roles that 'decent' people are too good for, now if that had been said by someone who had voted to leave then I'm sure it wouldn't have been swept gently aside by the media and the remain camp, would it?

That's a pretty big conclusion to jump to.
This country does not have enough people looking for work that could fill all the vacancies that would be created if there were no immigrants, whether that's as software engineers, train guards, doctors, nurses, care workers, vegetable pickers, waitresses or baristas.
We hear it often in the media, 'I'm not lazy, I'll do anything, I just want a job' but then don't want to do the work that's available. So when the care home owner, or coffee shop owner, or vegetable farmer needs staff, and none of the British unemployed are willing to do it, what are they supposed to do?

 

[meridian2]

What she was saying, and many others have said it without causing a public furore, is that immigrants are required to carry out the subservient roles that 'decent' people are too good for, now if that had been said by someone who had voted to leave then I'm sure it wouldn't have been swept gently aside by the media and the remain camp, would it?

Indeed. The claim any nation needs a immigrants to "survive" is an extraordinary one. It's possible to present a case for immigration in various ways, but national survival is not one I'm familiar with. Did India need a British Raj to survive? Or the aboriginal people of Australia and New Zealand need Europeans to maintain its viability? How about the Scots needing the English and vice versa?

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed. The claim any nation needs a immigrants to "survive" is an extraordinary one. It's possible to present a case for immigration in various ways, but national survival is not one I'm familiar with. Did India need a British Raj to survive? Or the aboriginal people of Australia and New Zealand need Europeans to maintain its viability? How about the Scots needing the English and vice versa?

How can you compare the Raj and the colonisation of Australia to free movement of people in the EU? That's madness.

A good example of a country which needs immigration to maintain its standard of living is Ireland.

On the subject of "survival", it seems like a Scottish referendum is still within arm's reach...

 

[meridian2]

How can you compare the Raj and the colonisation of Australia to free movement of people in the EU? That's madness.

A good example of a country which needs immigration to maintain its standard of living is Ireland.

On the subject of "survival", it seems like a Scottish referendum is still within arm's reach...

The claim is that a nation needs immigrants to survive. You can make a case for the EU needing mass transfers across national borders to maintain its ambition, but I fail to see how a nation state, particularly one like Britain, needs immigration to exist. Except for the moral case of taking in those in mortal danger (e.g. European Jews prior to WW2, Ugandan Asians, etc), automatic immigration does nothing for the public as a whole, though it may advantage individual elites. There are certainly times when immigration is desirable as a social benefit (doctors from the subcontinent, transport workers from the West Indies), but that's very different from a borderless modern empire.

 

[miami]

Yawn. :roll:

Someone on this gallant forum pointed out https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Kum8OUTuk

I agree with this chap that it's all rather vulgar, just what you'd expect from someone in the "real housewives of Cheshire" set. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JNa-KLhUfU4

 

[bramling]

That's a pretty big conclusion to jump to.
This country does not have enough people looking for work that could fill all the vacancies that would be created if there were no immigrants, whether that's as software engineers, train guards, doctors, nurses, care workers, vegetable pickers, waitresses or baristas.
We hear it often in the media, 'I'm not lazy, I'll do anything, I just want a job' but then don't want to do the work that's available. So when the care home owner, or coffee shop owner, or vegetable farmer needs staff, and none of the British unemployed are willing to do it, what are they supposed to do?

Do what any business has to do if they can't attract staff, increase the wage rate?

 

[EM2]

Do what any business has to do if they can't attract staff, increase the wage rate?

They can attract staff, they're just not British staff. And that still doesn't alter the fact that there are not enough unemployed British people to do all the work.
There are also plenty of companies that pay the Living Wage or higher (Aldi for example) but they still have majority immigrant workforces. So the money isn't the issue.

 

[meridian2]

They can attract staff, they're just not British staff. And that still doesn't alter the fact that there are not enough unemployed British people to do all the work.
There are also plenty of companies that pay the Living Wage or higher (Aldi for example) but they still have majority immigrant workforces. So the money isn't the issue.

I can imagine that might be the case in Tunbridge Wells or Alderley Edge, in the remote chance Aldi has a foothold in such places, but the Aldi and Lidl branches I know have primarily or exclusively British born staff (of whatever ethnicity).

The only arguments that hold any water is "things will cost more" - and I'm not convinced by those any more than the minimum wage was promoted as an economic disaster - to which I say too bad. If food processing or whatever keeps the current population in work, the spin off to the regional economy will outweigh any pricing disadvantage, which will probably be modest anyway, though framed in hyperbole by land and factory owners.

 

[EM2]

I can imagine that might be the case in Tunbridge Wells or Alderley Edge, in the remote chance Aldi has a foothold in such places, but the Aldi and Lidl branches I know have primarily or exclusively British born staff (of whatever ethnicity).

I suggest you pay a visit to Ilford, Romford, Stratford, Walthamstow, Gravesend or Strood. You will find things much different.

The only arguments that hold any water is "things will cost more" - and I'm not convinced by those any more than the minimum wage was promoted as an economic disaster - to which I say too bad.

So inflation is a good thing? What if wages do not keep pace with prices?

If food processing or whatever keeps the current population in work, the spin off to the regional economy will outweigh any pricing disadvantage, which will probably be modest anyway, though framed in hyperbole by land and factory owners.

It doesn't alter the fact that there are not enough people. In the 2011 census, the UK population was approximately 63.1m with 2.24m of those from the EU (about 3.5%).
The current population is about 65.3m, so, for argument's sake, if the percentage of EU nationals remains the same, that's an EU population of 2.29m.
There are 1.6m people registered as unemployed in the UK. That leaves us about 700,000 short, and that doesn't cater for the fact that some of those 1.6m will also be EU nationals.
And that's before we get onto non-EU migrants.

 

[bramling]

I suggest you pay a visit to Ilford, Romford, Stratford, Walthamstow, Gravesend or Strood. You will find things much different.

So inflation is a good thing? What if wages do not keep pace with prices?

It doesn't alter the fact that there are not enough people. In the 2011 census, the UK population was approximately 63.1m with 2.24m of those from the EU (about 3.5%).
The current population is about 65.3m, so, for argument's sake, if the percentage of EU nationals remains the same, that's an EU population of 2.29m.
There are 1.6m people registered as unemployed in the UK. That leaves us about 700,000 short, and that doesn't cater for the fact that some of those 1.6m will also be EU nationals.
And that's before we get onto non-EU migrants.

I'm not sure it's possible to make that simple calculation, as if the EU population was not here then the demand for labour would also be lower, although hard to arrive at a figure. Any shortfall could be covered with *controlled* immigration, ideally with Britain taking in what skills it needs, drawing from a global talent pool, not from one political club.