What's new

Brexit: the UK has left the European Union

30 Tories abstained on the bill and 2 voted against. Many of them were “old grandees” as opposed to the younger intake. Potentially interesting, because this group of a few dozen discontents could grow in size and influence if the Government continues to behave like a young boy on his birthday playing with his new remote control toy helicopter.

I am shocked and disappointed that all 32 didn’t oppose. They are throwing the people of NI under a bus.

We’ve handed the reins to someone with no moral sense, to whom rules and laws and people’s right to live in peace and prosperity are irrelevant.
 
The new bill is an insurance policy and will only strengthen the hand of the UK, as seen by the reaction of the EU.

Twice the UK negotiated in good faith after 2016, and twice the EU sent the UK packing, not the 3rd time.

Time the EU got a bitter taste of own their medicine.

Roll on Thursday!
 
Johnson fled the chamber yesterday after being humiliated not only by Ed Miliband but by some of his own backbenchers.

Life runs a book on us all and his is finally catching up with him. He has got away with minimal effort and lying and cheating his whole life through being a bit of a card, but this won’t work as PM.

He looked terrible yesterday. With his lies and incompetence being exposed at every PMQ, I wonder how long before he quits out of pure stress and Gove becomes PM.
 
Johnson fled the chamber yesterday after being humiliated not only by Ed Miliband but by some of his own backbenchers.

Life runs a book on us all and his is finally catching up with him. He has got away with minimal effort and lying and cheating his whole life through being a bit of a card, but this won’t work as PM.

He looked terrible yesterday. With his lies and incompetence being exposed at every PMQ, I wonder how long before he quits out of pure stress and Gove becomes PM.

I'm shocked that you are shocked by the 32 Tory MPs who didn't oppose the new bill considering 17.4M opposed your view in the first place. Anyway, you are seeking Irish nationality, why do you care about NI?

The Remainer/Left need to do better than 'he is lying'. This trick is toast. No one believes the hollow cries of the left anymore.

@thread: The only people lying to themselves are the Remainers/Left. This snowflake cult spent nearly 4 years trying to convince the UK that the EU referendum result was illegal and fraudulent by blaming the Russians; now this same snowflake cult are trying to convince you that parliamentary democracy is illegal.

I love how liberals are scraping the barrel of the Tories; better the devil you know than don't.

:)
 
Boris isn’t up to the job imo. Too physically and mentally demanding for him. He’s ageing horrendously.

I can see Mickey Gove lining up another one of his speciality Julius Caesar jobs on the PM again soon.
 
Boris isn’t up to the job imo. Too physically and mentally demanding for him. He’s ageing horrendously.

I can see Mickey Gove lining up another one of his speciality Julius Caesar jobs on the PM again soon.


The full text of Miliband’s speech:
—————————————————-

I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and other RH and H Friends.

There are two questions at the heart of this Bill and why will be opposing it tonight.

First. How do we get an internal market after January 1st within the UK while upholding the devolution settlements which have been part of our constitution now for two decades and are vital to our Union?

Secondly, is our country going to abide by the rule of law, a rules-based international order for which we are famous around the world and have always stood up for?

These are not small questions but go the heart of our character as a country.

Let me start with the first question. An internal market is vital for trade and jobs at home, but also for our ability to strike trade deals.

And it is the responsibility of the UK government at Westminster to safeguard that market.

On this we agree with the government.

But it must be carried out understanding that the last two decades of devolution settlements were a decision that we would share power across our four nations.

Including devolving key powers over issues like animal welfare, food safety and aspects of environmental legislation.

So we should be legislating for an internal market but in a way that respects the role of devolved governments in having a voice in setting those standards.

What we’ve heard from across the UK is that is not the governments approach. They want to legislate with a blunderbuss approach that does not do that.

And simply says the lowest standard in one parliament must become the standard for all, with no proper voice for devolved governments.

The way through this would have been not just to agree common frameworks as but to legislate for them.

That is what we will be arguing for during the passage of this Bill.

These issues were prefigured in the white paper but since then we have an even bigger question to confront.

Let me say right at the outset.

We want the smoothest trade across our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.

There is a way to resolve these issues in the joint committee set up for the purpose.

Only this prime minister would think taking a wrecking ball to the NI protocol would be the right way to resolve them.

While I have been part of many issues of contention across this despatch box, I never thought respecting international law would in my lifetime be a matter of disagreement.

I stood opposite the Prime Minister’s predecessor but one David Cameron as Leader of the Opposition for five years.

I disagreed with him profoundly on many issues but I could never have imagined him coming along and saying we are going to legislate to break international law on an agreement we had just signed less than a year earlier as a country.

But that is what this Bill does in the government’s own words.

Let me address the three questions at the heart of this issue.

Is it right to threaten to break the law in the way the government proposes?

Is it necessary to do so?

Will it help our country?

The answers to each of these questions is No.

Let us first of all start with the principles here.

If there is one thing we are known for around the world, it is the rule of law.

The country of the Magna Carta.

The country that is known for having the mother of all parliaments.

The country that out of the darkness of the second world war helped found the United Nations.

Our global reputation for rule-making, not rule-breaking is one of the reasons we have been so respected around the world.

When you ask people to think of Britain they think of the rule of law.

Let’s be clear after the PM’s speech. This is not an argument about Remain vs Leave , it is an argument about right vs wrong.

The Brexiteer and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lamont says the bill is “impossible to defend”

The Brexiteer and former Attorney general who helped to negotiate and signed off this deal as attorney general, says the bill is “unconscionable”.

And the Brexiteer, the Lord Howard, his former boss said:

“I never thought it was a thing I’d hear a British minister, far less a Conservative minister, say, which is that the government was going to invite parliament to act in breach of international law… We have a reputation for probity, for upholding the rule of law, and it’s a reputation that is very precious and ought to be safeguarded, and I am afraid it was severely damaged…by the bill.”

The Prime Minister has said many times he wants to bring unity to the country during his Premiership.

I therefore congratulate him on having in just one short year united his five predecessors.

Unfortunately, their point of agreement is that he is trashing the reputation of this country and trashing the reputation of his office.

And why are the five former Prime Ministers so united on this point?

Because they know our moral authority in the world comes from our commitment to the rule of law and keeping our word.

We rightly condemn China when it rides roughshod over the treaties dictating the future of Hong Kong.

We say they signed them in good faith.

We say they are going back on their word.

We say they can’t be trusted.

And his defence: Don’t worry I can’t be trusted either.

And we know from now on what they will throw back at us?

That we too don’t keep to international law.

And I want to dispense with each of the government’s arguments for why they should be allowed to get away with this…and believe me there have been many over the last few days. I’ve lost count.

Let me give the House the top five.

First, lets deal with the argument about blockades which made its first outing in the telegraph on Saturday from the prime minister and it certainly made a big appearance today.

This is as ridiculous an argument as I have heard even by the standards of this government.

This is what Article 16 says: “If the application of the Protocol leads to serious, economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

In the words of the former Attorney general, someone who knows this protocol better than the Prime Minister I think, “there are clear and lawful responses available to her majesty’s government…”.

Far from upending the protocol, it offers protection.

And as if that wasn’t enough, the Bill does precisely nothing to address the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, it is about exit declarations NI-GB and the narrow definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland.

It’s a completely bogus argument.

Second, he claimed on Wednesday it was necessary to Protect the good Friday agreement.

I have to say I would rather trust the authors of the good Friday agreement than a Prime Minister who has prominent members of the government who opposed the agreement.

This is what John major and Tony Blair wrote “[the bill] puts the good Friday agreement at risk because it negates the predictability, the political stability, and legal clarity that are integral to the delicate balance between the north and south of Ireland that is at the core of the peace process”.

He may not want to believe them but maybe he will believe himself.

Because this is what he said about the NI Protocol: “there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland at the border that deserve particular respect and sensitivity, and that is what they have received in the deal.

This is… a great deal for Northern Ireland”.

This is not just legislative hooliganism, it is hooliganism on the most sensitive of issues.

Third, there was the other argument on Saturday. It was all a bit of a rush.

Or as the Pm says: times were “torrid” and “there was serious misunderstanding”

But they were warned for months about the way the Protocol would work.

Like the CDL was warned at the select committee in march. The business secretary at the HoL committee in April.

Let’s get this straight for a minute.

What he’s telling us is that his flagship achievement.

The deal the prime minister told us was a triumph.

The deal he said was oven-ready.

The deal on which he fought and won a general election.

Now he says far from being oven-ready it is completely half baked.

Or in the words of no 10 it is “contradictory and ambiguous”.

What incompetence.

What failure of governance.

How dare he try and blame everyone else.

Can I say to the Prime Minister.

This time He can’t blame the RHM for maidenhead.

He can’t blame John Major.

He can’t blame the judges.

He can’t blame the civil servants.

He can’t sack the cabinet secretary again.

There is only one person responsible for this.

Him.

This is his deal .

His mess.

His failure.

For the first time in his life it’s time to take responsibility.

It’s time to fess up.

Either he wasn’t straight with the country about the deal or he didn’t understand it.

A competent government would never have entered into a binding agreement with provisions it could not live with.

And if such a government somehow missed the point but woke up later it would have done what any competent business would do after it realises it can’t live with the terms of a contract, it would negotiate a way out in good faith.

This is why it’s all so unnecessary. There is a mechanism designed for exactly this purpose.

The Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

What did the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster say on 11 March at the Brexit Select Committee and he said “the effective working of the protocol is a matter for the Joint Committee to resolve”.

The remaining issues which this Bill speaks to are not insignificant, but nor are they insurmountable. On Exit Summary Declarations, on State Aid there is an agreement that can and should be reached.

Fourth, on Sunday, there was the Justice Secretary’s ‘the fire alarm’ defence…we don’t want to have to do this but we might have to.

Let us be clear as I said at the outset, the very act of passing this Bill breaks international law, not just exercising the power.

And nothing at issue in this agreement justifies trashing our reputation, putting at risk the chances of a deal and the situation in northern Ireland.

Finally let us deal with the last defence first floated as a trial balloon by the Northern Ireland Secretary who said it was a breach of the law in a “specific and limited way”.

This really is a new way of thinking about legal questions.

It now turns out that breaking the law specifically and in a limited way is a reasonable defence for this government.

We have all heard of self-defence, the alibi defence, the innocence defence.

Now we have the Johnson defence.

You can break the law in a specific and limited way.

Think about the current grave context we face .

The Home Secretary out today in the newspapers warning everyone.

You must abide by the law.

By the way, she’s right.

“I know that, as part of our national effort, the law-abiding majority will stick to these new rules.

But there will be a small minority who do not”.

You couldn’t make it up.

But what she doesn’t say is that the Johnson defence means something very specific. That there is one rule for the British public and another rule for this government.

Pioneered by Cummings, implemented by Johnson.

So this is the wrong thing to do, it is not necessary and it is also deeply damaging for the country.

Let’s just think about this in terms of the impact on our country and the negotiations.

The government’s hope is that this will make a deal more likely but that relies on the notion that reneging on a deal we made less than a year ago with the party we are negotiating with will make them more likely to trust us—not less.

This feels pretty hard to believe.

And we know the risks of No deal if this strategy goes wrong.

The Prime Minister said last week that No deal is somehow a “good outcome”.

He is wrong. I hear from businesses all the time who are deeply worried about the danger of no deal.

I know what he thinks about their views on this because of his famous four letter rant.

But this is what they say.

Nissan says there could be no guarantees about its Sunderland plant if there were tariffs on UK to EU trade.

Ford have said no deal would be “disastrous”.

The NFU say it would be “catastrophic” for British farming.

The CDL said something similar.

We are in the biggest economic crisis for 300 years.

No deal is not some game, it is about the livelihoods of millions of people across our country.

And what about the prized trade deal with the United States.

I know the prime minister thinks he has a friend in president trump but even he must recognise he must be able to deal with both sides.

This is what the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi said:

“The UK must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU…If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress.”

We cannot support this Bill and we will oppose it tonight.

The government must go back, remove the sections breaking international law and ensure the bill works in a way that respects the devolution settlements.

That is what a responsible, competent and law-abiding government would do.

This is a pivotal moment in determining the future architecture of our country, who we are and how we operate.

In shaping that future we have to stand up for our traditions that matter.

Our commitment to the rule of law.

This Bill speaks of a government, a Prime Minister that is casual, not to say cavalier and reckless, about the gravity of the issues it confronts.

He should be focussing on securing a Brexit deal, not breaking international law and risking no-deal.

He is cavalier on international law.

This is not the serious leadership we need.

That is why we will oppose this Bill tonight.
 
Brexit: Dominic Raab seeks to reassure US politicians over Brexit bill

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab is in Washington where he is expected to try to reassure US politicians about the latest Brexit twist.

Some US politicians are concerned about the UK government's plan to override parts of the Brexit divorce deal.

Mr Raab will meet US Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who last week said there would be no UK-US trade deal if the Northern Ireland peace agreement was undermined.

No 10 has said the peace agreement will be upheld in all circumstances.

Mr Raab is due to meet leading politicians including his US counterpart, Mike Pompeo, as well as Democratic Congresswoman Ms Pelosi, who is speaker of the House of Representatives.

Threats over UK-US trade deal
Brexit is expected to be high on the agenda at the Washington meetings.

Earlier this week, a proposed law that would give the UK government the power to override part of the Brexit withdrawal deal - which Prime Minister Boris Johnson agreed with the EU last October - cleared its first hurdle.

It was passed by MPs in the House of Commons, but now needs to be passed by the House of Lords.

If the law comes into force, it would breach international law - a prospect that prompted an angry response from senior figures in the US last week.

Ms Pelosi said if the UK broke international law and Brexit undermined the Good Friday Agreement - the NI peace deal - there would be "absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress".

Then on Tuesday, four senior congressmen also issued a similar warning, saying a UK-US trade deal would be blocked if the UK failed to preserve the gains of the Good Friday Agreement.

In a letter to Mr Johnson, the four congressmen said the plans to change the part of the Brexit deal on Northern Ireland (known as the Northern Ireland Protocol) could have "disastrous consequences for the Good Friday Agreement and broader process to maintain peace on the island of Ireland".

"We therefore urge you to abandon any and all legally questionable and unfair efforts to flout the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement and look to ensure that Brexit negotiations do not undermine the decades of progress to bring peace to Northern Ireland," the letter added.

No 10 responded to the letter, saying it was taking these steps to make sure the Good Friday Agreement "is upheld in all circumstances and harmful defaults do not inadvertently come into play which could jeopardise the huge gains of the peace process".

"We are absolutely committed to no hard border and no border infrastructure between the Republic of Ireland and N Ireland. This is about a legal safety net and not having east-west checks suddenly imposed which run directly counter to Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement."

The No 10 spokesperson added: "We will continue to engage with our US partners on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our positions are understood and to ensure we agree a trade deal with widespread support in the US."

In his talks on Wednesday, Mr Raab is expected to argue that the government's plans are precautionary and proportionate - and a response to what ministers describe as threats from the EU to block food imports.

Mr Raab will also meet Mr Pompeo, amid continuing transatlantic tensions over Iran.

The US secretary of state recently accused the UK and its European allies of "siding with the Ayatollahs" for blocking further United Nations' sanctions on Iran.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571.
 
I'm shocked that you are shocked by the 32 Tory MPs who didn't oppose the new bill considering 17.4M opposed your view in the first place. Anyway, you are seeking Irish nationality, why do you care about NI?

The Remainer/Left need to do better than 'he is lying'. This trick is toast. No one believes the hollow cries of the left anymore.

@thread: The only people lying to themselves are the Remainers/Left. This snowflake cult spent nearly 4 years trying to convince the UK that the EU referendum result was illegal and fraudulent by blaming the Russians; now this same snowflake cult are trying to convince you that parliamentary democracy is illegal.

I love how liberals are scraping the barrel of the Tories; better the devil you know than don't.

:)

You really have to cut this 17.4m people nonsense.
Do you think Nigel Farage and the ERG would have accepted the vote had it gone the other way?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
 
The looney left have some front.
Still weeping at their loss. Its history - we are leaving the EU; and in the process highlighting the hypocrisy of the liberals losers.

Go Boris!
 
I'm quite touched by the liberal's support for Miliband - the guy who stabbed his brother in the back for Labour leadership.
 
Chances of Brexit deal fading every day, EU Commission chief says

BRUSSELS/LONDON (Reuters) - The head of the European Commission said on Wednesday the chances of reaching a trade deal with Britain were fading by the day as the British government pushes ahead with moves that would breach their divorce treaty.

The British government unveiled draft legislation last week which it acknowledges would violate its international legal obligations and undercut parts of the divorce deal it signed before Britain formally left the European Union in January.

Brussels wants Prime Minister Boris Johnson to scrap what is known as the Internal Market bill, saying it could sink talks on future trade arrangements before Britain leaves the EU’s single market. Britain has remained part of the single market during a status quo transition period that expires at the end of this year.

Johnson has refused.

“With every day that passes, the chances of a timely agreement do start to fade,” said Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, the EU executive.

In a speech to the European Parliament, she said the divorce agreement “cannot be unilaterally changed, disregarded or dis-applied”.

“This is a matter of law, trust and good faith ... Trust is the foundation of any strong partnership,” she said.

The British pound, which moves in line with perceptions of either a chaotic or orderly Brexit, held within striking distance of a two-month low on Wednesday.

The EU fears a disorderly Brexit if the terms of the trade relationship are not agreed, and former British prime ministers have said breaking the law is a step too far that undermines the country’s image.

Johnson said it was essential to counter “absurd” threats from Brussels including that London be required to put up trade barriers between Britain and its province of Northern Ireland and that the EU would impose a food blockade. Such steps, he said, would threaten the unity of the United Kingdom.

“WAY THROUGH”

The Internal Market Bill is being debated by the British parliament, where Johnson faces opposition from some members of his governing Conservative Party.

Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said the government sees a ‘way through’ the parliamentary maze, and Johnson has been talking to the party rebels.

Buckland said there had been talks with Bob Neill, a Conservative lawmaker who has proposed amending the bill to ensure that any attempt to use the clauses that breach the Brexit divorce agreement receive prior approval from parliament.

Britain’s Northern Ireland minister Brandon Lewis told parliament he stood by remarks he made last week that the bill would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”.

But Scotland’s top law adviser to the British government, Richard Keen, has offered his resignation to Johnson over his plan to break international law, the BBC reported on Wednesday.

EU diplomatic sources told Reuters that if the bill was passed in its current form, Brussels felt it could not deal with London.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ry-day-eu-commission-chief-says-idUSKBN2670Q7
 
UK government reaches deal with Conservative rebels: BBC

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government has reached a deal to avert a rebellion by members of his own party over powers within its proposed Internal Market Bill that break international law, the BBC reported on Wednesday.

The Internal Market Bill is aimed at ensuring Britain’s four constituent nations can trade freely with one another after leaving the EU, but the government says that requires overriding part of the withdrawal treaty it signed with Brussels.

Although the bill passed its first test in parliament on Monday, it has been heavily criticised by some within Johnson’s party and has threatened to provoke a rebellion.

A rebel plan to give lawmakers a veto on using the powers has been put forward by one Conservative member of parliament, Bob Neill.

“I understand a deal has been reached btw (between) Tories who wanted to vote for Bob (Neill)’s amendment to the controversial UKIM bill and the govt - it gives an extra layer of parliamentary oversight - ministers hope prevents rebellion next week,” BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg said on Twitter.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...al-with-conservative-rebels-bbc-idUSKBN2672HT
 
Brexit Trade Talks:

UK: We don't like our deal

EU: Why not?

UK: We only get 95% of what we want

EU: It only gives us 95% too. That's how negotiating goes

UK: We want a new deal that gives us everything we can think of

EU: But you signed a deal

UK: Don't care, we hate you

EU: Bit rude

UK: We elected people to go to your meetings specifically to say we hate you

EU: And how is Nigel?

UK: Not happy?

EU: Why not?

UK: TV has dried up. So we want a new deal, and we want the deal in 3 weeks, or we cancel our existing deal

EU: Wait, what?

UK: You heard. Give us 100% of what we want in 3 weeks, or we break the law and walk away with 0% of what we want

EU: Er suits us!

UK: Wait, what?

EU: Perfect. Do it. Walk away. Take Nigel with you.

UK: No, hold on, wait: you have to negotiate, so Boris can win

EU: Why? Right now you have 95% of perfect, and we have 95% of perfect. If we renegotiate, you get more but we get less

UK: That's right

EU: But if we don't negotiate, we still have our 95%

UK: Woah, hold on

EU: And you have nothing

UK: But Dom didn't superpredict you'd say that!

EU: And if we don't have a deal, we don't have to put up with you on our lawn

UK: The Daily Mail made us do it and then ran away!

EU: I just found this spine. Is it yours?

UK: Welp!

EU: So we'll just sit this one out

UK: Fine, we'll go and make a great deal with the US

---

US: Yo suckers

UK: We are here to get a lovely big trade deal

US: Sure thing. Obey existing deals, and give us 100% of everything, plus 51% controlling share in the NHS, and you get, let's see, 60% of what you have now

UK: Not good enough, we have a Special Relationship

US: Bye

UK: What?

US: Bye. Talks are over, the Special Relationship is over, your country is over. Bye

UK: But we haven't got a deal, and we told everyone it would be easy!

US: It is easy: we are 26% of world trade, making deals with EU (20%) and China (17%). We don't need your 1.8%. No deal: easy

UK: But we really need a deal, the EU outsmarted us

US: We know. Some of us can read. Not Trump, obviously, but the rest of us. Try India

---

UK: Hi India, remember us?

India: Oh no not these guys again

UK: We want a trade deal

India: And we want to vastly increase the number of Indians who can live in the UK

UK: We can't do that. Turns out we're, like, properly racist

India: That is brand new information!!

UK: So can we have a deal?

India: Sure, fine. Join the queue

UK: Who's in front of us in the queue?

India: EU, USA, China, Brazil, Korea, Canada, Australia basically everybody. We're kind of a big deal now.

UK: So you'll be ready to negotiate in, what: 3 weeks?

India: Ha ha ha ha ha

UK: What did we say?

India: 3 weeks? Try 3 years. This takes ages, bro

UK: But we had a timetable of 3 weeks with the EU

India: And how did that work out?

UK: Erm

India: Try Brazil

---

UK: Hi Brazil

Brazil: We ArE oN FiRe!!

UK: Maybe we can trade you some fire engines?

Brazil: We LiKe bEiNg oN FiRe, iT's OuR tHiNg NoW!!!

UK: Shall we try New Zealand?

Brazil: I aM So DrUnK!!

UK: Yeah, let's try New Zealand

---

UK: Hi, New Zealand

NZ: Hi, Crazy Uncle

UK: We'd like to sell you some lamb

NZ: Sorry, it's very noisy here, cos we still have a working economy. Did you say you want to sell us some lamb?

UK: Yes

NZ: Hold the line, gotta tell Australia this, they'll wet themselves

---

UK: Hi Australia, wanna trade stuff?

Aus: We wanna offload Rolf Harris and our worst ever PM. What can you give us for them?

UK: We've already got them

Aus: That was easy! So what can you trade?

UK: We can send you some racists

Aus: I think we're sorted. Try Russia

---

UK: Hi Russia, we have loads of lovely things we think you'd love to own

Russia: We already own them

UK: You don't own Boris

Russia: True. We rent him by the hour. £160k for a tennis match

UK: We really need a trade deal

Russia: We know. We made you need one. Try China

---

UK: Can we please have a trade deal?

China: And you are...?

UK: We're Great Britain

China: Great, you say?

UK: Well once

China: It's not ringing any bells. Do you have another name?

UK: United Kingdom

China: United, you say?

UK: Alright, smart alec

China: So you want a trade deal?

UK: Yes, but first we demand you obey international law

China: What happened to your deal with the EU?

UK: We broke international law

China: Have you been drinking moonshine with Brazil again?

UK: We're very tired.

China: Why did you leave the EU?

UK: We couldn't deal with foreigners telling us what to do

China: What do you want?

UK: A deal

China: With who?

UK: Foreigners

China: And why can't you get one?

UK: Cos we don't know what to do

China: Were you dropped as a child?

UK: We just want a trade deal worthy of our status

China: You've got one

UK: No we haven't

China: Yes you have

UK: Why won't anybody take us seriously?

China: Would you like to buy a mirror?

UK: Finally, a deal!

China: You had a deal worthy of your status, with the EU. You don't need to renegotiate deals: you need to reassess your status. You're not a mighty nation, you're a small, wet, heavily indebted island on the edge of a globally important trade bloc, which you just left.

UK: So, what do you suggest?

China: Aw, mate. You already know

---

EU: Hi there! Here to rejoin?

UK: Yes, and on the same terms as before

EU: Oh, I don't think so. Say goodbye to your rebate, hello to the Euro, and bonjour to the Schengen area. Wilcommen!

Credit : Anon
 
Brexit Trade Talks:

UK: We don't like our deal

EU: Why not?

UK: We only get 95% of what we want

EU: It only gives us 95% too. That's how negotiating goes

UK: We want a new deal that gives us everything we can think of

EU: But you signed a deal

UK: Don't care, we hate you

EU: Bit rude

UK: We elected people to go to your meetings specifically to say we hate you

EU: And how is Nigel?

UK: Not happy?

EU: Why not?

UK: TV has dried up. So we want a new deal, and we want the deal in 3 weeks, or we cancel our existing deal

EU: Wait, what?

UK: You heard. Give us 100% of what we want in 3 weeks, or we break the law and walk away with 0% of what we want

EU: Er suits us!

UK: Wait, what?

EU: Perfect. Do it. Walk away. Take Nigel with you.

UK: No, hold on, wait: you have to negotiate, so Boris can win

EU: Why? Right now you have 95% of perfect, and we have 95% of perfect. If we renegotiate, you get more but we get less

UK: That's right

EU: But if we don't negotiate, we still have our 95%

UK: Woah, hold on

EU: And you have nothing

UK: But Dom didn't superpredict you'd say that!

EU: And if we don't have a deal, we don't have to put up with you on our lawn

UK: The Daily Mail made us do it and then ran away!

EU: I just found this spine. Is it yours?

UK: Welp!

EU: So we'll just sit this one out

UK: Fine, we'll go and make a great deal with the US

---

US: Yo suckers

UK: We are here to get a lovely big trade deal

US: Sure thing. Obey existing deals, and give us 100% of everything, plus 51% controlling share in the NHS, and you get, let's see, 60% of what you have now

UK: Not good enough, we have a Special Relationship

US: Bye

UK: What?

US: Bye. Talks are over, the Special Relationship is over, your country is over. Bye

UK: But we haven't got a deal, and we told everyone it would be easy!

US: It is easy: we are 26% of world trade, making deals with EU (20%) and China (17%). We don't need your 1.8%. No deal: easy

UK: But we really need a deal, the EU outsmarted us

US: We know. Some of us can read. Not Trump, obviously, but the rest of us. Try India

---

UK: Hi India, remember us?

India: Oh no not these guys again

UK: We want a trade deal

India: And we want to vastly increase the number of Indians who can live in the UK

UK: We can't do that. Turns out we're, like, properly racist

India: That is brand new information!!

UK: So can we have a deal?

India: Sure, fine. Join the queue

UK: Who's in front of us in the queue?

India: EU, USA, China, Brazil, Korea, Canada, Australia basically everybody. We're kind of a big deal now.

UK: So you'll be ready to negotiate in, what: 3 weeks?

India: Ha ha ha ha ha

UK: What did we say?

India: 3 weeks? Try 3 years. This takes ages, bro

UK: But we had a timetable of 3 weeks with the EU

India: And how did that work out?

UK: Erm

India: Try Brazil

---

UK: Hi Brazil

Brazil: We ArE oN FiRe!!

UK: Maybe we can trade you some fire engines?

Brazil: We LiKe bEiNg oN FiRe, iT's OuR tHiNg NoW!!!

UK: Shall we try New Zealand?

Brazil: I aM So DrUnK!!

UK: Yeah, let's try New Zealand

---

UK: Hi, New Zealand

NZ: Hi, Crazy Uncle

UK: We'd like to sell you some lamb

NZ: Sorry, it's very noisy here, cos we still have a working economy. Did you say you want to sell us some lamb?

UK: Yes

NZ: Hold the line, gotta tell Australia this, they'll wet themselves

---

UK: Hi Australia, wanna trade stuff?

Aus: We wanna offload Rolf Harris and our worst ever PM. What can you give us for them?

UK: We've already got them

Aus: That was easy! So what can you trade?

UK: We can send you some racists

Aus: I think we're sorted. Try Russia

---

UK: Hi Russia, we have loads of lovely things we think you'd love to own

Russia: We already own them

UK: You don't own Boris

Russia: True. We rent him by the hour. £160k for a tennis match

UK: We really need a trade deal

Russia: We know. We made you need one. Try China

---

UK: Can we please have a trade deal?

China: And you are...?

UK: We're Great Britain

China: Great, you say?

UK: Well once

China: It's not ringing any bells. Do you have another name?

UK: United Kingdom

China: United, you say?

UK: Alright, smart alec

China: So you want a trade deal?

UK: Yes, but first we demand you obey international law

China: What happened to your deal with the EU?

UK: We broke international law

China: Have you been drinking moonshine with Brazil again?

UK: We're very tired.

China: Why did you leave the EU?

UK: We couldn't deal with foreigners telling us what to do

China: What do you want?

UK: A deal

China: With who?

UK: Foreigners

China: And why can't you get one?

UK: Cos we don't know what to do

China: Were you dropped as a child?

UK: We just want a trade deal worthy of our status

China: You've got one

UK: No we haven't

China: Yes you have

UK: Why won't anybody take us seriously?

China: Would you like to buy a mirror?

UK: Finally, a deal!

China: You had a deal worthy of your status, with the EU. You don't need to renegotiate deals: you need to reassess your status. You're not a mighty nation, you're a small, wet, heavily indebted island on the edge of a globally important trade bloc, which you just left.

UK: So, what do you suggest?

China: Aw, mate. You already know

---

EU: Hi there! Here to rejoin?

UK: Yes, and on the same terms as before

EU: Oh, I don't think so. Say goodbye to your rebate, hello to the Euro, and bonjour to the Schengen area. Wilcommen!

Credit : Anon

Brilliant!

Not sure whether I should laugh or cry
 
Liberals : We believe in democracy and free thinking!

Free thinkers : We voted out!

Liberals : Not a democratic decision because we do not agree with the result. Racist! Russian sycophant! Liar!

Free thinkers : Lefty looney loser snowflake.

Liberals : Stop calling me names.

Free thinkers : Practice what you preach.

It's a crying shame to see [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] support Tories and Labour. Liberals were never loyal, and would side with the devil they don't know for an intellectually bankrupt ideology.

Roll on the right.
 
Downing Street has suggested US presidential candidate Joe Biden doesn't understand its proposed Brexit legislation after the White House hopeful weighed into the controversy.

On Wednesday night, Mr Biden issued a warning that a post-Brexit US-UK trade deal "must be contingent upon respect" for the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, and the avoidance of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Recommended by

The Democratic presidential candidate, who is hoping to beat Donald Trump in November's presidential election, wrote on Twitter: "We can't allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit."

Mr Biden, a former US vice president, posted his tweet in response to a letter from four US congressmen warning of their "grave concern" over the UK government's plans to override provisions for Northern Ireland in the UK's withdrawal agreement with the EU.

The government has admitted its UK Internal Market Bill, if passed, would break international law - but stressed it is "critical" to ensuring the unfettered access for goods from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, and to protect the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Biden's stance contrasted with Donald Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said he had "great confidence" that the UK government "will get this right in a way that treats everyone fairly".

Asked to respond to Mr Biden's comments on Thursday, a Number 10 spokesman said: "We continue to remain absolutely committed to no hard border and no border infrastructure between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

"And we will continue to engage with our US partners on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our positions are understood."

Asked if Mr Biden was wrong, the spokesman responded: "We will continue to work with our US partners to ensure our position is understood, but the whole point of this - as the prime minister has set out - is to make sure the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is upheld."

Downing Street's comments came after former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith warned Mr Biden to "worry more" about "killing and rioting" in the US than the government's Brexit legislation.

He told The Times: "We don't need lectures on the Northern Ireland peace deal from Mr Biden.

"If I were him I would worry more about the need for a peace deal in the USA to stop the killing and rioting before lecturing other sovereign nations."

The government's UK Internal Market Bill has prompted a storm of criticism both at Westminster and in Brussels.

On Thursday, the EU stuck by its demand for the UK government to withdraw part of the proposed legislation by the end of this month.

Eric Mamer, chief spokesperson of the European Commission, told reporters: "We have as you know set out a position extremely clearly, it is in our statement, and it relates to those clauses being withdrawn from the law.

"That position has not changed and we have asked the UK to do this at the earliest possible convenience and by the end of September at the latest. That has not changed."

Mr Mamer had been asked whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson's compromise with Tory rebels - which would give MPs a vote before using powers that would break international law - had altered the EU's stance.

https://news.sky.com/story/downing-...esnt-understand-its-brexit-proposals-12074116
 
Downing Street has suggested US presidential candidate Joe Biden doesn't understand its proposed Brexit legislation after the White House hopeful weighed into the controversy.

On Wednesday night, Mr Biden issued a warning that a post-Brexit US-UK trade deal "must be contingent upon respect" for the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, and the avoidance of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Recommended by

The Democratic presidential candidate, who is hoping to beat Donald Trump in November's presidential election, wrote on Twitter: "We can't allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit."

Mr Biden, a former US vice president, posted his tweet in response to a letter from four US congressmen warning of their "grave concern" over the UK government's plans to override provisions for Northern Ireland in the UK's withdrawal agreement with the EU.

The government has admitted its UK Internal Market Bill, if passed, would break international law - but stressed it is "critical" to ensuring the unfettered access for goods from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, and to protect the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Biden's stance contrasted with Donald Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said he had "great confidence" that the UK government "will get this right in a way that treats everyone fairly".

Asked to respond to Mr Biden's comments on Thursday, a Number 10 spokesman said: "We continue to remain absolutely committed to no hard border and no border infrastructure between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

"And we will continue to engage with our US partners on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our positions are understood."

Asked if Mr Biden was wrong, the spokesman responded: "We will continue to work with our US partners to ensure our position is understood, but the whole point of this - as the prime minister has set out - is to make sure the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is upheld."

Downing Street's comments came after former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith warned Mr Biden to "worry more" about "killing and rioting" in the US than the government's Brexit legislation.

He told The Times: "We don't need lectures on the Northern Ireland peace deal from Mr Biden.

"If I were him I would worry more about the need for a peace deal in the USA to stop the killing and rioting before lecturing other sovereign nations."

The government's UK Internal Market Bill has prompted a storm of criticism both at Westminster and in Brussels.

On Thursday, the EU stuck by its demand for the UK government to withdraw part of the proposed legislation by the end of this month.

Eric Mamer, chief spokesperson of the European Commission, told reporters: "We have as you know set out a position extremely clearly, it is in our statement, and it relates to those clauses being withdrawn from the law.

"That position has not changed and we have asked the UK to do this at the earliest possible convenience and by the end of September at the latest. That has not changed."

Mr Mamer had been asked whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson's compromise with Tory rebels - which would give MPs a vote before using powers that would break international law - had altered the EU's stance.

https://news.sky.com/story/downing-...esnt-understand-its-brexit-proposals-12074116

Ah, yeah, you really do.
 
Exclusive: Biden or Trump, no guarantee of a post-Brexit US-UK trade deal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden’s recent warning that Britain must honor Northern Ireland’s 1998 peace agreement to secure a U.S. trade deal adds new complexity to already tough trade talks between the United States and the U.K.

“We can’t allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit,” Biden wrote on Twitter on Wednesday, referring to the deal that ended three decades of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and created a shared regional government.

Biden was echoing Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s warning last week that any move by Britain to erect physical customs borders between British-ruled Northern Ireland and EU-member Ireland meant “no chance” for a U.S.-UK trade deal.

His warning comes as U.S. negotiators in the Trump administration wrap up a fourth round of trade talks with their British counterparts in Washington this week. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday the talks could “reach a successful conclusion before too long.”

No matter how they end, U.S. law gives Congress authority over trade policy. President Donald Trump has sometimes sidestepped that authority on trade issues, but U.S. and UK officials have said they are aiming for a comprehensive agreement that would need Congress’s approval.

The U.S. election in November is expected to leave the House in Democratic hands, giving extra weight to Pelosi’s words.

Both the U.S. and U.K. have other hurdles to clear as well, trade experts say.

“Removing the Good Friday agreement is a non-starter, but there are five or six other potentially really difficult issues that the two countries are still far apart on,” said Harry Broadman, managing director with the Berkeley Research Group and a former senior U.S. trade official, including agriculture, the British health system and Britain’s proposed digital services tax.

Read more:

[/B]NON-NEGOTIABLE
Asked about the Trump administration’s view Thursday, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s office pointed to his June testimony to Congress, where he said there is no chance Congress would pass a trade deal if Britain put up borders in Ireland, violating the Good Friday agreement.

“I’ve made that quite clear. The chairman [of the committee] has made it quite clear to me. The president agrees this is not something on which we’re going to have a negotiation,” he said.

The Good Friday agreement is in jeopardy, some diplomats say, because of new legislation proposed by British prime minister Boris Johnson.

British trade officials have repeatedly said they are seeking a comprehensive trade deal and are not seeking to rush into an agreement before the U.S. election, nor waiting to see who wins at the polls in November.

U.S. and British trade negotiators were expected to discuss one of the thorniest issues between the two countries in the current round of trade talks - increased access for agricultural products.

British trade minister Liz Truss has pledged to drive a “hard bargain” with the United States, vowing that Britain would not diminish its food safety standards to import American products such as chlorine-treated poultry and genetically modified crops.

Britain wants access for lamb and beef exports to the United States.

Autos are the largest source of trade between the two economies, and another point of friction. Britain maintains a 10% tariff on any U.S. imports, four times the U.S. tariff on British cars. An outstanding threat by Trump to impose 25% tariffs on imported vehicles makes negotiating down the U.K. rate unlikely, trade experts say.

Pompeo, speaking Wednesday at a news conference with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, said he trusted Britain to find a solution.

“We know the complexity of the situation,” Pompeo said. “In the end, this will be a set of decisions with respect to this that the United Kingdom makes and (I) have great confidence that they will get this right in a way that treats everyone fairly and gets a good outcome.”

Raab told CNN on Thursday that the 1998 agreement is “not in jeopardy.”

“There is not going to be any hard border, certainly not applied by the UK,” Raab said, adding that if the EU made a similar commitment, “it would also help the negotiations.”

Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a non-resident senior fellow Peterson Institute for International Economics, said Biden’s warning suggests that perhaps he is just not that interested in a deal.

“The phrasing of not wanting northern Irish peace to be a victim of Brexit, that’s a really forceful intervention by a potential future American president - basically disavowing the signature project that defines the current British government. It’s difficult to imagine that wording is not reflective of Biden’s overall interest in pursuing this deal.”

Trump has developed close ties to Johnson, but Biden’s warning suggests he may not do the same, he said.

“This signals to me that the ‘special relationship’ between a Biden administration and Boris Johnson’s government, especially in a no-deal Brexit, is not going to be very special.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...a-post-brexit-u-s-uk-trade-deal-idUSKBN2691N3
 
No deal Brexit not appealing, but not excluded - EU's Dombrovskis

BERLIN (Reuters) - The European Union and Britain need to accelerate talks on a future trade deal since it was impossible to rule out there being insufficient progress in the talks, leading to a no-deal outcome, European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said on Monday.

“There are many outstanding issues. Progress on a number of key EU asks so far is not sufficient. So we would need to intensify negotiations substantially if we are to reach a successful outcome,” Dombrovskis told a news conference after a meeting of trade ministers in Berlin.

“The alternative of a no-deal Brexit is not appealing, but we cannot exclude it.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ut-not-excluded-eus-dombrovskis-idUSKCN26C25U
 
Thousands of Britons living in EU told their UK bank accounts will be closed

Thousands of Britons living in the EU will have their UK bank accounts closed by the end of the year because of the UK’s failure to agree a post-Brexit trade deal.

Lloyds, Barclays and Coutts have informed retail and business customers that they will lose their accounts before or when the Brexit transition period ends on 31 December and more banks are expected to follow suit.

Lloyds Banking Group, which includes Halifax and Bank of Scotland, has contacted its 13,000 customers in the Netherlands, Slovakia, Germany, Ireland and Portugal, warning them they must make alternative arrangements as the bank is no longer allowed to offer services.

A spokesperson said: “We have written to a small number of customers living in affected EU countries to let them know that due to the UK’s exit from the EU, regrettably we will no longer be able to provide them with some UK-based banking services.

“We want to keep customers informed and offer advice on next steps.”

Financial services in the UK can currently trade across the European Economic Area (EEA) because member countries are bound by the same regulatory framework.

The arrangement, known as “passporting”, expires at the end of the year and, while the UK has legislated so that EU banks can continue to provide services for customers in Britain, the EU has not done the same.

Unless a trade deal is agreed with the EU, UK financial institutions will have to abide by often arcane rules which vary from country to country and depend on what services are being offered by what kind of bank.

Last week, the Dutch National Bank confirmed that UK banks will no longer be able to provide current or savings accounts to retail customers in the Netherlands.

Customers who bank with firms that own EU-based subsidiaries are having their accounts transferred, but banks that do not have an EU arm would have to apply for a licence to trade in each EEA country. Some banks have too small a customer base in the EU to justify the cost.

One Lloyds customer said she feared she would be cut off from her UK pension payments after the bank had informed her she would not be able to use her current and savings accounts after 2 November. Her balance will be returned to her as a cheque and all payments after that date will be returned to sender.

“I don’t know what will happen about tax rebates from HMRC or council tax and bills on the property we own in the UK,” she said.

‘“I don’t know if it’s possible to arrange direct debits and standing orders to UK institutions from a Dutch bank and there will be a lot of expense incurred if payments that skip through the net are returned to sender or if I have to convert euros to sterling whenever we are in the UK.”

Barclays has also notified customers across the EEA that their accounts will be closed.

One who lives in Germany was told she would no longer be able to use her Barclaycard, which she depends on for transactions within the UK.

The customer, who did not want to be named, said: “I’ve had the card for 40 years and pay it off each month from my pensions, which are paid into my UK account, so I’m not sure I’d qualify for a German credit card,” she said.

She said she owned a property in the UK and paid taxes in the country and that she wanted “to maintain my financial arrangements there in case I ever need to live there again”.

A Barclays spokesperson said: “In light of the UK leaving the EU at the end of 2020 we continue to review the services we offer to customers within the EEA, and any impacted customers will be contacted directly.”

Other banks have yet to decide on future arrangements. Santander and NatWest said they were keeping the situation under review and currently had no plans to withdraw retail or corporate accounts.

HSBC, which has a large number of customers in France, Germany and Switzerland, said that as an international bank it could continue to serve UK customers across the EU, but would keep them informed of any changes that might affect services.

UK financial services are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority which said it expected banks to engage with national regulators to assess the impact of local laws on customers and to inform customers of any changes in a timely manner.

According to the financial trade body UK Finance, banks are having to unpick the legislation of 30 different countries to work out if they can continue serving customers.

“Where possible, firms want to keep providing banking services to customers living in the EEA after the transition period,” said a spokesperson.

“The impact on each customer will vary depending on the operating model of their bank or provider, the product or service being provided, and the legal and regulatory framework in the country in which they are resident.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...k-bank-accounts-closed-lloyds-barclays-brexit
 
Keir Starmer said this today:

When you lose an election in a democracy, you deserve to". You don’t look at the electorate and ask them: “what were you thinking?” You look at yourself and ask: “what were we doing?”

Perhaps EUphiles should take note. Instead of blaming Russians/voters who didn’t know what they were doing/dark money/the media etc they should take a good look at themselves - they lost the referendum, in part, because they ran such a dire campaign and even now they refuse to admit it.

What do you think [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]. :)
 
Keir Starmer said this today:



Perhaps EUphiles should take note. Instead of blaming Russians/voters who didn’t know what they were doing/dark money/the media etc they should take a good look at themselves - they lost the referendum, in part, because they ran such a dire campaign and even now they refuse to admit it.

What do you think [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]. :)

Sir Keir is quite right.

Cameron’s strategy was all wrong. Instead of banging the drum for the EU he tried to scare people. He underestimated how deeply the individualistic Britons hate to be controlled.

Then Corbyn gave that distinctly underwhelming recommendation, damning the EU with faint praise and refusing to support Brown’s plan to get all living Labour Leaders on the stand together.

The Leavers told a positive story instead. A fiction for sure, but it worked. People buy into ideas they are attracted to, not from fear of bad outcomes.
 
Hello? No mention of Nick Clegg and the liberal campaign for Remain? How did that go after Clegg made a U-turn on tuition fees?

Liberals could no longer be trusted and their entire Remain campaign was based on lies. One shot at governing and the liberals blew it.

Remember, not a single prediction of Remainers has come true since the country voted to Leave.

Liberals are the new face of facisim.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=491]IMMY69[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]@Technics1210[/MENTION]

With the update to the furlough scheme announced, do you guys still stand by your comments RE house prices?

Pretty extensive coverage with the government paying two thirds of salary and also allowing it to run for 6 months.

With the the above factored;
1) Is now still a good to be selling and for how long?
2) For first time buyers, how long should they wait?
3) For people already owning homes, is it a good time to remortgage and move?
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=491]IMMY69[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]@Technics1210[/MENTION]

With the update to the furlough scheme announced, do you guys still stand by your comments RE house prices?

Pretty extensive coverage with the government paying two thirds of salary and also allowing it to run for 6 months.

With the the above factored;
1) Is now still a good to be selling and for how long?
2) For first time buyers, how long should they wait?
3) For people already owning homes, is it a good time to remortgage and move?

My view is that the housing market in the UK is waiting to burst, and it's long over due.

Affordability on the whole has been decimated. Now if we let the natural forces of a free market take its course, then after 2009 the UK housing market should've crashed, it didn't, it was propped up by QE. This extended a long over due crash.

10 years on, wages are still below inflation, rates near zero (heading to negative soon), the yield on Gilts past historical lows, manufacturing in the dumps etc. You get the picture - how to prop up a property market when there's little money in the system? Create more.

Now if a government announced more QE, for no reason, it would destroy the GBP. If there is no cash in the system, the housing market will collpase and with it take a few banks with it.

So, next bet? Create a situation that is a pretext to unlimited creation of money so as to funnel cash into the system so people can pay their debts, ala mortgages.

The pretext? Covid 19. An orchestrated event that allows the government to create limitless money, at near interest rates, for the primary purporses of paying off a mortgage - to save the banks from default.

My advise. Save. Save. Save. The black swan moment is upon us. Rent if you have to, and save.

Would I want a noose around my neck for 25 years? No. I rather die standing then live on my knees.
 
My view is that the housing market in the UK is waiting to burst, and it's long over due.

Affordability on the whole has been decimated. Now if we let the natural forces of a free market take its course, then after 2009 the UK housing market should've crashed, it didn't, it was propped up by QE. This extended a long over due crash.

10 years on, wages are still below inflation, rates near zero (heading to negative soon), the yield on Gilts past historical lows, manufacturing in the dumps etc. You get the picture - how to prop up a property market when there's little money in the system? Create more.

Now if a government announced more QE, for no reason, it would destroy the GBP. If there is no cash in the system, the housing market will collpase and with it take a few banks with it.

So, next bet? Create a situation that is a pretext to unlimited creation of money so as to funnel cash into the system so people can pay their debts, ala mortgages.

The pretext? Covid 19. An orchestrated event that allows the government to create limitless money, at near interest rates, for the primary purporses of paying off a mortgage - to save the banks from default.

My advise. Save. Save. Save. The black swan moment is upon us. Rent if you have to, and save.

Would I want a noose around my neck for 25 years? No. I rather die standing then live on my knees.

If they are continuously printing then surely this is going to reduce the value of your savings yet you are saying to save save save? Also to what extent would the would the value reduce?
 
[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] @thegreatkhan [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]

What are your thoughts RE posts 185-187
 
If they are continuously printing then surely this is going to reduce the value of your savings yet you are saying to save save save? Also to what extent would the would the value reduce?

Exacly. Its a downward spiral.

Look at Japan. This is what UK is heading too.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=491]IMMY69[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]@Technics1210[/MENTION]

With the update to the furlough scheme announced, do you guys still stand by your comments RE house prices?

Pretty extensive coverage with the government paying two thirds of salary and also allowing it to run for 6 months.

With the the above factored;
1) Is now still a good to be selling and for how long?
2) For first time buyers, how long should they wait?
3) For people already owning homes, is it a good time to remortgage and move?

Properties in london Up to 500k are selling like hot cakes and overall prices have done 2-3pct over the last twelve months.

Mortgage approvals are also up and the brokers I’ve spoke to have experienced record enquiries...

If you’re a first time buyer with a mortgage offer in place you’re in a good position to negotiate as you have no chain.

You can wait until April 2021 for a potential crash but in a crash you won’t easily get a mortgage and although prices might drop 20pft you’ll find harder to get into the ladder.

If you can buy now then do so. You may encounter some pain but uhh the long run you’ll do well out of it and hopefully it won’t crash to the extent that your deposit is depleted.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=491]IMMY69[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]@Technics1210[/MENTION]

With the update to the furlough scheme announced, do you guys still stand by your comments RE house prices?

Pretty extensive coverage with the government paying two thirds of salary and also allowing it to run for 6 months.

With the the above factored;
1) Is now still a good to be selling and for how long?
2) For first time buyers, how long should they wait?
3) For people already owning homes, is it a good time to remortgage and move?

House prices fell at the start of the lockdown in March but rose again in August, so if you bought and sold, you made a good 10% if you were smart.

Now is a good time to sell if you can make the sale quickly, next month or two. Reason is less people will afford their mortgage in the next 6 months due to job losses etc. More houses on market means lower prices esp in auction.

I would rent for now as a first time buyer and wait 6-8 months but you may have to pay a larger deposit than before if you go the mortgage route.

I dont think it's ever a good time to remorgate, more interest to pay but perhaps you can do this at the end of winter.

Overall, I'd wait. Less people with money means less investments in property, meaning lower prices.

I dont think the bubble will burst until the worlds top currencies such as $,£ and Euro lose a lot of value, which will happen in the next decade.

Gold they say has gone down since the $ strengthed recently but Gold is always a good investment for the long run, while paper money is nothing but a fraud.
 
Exacly. Its a downward spiral.

Look at Japan. This is what UK is heading too.

We may experience deflation like Japan but Tokyo still remains one of the most expensive cities to live in.

London will always attract investment and especially from abroad due to sterling depreciation and favourable property laws...

London property market recovered from 18pct interest and mass unemployment and I would put money on it recovering again and surpassing today’s market in the medium future.
 
House prices fell at the start of the lockdown in March but rose again in August, so if you bought and sold, you made a good 10% if you were smart.

Now is a good time to sell if you can make the sale quickly, next month or two. Reason is less people will afford their mortgage in the next 6 months due to job losses etc. More houses on market means lower prices esp in auction.

I would rent for now as a first time buyer and wait 6-8 months but you may have to pay a larger deposit than before if you go the mortgage route.

I dont think it's ever a good time to remorgate, more interest to pay but perhaps you can do this at the end of winter.

Overall, I'd wait. Less people with money means less investments in property, meaning lower prices.

I dont think the bubble will burst until the worlds top currencies such as $,£ and Euro lose a lot of value, which will happen in the next decade.

Gold they say has gone down since the $ strengthed recently but Gold is always a good investment for the long run, while paper money is nothing but a fraud.

I have a friend who refused to buy a two bedroom flat in london for £78k in 1998 as he thought prices were too high and expected the market to crash.

He said same thing in 2003 when the price of the same type of property was £210k and then when he was renting his three bedroom semi for £2000pcm he refused to buy it because £700k was to expensive. That same house is now £1.1m and he must have handed over around £650k to various landlords during this time.
 
We may experience deflation like Japan but Tokyo still remains one of the most expensive cities to live in.

London will always attract investment and especially from abroad due to sterling depreciation and favourable property laws...

London property market recovered from 18pct interest and mass unemployment and I would put money on it recovering again and surpassing today’s market in the medium future.

Recovered from 18% rates, yes, but a different world back then, no globalisation, still a manufacturing base etc, but think of the damage the crash of 92 caused. 2 million homes repossessed.

Do you remember the changes to the system subsequent the GBP exiting the ERM? No you don't.

In 97 when Labour came into power the first thing the government did was hand over the control of interest rates to the BoE. (From Lamont, Chancellor of the exchequer).

The situation is different now. Firstly mortgages are far more common thanks to your EU buddies driving demand since 1999. This is what drove the housing market up in the UK, influx of EU citizens, not some pixie dust miracle economy.

Tokyo is one the most expensive cities due to hyper-inflation. Take a look at the Yen. You make the mistake of equating price with value.

This time it's different. Banks are leveraged to the hilt, people are drowning in debt, and UK has nonexistent domestic manufacturing, relies on foreign money.

Forget 18%, people are struggling with near zero% today.

But keep believing leveraged debt (mortgage) in this day and age is a wise investment. Go for it.

By the way, if you pay a mortgage, it's a liability, and you do not own your property, the bank does. Until you pay off the debt.
 
I have a friend who refused to buy a two bedroom flat in london for £78k in 1998 as he thought prices were too high and expected the market to crash.

He said same thing in 2003 when the price of the same type of property was £210k and then when he was renting his three bedroom semi for £2000pcm he refused to buy it because £700k was to expensive. That same house is now £1.1m and he must have handed over around £650k to various landlords during this time.

Wow, so in 22 odd years the price increased by 12x approx. As population grows even with brexit we dont have enough housing, so prices will remain consistent over a decade. Problem is the world economy is about to be crushed in the next few years, possibly meaning only a few will afford to buy houses.

I think I will wait until next spring, i think prices will reduce by 3-5%.
 
I have a friend who refused to buy a two bedroom flat in london for £78k in 1998 as he thought prices were too high and expected the market to crash.

He said same thing in 2003 when the price of the same type of property was £210k and then when he was renting his three bedroom semi for £2000pcm he refused to buy it because £700k was to expensive. That same house is now £1.1m and he must have handed over around £650k to various landlords during this time.

If your friend invested the same amount in Gold during the same period he'd not only have earned more in his investment, but he'd own a zero asset liability.

Gold has out performed the majority of property markets around the world.

Just saying, you have been fed into this ** that debt is wealth and the only way to make money. The funny part is when you release equity, you have to pay interest on it. Mug's game.

Forgot, don't like Gold, the tech market blows property out the water. The difference is you have to grovel to the bank for a mortgage, but you can only buy a property with the loan. Take the same loan and invest in commodities and equities, and your example doesn't even hold a candle to return on investment.
 
Wow, so in 22 odd years the price increased by 12x approx. As population grows even with brexit we dont have enough housing, so prices will remain consistent over a decade. Problem is the world economy is about to be crushed in the next few years, possibly meaning only a few will afford to buy houses.

I think I will wait until next spring, i think prices will reduce by 3-5%.

Properties in central London, NY, LA etc have all dropped by double digit figures.
 
Oh for those of who have not twigged it. If freedom of movement between UK/EU did not exist, then there'd be no demand in the economy.

Influx of immigrants droves prices higher, just like it did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s - crash - no new immigrants, open european borders.

Don't be fooled. Freedom of movement has nothing to do with humanity and liberalism but has everything to do with driving up demand in an economy that has been struggling since the 90s.

This is why once UK leaves the EU, demand will drop, prices will drop, and youse lot will be wondering how to drive up demand.
 
Properties in central London, NY, LA etc have all dropped by double digit figures.

I think this was due to the big city marker over reacting for years. Didnt help with oligarchs and foriegn billionaires having a bidding war on desired properties. I think many are taking their money out of these cities for a number of reasons but one major reason being their assets can be siezed at any time with new laws in place targetting for political reasons. Nawaz Sharif has those apts in mayfair, they will be siezed sooner or later imo. Great way for the UK government to generate some funds by doing this and I wish them well.
 
I think this was due to the big city marker over reacting for years. Didnt help with oligarchs and foriegn billionaires having a bidding war on desired properties. I think many are taking their money out of these cities for a number of reasons but one major reason being their assets can be siezed at any time with new laws in place targetting for political reasons. Nawaz Sharif has those apts in mayfair, they will be siezed sooner or later imo. Great way for the UK government to generate some funds by doing this and I wish them well.

If you check HMRC land registry stats/record you will find that the majority of buyers are foriegn. UK has very lax laws when it come to a foreign buyer, because we're broke and are appealing for investment.

It's a myth we have a solid economy, we do not. We rely heavily on foreign money, which is why when the GBP becomes weaker, foreigners will cash in. Which is precisly what is happening now.
 
Of course how could I forget. You can either believe the looney left and their take on the economy, or you can ask yourself why interest rates have been near zero since 2009. Why doesn't the government raise rates? That's right, the nation is drowning in debt.

Makes perfect sense. The nation is drowning in debt, sign up to more. Right.

Oh, when someone says your property has gone up by 2%. Make sure you subtract your mortgage repayments, maintanence, and any other fees for the same period before you calculate your net paper gain for the year.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=491]IMMY69[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]@Technics1210[/MENTION]

With the update to the furlough scheme announced, do you guys still stand by your comments RE house prices?

Pretty extensive coverage with the government paying two thirds of salary and also allowing it to run for 6 months.

With the the above factored;
1) Is now still a good to be selling and for how long?
2) For first time buyers, how long should they wait?
3) For people already owning homes, is it a good time to remortgage and move?

From the POV of first timers, I don't think it is a bad idea to go for it providing you have the deposit / a secure earnings path in mind; in the worst situation, put it on rent. In certain regions there has been a massive wave of folk trying to rent with the impending doom in mind but even beyond that, there will always be demand in that regard even in towns which are heavily reliant on specific industries. One thing about property is that even in a crash, their value does recover in the long run so you could do a lot worse when it comes to investment. Also it's nice to have your own home and the freedom which comes from that, plus it's possible your monthly payment would be lower then your rent money to which if you think about it is being wasted.
 
[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] @thegreatkhan [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]

What are your thoughts RE posts 185-187

i dont really care abt short term fluctuations, buy something affordable and hold on to it. the treasury is taking on massive debt, they will be loathed to repay it through tax increases (beyond marginal headline grabbing increases), inflating it away is the only thing they can do.

green belt land is a massive supply constraint, regardless of all the rhetoric from the gov abt house building the fact is the vast majority of this countries private capital in someway is tied to house prices, any gov that would oversee a slump in the housing market would guarantee itself a loss at the next election.

also whilst house price inflate, rental yields have come down, interest rates are rock bottom, as you have rich people looking for assets to park wealth in. theres massive demand for any kind of returns, and a good btl can give u access to leverage, so even if a property seems expensive, its not (all things considered) if u have access to credit.

theres loads of internal and external factors that prop up the uk housing market. a correction will come but when it does maybe 10% to 15%, however ten years from now id be very surprised in house prices havn't increased significantly from today.

time horizon is most important tho, if your time horizon was 10 year +, you could have literally bought at any time in the last 60 years and made a good return. also the stamp duty holiday is massive, esp if u have another property.
 
Shoppers could pay more after no-deal Brexit

Shoppers will feel the impact of a no-deal Brexit at supermarket tills, the British Retail Consortium has warned.

The BRC said tariffs would add £3.1bn a year to the cost of importing food and drink unless the UK and EU can strike a free trade agreement.

"If there is no deal before Christmas, the increase in tariffs will leave retailers with nowhere to go other than to raise the price of food," it said.

The government said it was "working hard" to reach a deal.

Andrew Opie, director of food at the BRC, said coronavirus was "already making life hard for consumers", particularly those on lower incomes.

"A no-deal Brexit will have a massive impact on their ability to afford essential goods," he added.

The EU is the UK's largest trading partner and the source of 80% of its food, the BRC said.

But if the UK is unable to reach a deal with the bloc, the average tariff on food it imports would be over 20%, the trade body warned.

Those tariffs include a 48% levy on beef mince, 16% on cucumbers and 57% on cheddar cheese.

Under a new tariff schedule, set to come into effect in January, 85% of food imports from the EU will be subject to a tariff of more than 5%, the BRC said.

The longstanding post-Brexit promise is of free trade deals that will decrease taxes on imports - called tariffs - and lower prices for consumers.

But should no trade deal be reached with the EU, from January, one of the most noticeable impacts will be the new UK Global Tariff applying to imports of food and drink from the EU.

Understandably, supermarkets have worked out the cost of applying these new tariffs in this British Retail Consortium exercise on their own supply chain data - the total is £3.1bn next year, versus zero this year. That is worth about £112 per household.

As an illustration, if the entire cost of the tariff were passed on to consumers a £3 pack of Irish beef mince could cost £4.08 and Spanish cucumbers could cost 47p instead of 43p.

In practice, some - but not all - these cost increases would be passed on, and some lower tariffs on imports from other places could offset those rises.

But concerns about tariffs on EU food and drink imports are one of the issues troubling retailers.

The BRC also said increases in "physical checks, paperwork, and other non-tariff barriers" will further push up the cost for retailers.

"With coronavirus affecting the livelihoods of millions of people in the UK, many households can ill afford higher prices for their weekly food shop," it said.

It claimed that the UK grocery sector is "one of the most competitive in the world", operating on tight margins.

As a result, it said, any additional costs would be passed on to customers.

"UK consumers have benefitted from great value, quality, and choice of food thanks to our ability to trade tariff free with the EU," Mr Opie said.

"There is now the risk of a £3bn tax bill for the food we cannot source here in the UK."

A government spokeswoman said: "Negotiations are ongoing and discussions will be continuing at the next formal round in Brussels next week."

"The UK is a significant importer of food and other goods, and avoiding tariffs should be beneficial to both sides, particularly given our shared commitment to high regulatory standards.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54287283.
 
If your friend invested the same amount in Gold during the same period he'd not only have earned more in his investment, but he'd own a zero asset liability.

Gold has out performed the majority of property markets around the world.

Just saying, you have been fed into this ** that debt is wealth and the only way to make money. The funny part is when you release equity, you have to pay interest on it. Mug's game.

Forgot, don't like Gold, the tech market blows property out the water. The difference is you have to grovel to the bank for a mortgage, but you can only buy a property with the loan. Take the same loan and invest in commodities and equities, and your example doesn't even hold a candle to return on investment.

My businesses are bulk dry cargo shipping and property investment and in the last ten years (since the credit crunch) my focus has been in the property business.

The first property my family every purchased in london was in the 1970’s for 15k which is now worth £1.5m.

I can go on and I can also tell you that properties in the last thirty years to 2010 had done something like 128 pct whereas during the same time the stock market had done 130pct.

We also hold stocks and trade in commodity futures and hold gold.

You can advise someone who is new in the property market and wants to get on the ladder without being insulted at.

Please stop this because you’ve literally become the alternate Mamoon which is extremely disappointing to say the least
 
i dont really care abt short term fluctuations, buy something affordable and hold on to it. the treasury is taking on massive debt, they will be loathed to repay it through tax increases (beyond marginal headline grabbing increases), inflating it away is the only thing they can do.

green belt land is a massive supply constraint, regardless of all the rhetoric from the gov abt house building the fact is the vast majority of this countries private capital in someway is tied to house prices, any gov that would oversee a slump in the housing market would guarantee itself a loss at the next election.

also whilst house price inflate, rental yields have come down, interest rates are rock bottom, as you have rich people looking for assets to park wealth in. theres massive demand for any kind of returns, and a good btl can give u access to leverage, so even if a property seems expensive, its not (all things considered) if u have access to credit.

theres loads of internal and external factors that prop up the uk housing market. a correction will come but when it does maybe 10% to 15%, however ten years from now id be very surprised in house prices havn't increased significantly from today.

time horizon is most important tho, if your time horizon was 10 year +, you could have literally bought at any time in the last 60 years and made a good return. also the stamp duty holiday is massive, esp if u have another property.

Great Post.
Always a good time to buy
 
Wow, so in 22 odd years the price increased by 12x approx. As population grows even with brexit we dont have enough housing, so prices will remain consistent over a decade. Problem is the world economy is about to be crushed in the next few years, possibly meaning only a few will afford to buy houses.

I think I will wait until next spring, i think prices will reduce by 3-5%.

As long as you remain in a good position...
Often when people wait for a drop and when it finally happens they find they’re not in a position to take advantage... this is because when there is a drop then if usually means the economy has taken a turn and credit is tighter and thus people who could afford to buy suddenly find themselves unable to.

They could even find themselves without a job or having to take a pay cut.. this is why I think if you can buy then buy now rather than wait for the bubble to burst
 
My businesses are bulk dry cargo shipping and property investment and in the last ten years (since the credit crunch) my focus has been in the property business.

The first property my family every purchased in london was in the 1970’s for 15k which is now worth £1.5m.

I can go on and I can also tell you that properties in the last thirty years to 2010 had done something like 128 pct whereas during the same time the stock market had done 130pct.

We also hold stocks and trade in commodity futures and hold gold.

You can advise someone who is new in the property market and wants to get on the ladder without being insulted at.

Please stop this because you’ve literally become the alternate Mamoon which is extremely disappointing to say the least

So someone born with a silver spoon is giving a lecture on others struggling to get on the property market.

Don't pigeon hole the stock market performance. I was using your - yes your - 2000 to present window which you referred to above.

You can advise on buying property when you actually buy one yourself rather than piggyback off your family's assets because it is impossible for someone to save for a deposit these days without assistance (bank of mum and dad etc).

Get of your high horse. Who cares if your yard is worth millions, it only proves your opinion is not. You were better off calling brexiteers racist, but oh my that line changed pretty fast.
 
So someone born with a silver spoon is giving a lecture on others struggling to get on the property market.

Don't pigeon hole the stock market performance. I was using your - yes your - 2000 to present window which you referred to above.

You can advise on buying property when you actually buy one yourself rather than piggyback off your family's assets because it is impossible for someone to save for a deposit these days without assistance (bank of mum and dad etc).

Get of your high horse. Who cares if your yard is worth millions, it only proves your opinion is not. You were better off calling brexiteers racist, but oh my that line changed pretty fast.

Lol
I should have qualified my statement.
The property that my family bought in the 70’s which they sold in the late 1970’s would today be worth.......

You just can’t give it up. There is no humility to you.
 
So someone born with a silver spoon is giving a lecture on others struggling to get on the property market.

Don't pigeon hole the stock market performance. I was using your - yes your - 2000 to present window which you referred to above.

You can advise on buying property when you actually buy one yourself rather than piggyback off your family's assets because it is impossible for someone to save for a deposit these days without assistance (bank of mum and dad etc).

Get of your high horse. Who cares if your yard is worth millions, it only proves your opinion is not. You were better off calling brexiteers racist, but oh my that line changed pretty fast.

I bought my very first flat in 1994...
I was earning 10k per annum as a junior ship broker.

The price I paid was £42k and I had saved a deposit of £8k...

I lived in that flat for 7 months and then sold it for £69k and bought a two bedroom flat for £92k... I put every bonus into paying of my mortgage and building up a deposit for the next property and so that the next property I bought I wouldn’t have to sell the one I lived in and so it began.
 
Lol
I should have qualified my statement.
The property that my family bought in the 70’s which they sold in the late 1970’s would today be worth.......

You just can’t give it up. There is no humility to you.

This is precisly what happens everytime a liberal lie is exposed.

No mercy towards the liberal looney left.
 
I bought my very first flat in 1994...
I was earning 10k per annum as a junior ship broker.

The price I paid was £42k and I had saved a deposit of £8k...

I lived in that flat for 7 months and then sold it for £69k and bought a two bedroom flat for £92k... I put every bonus into paying of my mortgage and building up a deposit for the next property and so that the next property I bought I wouldn’t have to sell the one I lived in and so it began.

Why you so defensive? I'm not asking you to prove your worth. I couldn't give a damn.

However please stop this nonsense.

You are comparing a pre 2000 era with post 2000 property markets. Totally different. Market, economic, job, mortgage products, banking, political, affordability - all of these systems/status were totally different way back then. Affordability being the keyword.

When you are comparing eras for property atleast compare apples with apples, not bananas.
 
Why you so defensive? I'm not asking you to prove your worth. I couldn't give a damn.

However please stop this nonsense.

You are comparing a pre 2000 era with post 2000 property markets. Totally different. Market, economic, job, mortgage products, banking, political, affordability - all of these systems/status were totally different way back then. Affordability being the keyword.

When you are comparing eras for property atleast compare apples with apples, not bananas.

What I told you was how I started...

Forgetting the business element of properties for a moment, if someone asks me whether they should get on the ladder now or wait for a crash I’m old enough and ugly enough to tell them to get on the ladder if they can.....
 
What is wrong with you?

What is wrong with you? What sort of advice are you dishing out to the common man? Get into more debt?

Go ask the millions of millions who are trying to scrape through every penny to put food on the table, before they can start saving for a deposit - not since C19, but since 2009.

It's people like you who paint an inaccurate picture of the economy. Only fools would think a 500K home is affordable on an average salary in the UK.
 
What is wrong with you? What sort of advice are you dishing out to the common man? Get into more debt?

Go ask the millions of millions who are trying to scrape through every penny to put food on the table, before they can start saving for a deposit - not since C19, but since 2009.

It's people like you who paint an inaccurate picture of the economy. Only fools would think a 500K home is affordable on an average salary in the UK.

UPTO 500k

IN LONDON

to everyone, this guy is now dangerous. I would take his advice with a big helping of salt.
 
Last edited:
What I told you was how I started...

Forgetting the business element of properties for a moment, if someone asks me whether they should get on the ladder now or wait for a crash I’m old enough and ugly enough to tell them to get on the ladder if they can.....

You started in an era that was totally different to today. Property back then was bought as a home, not as an investment. Affordability was high because debt was low.

1 salary was enough for a mortgage, car, holiday etc when you started. You cannot apply the same rules today.

Your advise on property, is irrelevant in today's economic circumstances.
 
UPTO 500k

IN LONDON

to everyone, this guy is now dangerous. I would take his advice with a big helping of salt.

The point was a 500K home is not affordable on an average salary. Of course you would disagree, but compare the average salary to the average price of a property in the UK. It is till way above the x5 mortgage limit.

Where the property is located is irrelevant.

Don't run away now.
 
Oh I should add, interest only mortgages have also helped inflate the property market.

Many do not opt for repayment mortgages as the monthly payments are non affordabile. Result? Pay just the interest for the mortgage term, and at the end you got to pay up the principle sum.
 
Oh I should add, interest only mortgages have also helped inflate the property market.

Many do not opt for repayment mortgages as the monthly payments are non affordabile. Result? Pay just the interest for the mortgage term, and at the end you got to pay up the principle sum.

From my experience most banks are. I’m moving away from interest only.
You’ll be hard pressed to get an interest only mortgage today.

But yes people were taking this option and then remortgaging, taking out further loans for cars and holidays etc...

I don’t prescribe to that.
If I had decided to buy a golf gti 16v in 1994 and continue to live at home I would be much poorer for it now... Alas many people have fallen into the credit trap
 
From my experience most banks are. I’m moving away from interest only.
You’ll be hard pressed to get an interest only mortgage today.

But yes people were taking this option and then remortgaging, taking out further loans for cars and holidays etc...

I don’t prescribe to that.
If I had decided to buy a golf gti 16v in 1994 and continue to live at home I would be much poorer for it now... Alas many people have fallen into the credit trap

This is known as the wealth effect.

Equity released is pumped into the economy, debt levels go up, equity released again, debt goes up, this is the vicious cycle.

I know people who bought houses in mid 90s, paid off, and they earn the average salary now, but 1 property is enough for them. However the fact they are not in mortgage debt means they have far more disposable income even earning 30K a year. They are not poor. They do not feel poor. They are free of stress and enjoy life.

Conversely I know people in the IT industry clearing 6 figure salaries, but got nothing to show for it because most of their salary is spent on servicing debt.

I know which option I would choose.
 
Not everything is as binary as you make it out to be. There is another route - scaling your income/earnings to outstrip the growth of your net debt.

It is easy to be sucked into a debt vortex and that’s where self restraint and common sense apply. Balance transfers, PCP on cars etc - temporary relief at best but not a way out.

On property @Msaim89, if you can buy now - and comfortably afford it and that includes all the extras - stamp duty, legal fees, and then your maintenance like council tax, various insurance covers etc - then do it. Unless your career trajectory is in 7th gear your income will not outpace the market. Waiting for a deal is pointless.
 
You can advise on buying property when you actually buy one yourself rather than piggyback off your family's assets because it is impossible for someone to save for a deposit these days without assistance (bank of mum and dad etc).

very difficult, but not impossible if u live with parents, u just have to live like a monk.

average salary in london is around £40k, after tax thats about £30k, save about 40% of it (i aimed for 50%) and in 5 years you would have saved £60k, which can get u on the property ladder with a flat in zone 4 or a small house on the outskirts.

its just a lifestyle choice, cos its really hard to not blow money with friends and going out when your yound and being boring, but its priorities at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
very difficult, but not impossible if u live with parents, u just have to live like a monk.

average salary in london is around £40k, after tax thats about £30k, save about 40% of it (i aimed for 50%) and in 5 years you would have saved £60k, which can get u on the property ladder with a flat in zone 4 or a small house on the outskirts.

its just a lifestyle choice, cos its really hard to not blow money with friends and going out when your yound and being boring, but its priorities at the end of the day.

Exactly. Quality of life vs. A burden of debt. This is how I see it.

However there is a difference in buying a home and buying a house.

Buying a home then buyer is in it for the long run with the notion the buyer will live and die in the house. Property market and prices are irrelevant in this case. Most people who migrated in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s bought a home.

Buying a house is for purley investment purposes, buy, rent, sell later etc. Property market and prices are relevant. Most people today are buying for investment reasons.

If someone is looking to invest (as the user above is) then my argument is that buying a house is not ideal in current economic conditions, especially with low deposits, interest only mortgage etc, which is leveraged debt (just like a CFD) in an economy that is on the brink.

If one is really looking for percentage returns, then there are better sectors with better returns. Tax free, inheritance tax free, capital gains tax free.
 
Exactly. Quality of life vs. A burden of debt. This is how I see it.

However there is a difference in buying a home and buying a house.

Buying a home then buyer is in it for the long run with the notion the buyer will live and die in the house. Property market and prices are irrelevant in this case. Most people who migrated in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s bought a home.

Buying a house is for purley investment purposes, buy, rent, sell later etc. Property market and prices are relevant. Most people today are buying for investment reasons.

If someone is looking to invest (as the user above is) then my argument is that buying a house is not ideal in current economic conditions, especially with low deposits, interest only mortgage etc, which is leveraged debt (just like a CFD) in an economy that is on the brink.

If one is really looking for percentage returns, then there are better sectors with better returns. Tax free, inheritance tax free, capital gains tax free.

fair enough, imo theres nothing wrong with property investment (i.e. btl and keep in a portfolio, i dont think u shd ever buy a property with the aim to sell it at a given time), as opposed to what you are describing which sounds more like flipping, in which case you are competing against professionals and unless you can quantify how u are adding value it can be a dangerous game.
 
Wealthy Britons step up citizenship shopping to thwart Brexit

LONDON (Reuters) - The number of British entrepreneurs looking to “buy” citizenship from countries offering visa-free access to the European Union has risen sharply, investment migration firms say, as prospects of a post-Brexit trade deal between Britain and the bloc darken.

Investment immigration firm Astons said it had seen a 50% and 30% year-on-year increase in interest from clients seeking Cypriot or Greek citizenship respectively this quarter, less than four months before UK passport-holders are likely to lose their rights to freedom of movement across the EU.

Henley & Partners also reported a rise in requests for advice on investment migration applications to Malta, Portugal, Austria and several Caribbean islands, which offer a range of residency rights, visa-free travel to the EU and citizenship to investors in local business or property.

Citizens of certain Caribbean sovereign states including St Lucia and St Kitts & Nevis also enjoy preferred access to the EU, thanks to close ties with EU members as a result of historic, diplomatic and modern trade agreements.

“This isn’t about tourists. This is the UK high net worth community that have a constant need to travel to and spend significant time in the EU,” said Henley & Partners director Paddy Blewer.

“This is investment migration as a volatility hedge and a component in a high net worth portfolio value defence strategy,” he said, adding that volumes of client engagement were higher now than immediately after the 2016 Brexit vote.

Interest in additional citizenships is rising even as the European Commission examines possible steps to curb EU states selling passports and visas to wealthy foreigners, due to concerns it can help organised crime groups.

Cypriot residency can be secured in two months with a 300,000 euro ($351,870) property purchase. Securing citizenship takes six months and requires a minimum property investment of 2 million euros.

In December, Reuters reported that Cyprus government documents showed several donors to Britain’s ruling Conservative Party donors had sought citizenship of the island since the 2016 Brexit referendum.

“Both Cypriot and Caribbean investments are proving very popular ... primarily driven by high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) from the UK who have an eye on the future and life after Brexit,” said Astons spokesman Konstantin Kaminskiy.

Read more:

CARIBBEAN DREAM

Henley & Partners said its volume of engagement with clients seeking alternative citizenship or residence by investment climbed 40% in the first quarter of 2020 versus Q1 2019, before flattening during the COVID-19 lockdown in Q2.

But interest has rallied since July 1, with a 15% year-on-year increase in engagement to Sept. 10, as the end of the Brexit transition phase nears.

Henley & Partners’ Blewer said clients were increasingly drawn to Caribbean citizenship applications - which is likely to give them better travel access to the EU than Britain - but which have a lower minimum investment and a quicker approval process.

Saint Lucia citizenship, offering visa-free travel to 146 countries, can be obtained in around four months for a minimum investment of 76,152 pounds, data supplied by Astons showed.

For less than 40,000 pounds more, investors can obtain citizenship of St. Kitts & Nevis - and visa-free travel to 156 countries - in around 60 days.

In contrast, Malta offers citizenship in exchange for around 1 million pounds of investment, but the process takes up to 14 months.

Portugal, meanwhile, typically processes investment migration applications in three months but only grants EU residency to investors and visa-fee travel to just 26 countries.

“With HNWIs, time is often more important than what is essentially a small fluctuation in cost and many are looking to secure additional citizenship as fast as possible in the pandemic landscape,” Arthur Sarkisian, managing director of Astons, said.

EU authorities are under pressure to clamp down on investment migration programmes by member states.

Sven Giegold, a member of the European Parliament from Germany’s Green party, said these kind of citizenship sales “posed a serious threat to EU security and the fight against corruption” in the bloc.

“EU passports and visas are not a commodity. Money must not be the criterion for citizenship and residence rights in the EU,” he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nship-shopping-to-thwart-brexit-idUSKCN26F2DE
 
Boot em out, send them to Ireland if they want EU citizenship. Don't like the the UK, find the door.
 
Could just be a backup option. Not an easy decision to just give up everything and mive abroad.

Retaining freedom of movement, keeping options open, keeping work opportunities on the table, and possible retirement plans I would say.
 
Yes, Remainers are worried they must wait in the immigration line for an extra few minutes. Yet they don't bat an eyelid when it comes to non EU citizens.

Freedom of movement is a racist, and facist policy. Remainers support the white race when it comes to immigration!
 
Brexit: Gove in Brussels as EU trade talks resume

Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove is in Brussels at the start of a week of talks about the UK's future relationship with the European Union.

Mr Gove met European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic to discuss implementation of the Brexit divorce deal.

Mr Sefcovic said the UK's negotiating position is still "far apart from what the EU can accept".

Formal trade talks will resume on Tuesday.

A UK government spokesperson said while this week represented the final formal round of negotiations, he expected discussions to continue up to a meeting of the EU Council, scheduled for 15 October.

He described the atmosphere as positive but added that "much was to be done".

Speaking after his meeting with Mr Gove, Mr Sefcovic echoed this view.

He said that "much work remains to be done", highlighting in particular the questions over the Northern Ireland protocol in what he said was a "window of opportunity" that was "rapidly closing".

The Brexit transition period, in which the UK has kept to EU trading rules, ends on 31 December. The UK and EU are yet to agree a deal that will govern their future trade.

The last set of talks between the two sides ended acrimoniously when the UK government introduced the Internal Market Bill, which would allow the UK to override parts of the original Brexit divorce deal - known as the withdrawal agreement - concerning Northern Ireland.

Mr Sefcovic repeated the EU's request for the UK to remove the "contentious parts" of the bill by the end of September.

He said the EU would "not be shy" in using "legal remedies" written into the withdrawal agreement to address any "violations".

Mr Sefcovic said Mr Gove had given no indication that the UK government intended to remove the contentious elements of the bill during their meeting.

The UK government has previously said it would "discharge its treaty obligations in good faith", but added that "it is important to remember the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty".

The bill has not been withdrawn and is set to be debated by MPs on Tuesday.

Other long-running sticking points that could stymie negotiations include state aid and fishing access.

During this week's talks, negotiators will also discuss law enforcement and transport. The two chief negotiators - the EU's Mr Barnier and the UK's David Frost will meet on Friday morning.

BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said sources in government say that while progress is being made, there are "fundamental gaps" between the two sides and talk of "optimism" in recent days has been overstated.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54318987
 
Brexit: warnings for care sector in pandemic as freedom of movement ends

The end of freedom of movement after Brexit will increase pressure on the social care sector in the midst of a pandemic unless ministers make jobs more attractive to UK workers by increasing salaries, government advisers have said.

The migration advisory committee (Mac) warned of the “stark consequences” of low wages in social care with most frontline roles ineligible for the post-Brexit skilled worker immigration route or on the official list for job shortages in the UK.

Senior care workers and nursing assistants are among healthcare roles that can be added to the shortage occupation list to relieve pressure when freedom of movements ends on 1 January, the committee said in a report.

But many of the roles in social care do not qualify and the advisers said “it therefore remains crucial that the government implements a more sustainable and generous funding model”.

“The risks of this not happening in a timely manner are stark,” the report reads. “If that does not occur, or occurs with substantial delay, we would expect the end of freedom of movement to increase the pressure on the social care sector, something that would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when so many care occupations are central to the Covid-19 pandemic frontline response.”

The vulnerable state of the UK care sector was brought into stark focus by thecoronavirus pandemic with 18,000 care home residents dying from confirmed or suspected Covid-19 in UK care facilities during the first wave of the outbreak.

Senior care workers constitute only about 10% of the UK social care workforce, said the chair of Mac, Prof Brian Bell, and that adding the role to the shortage occupation list would have only a small impact on the more than 100,000 vacancies in the UK.

The committee’s call for evidence heard that employers in the sector felt strongly that the worth of their staff was not recognised.

Bell said: “There needs to be a better funding model for social care that makes work in that sector better rewarded, and that’s the right way not only to attract resident workers and not to have to rely on migrants but also to deal with the turnover of the staff which is very high.

“But part of that is because workers don’t feel they’re valued appropriately. We think the way you value workers is you pay them better.”

Bell said he hoped the Department of Health and Social Care would soon come forward with proposals for improving the salaries for care workers.

He added that care workers should be paid “significantly higher” than £10 an hour. The national living wage for workers aged 25 or over is £8.72.

A median full-time salary for a care worker is £19,100, the Mac report said, which is below the minimum shortage occupation list salary threshold of £20,480.

The committee said there was potential for a rise in labour supply to the care sector as a result of job losses elsewhere due to the impact of Covid-19, but cautioned that “this cannot be predicted with any certainty”.

Mac said other occupations that should be added to the UK-wide list include butchers, bricklayers and welders, “where there is clear evidence of staff and skills shortages which could be filled by overseas workers”.

A government spokesperson said: “The Migration Advisory Committee has again been very clear that immigration is not the solution to addressing staffing levels in the social care sector.

“We’re helping the sector in a number of ways, including £1.5bn more funding for adults and children’s social care in 2020-21 and a national recruitment scheme.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ector-in-pandemic-as-freedom-of-movement-ends
 
BREAKING: The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which would give the Government the power to override the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, has cleared the Commons after MPs gave it a third reading by 340 votes to 256, majority 84.

Listen live ► talkradio.co.uk/live
 
Brexit: EU starts legal action against UK over Brexit deal

The EU has begun legal proceedings against the UK after it refused to ditch plans to override sections of its Brexit divorce deal.

An EU deadline for the government to remove sections of the Internal Market Bill expired on Wednesday.

The "letter of formal notice" could eventually lead to a court case against the UK at the European Court of Justice, the EU's top court.

But the EU has not walked away from talks over a post-Brexit trade deal.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the UK would have until the end of November to respond to the EU's concerns over the draft legislation.

UK-EU trade talks are continuing in Brussels this week. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said both sides should "move on" if a deal was not reached by mid-October.

In a brief statement, Mrs von der Leyen said the bill was a "full contradiction" of previous UK commitments over how a hard border on the island of Ireland should be avoided.

She added that the bill was by its "very nature a breach of the obligation of good faith" contained in the withdrawal agreement that took the UK out of the EU in January.

A spokesperson for the UK government said the bill was a necessary "safety net" to protect trade between different parts of the UK.

They added the government would respond the EU's letter "in due course".

MPs gave their final backing to the Internal Market Bill earlier this week. However, it will have to be approved by the House of Lords before it becomes law.

In a bid to head off a potential rebellion from Tory backbenchers, ministers have granted the Commons a say before powers to override the Brexit divorce deal could be used.

The letter sent to the UK is the first stage in the process the Commission uses against countries it believes have broken EU law.

It can end with the Commission taking governments to court at the European Court of Justice.

The ECJ continues to have powers over the UK during the transition period, including over the interpretation and implementation of the withdrawal agreement.

The court has powers to force countries to comply with its rulings, including imposing financial penalties.

However, most cases are settled before then - and it can take many years for a case to move through the court.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54370226
 
Oh well at least we’ll still have fishing.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">More than 7,500 finance jobs and over $1.5 trillion in assets have already left Britain for the European Union as banks prepare for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Brexit?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Brexit</a> in January, according to consultancy firm EY <a href="https://t.co/We3HQ0H0hq">https://t.co/We3HQ0H0hq</a> <a href="https://t.co/Z0o3i3XGcz">pic.twitter.com/Z0o3i3XGcz</a></p>— Reuters (@Reuters) <a href="https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1311636982079004679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Oh well at least we’ll still have fishing.

That’s 0.1% of UK GDP.

Getting out of the CFP does make some sense to me as the quotas were drawn up decades back and the high value fish have moved away from our allocated grounds. So our fishermen catch mostly shellfish.

Trouble is, British people don’t each much shellfish. Spanish and Portugese do. But if tariffs go on, our fishers will have to export more to make ends meet. I think plenty of small fishing businesses will go bust and the big boys will hoover up.

Maybe the cod and haddock that the British love will migrate into our 12-mile limits, but I doubt it and the big North Atlantic cod boats up of Norway will still sell to the supermarkets and fish and chip shops - paying tariffs which will be passed to the consumers.
 
Thousands of UK firms may need to set up an EU office

Thousands of UK businesses may need to set up an EU presence if they want to export goods to European markets, according Blick Rothenberg, a law firm specialising in international trade.

Both EU and UK law will require companies to "have a door to knock on" if there are any disputes over payment and compliance with customs changes that will treat the UK as if it were any other non-EU country after 1 January.

The only other option is to pay a customs and freight forwarding agent to bear the risk that new paperwork and payment obligations are satisfied.

Given the new complexities, industry sources have told the BBC that few agents will be prepared to take that risk. Those willing to take a risk will likely charge a king's ransom to do so.

Trade lawyer Simon Sutcliffe, from Blick Rothenberg, told the BBC: "Any agent will be 'joint and severally liable' for any customs debt should something go awry or the local fiscal authorities find a problem with the consignment. Understandably, these agents charge a lot of money to bear that risk."

'Little time'
These requirements cut both ways. EU companies exporting to the UK will face the same problem. EU exporters may have to set up UK offices - both EU and UK law is clear that someone will have to bear the risks of any customs problems.

Mr Sutcliffe added: "The problem is that thousands of businesses on both sides of the channel just don't realise the implications of trading with each other from 1 January, and they have very little time to work it out."

He said these issues would present a major challenge to UK-EU trade "unless the company is willing to become 'established' and set up a presence, maintaining business records, have some form of technical resources and staffing, they will not be allowed submit any customs documents. This is true on both sides of the channel".

Given that the UK imports far more from the EU than it exports, the onus may fall more heavily on EU exporters to the UK. That may mean jeopardising the flow of critical goods into the UK.

Alex Altmann, who heads Blick Rothenberg's Brexit Advisory Group and is also a chairman at the British Chambers of Commerce in Germany, says: "The government's communication is a disaster. We have 90 days to sort this out now or EU supplies of food, medication, PPE and many other items won't be allowed to enter the UK due to an overseen technically of the new customs code. The UK government needs to comment on this very quickly now."

HM Revenue & Customs did not dispute the law firm's analysis and issued the following statement: "The UK has a well-established Customs Agent community and government has invested more than £80m in building further capacity, supporting the customs intermediary sector with training, new IT and recruitment. We urge people to go and talk to a customs expert to find out what they need to do to get ready."

These issues will arise whether or not the UK and EU strike a free trade agreement as both sides have insisted they would prefer.

HMRC estimates the cost of filling in 200 million customs declarations alone - deal or no deal - will cost UK business more than £7bn a year.

What seems clear is that the UK's departure from the EU single market and customs union will not mean less cost and paperwork but more when it comes to dealing with the UK's closest and largest trading partner.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54377749.
 
Brexit: PM and EU president to 'take stock' of trade talks

Boris Johnson will speak to the president of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen on Saturday to "take stock" of post-Brexit trade negotiations and "discuss next steps".

The UK and the EU have been holding their final formal rounds of trade talks in Brussels this week.

And chief negotiators Lord David Frost and Michel Barnier met earlier.

Both sides have said a deal needs to be agreed this month to take over from the transition period at the start of 2021.

Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick called on the EU to "show flexibility".

The meeting between Mr Johnson and Ms von der Leyen will come days after the EU launched legal proceedings against the UK over its plans to override sections of its Brexit divorce deal.

The UK formally left the EU in January, but entered a transition period - where the UK has kept to EU trading rules and remained inside its customs union and single market - to allow the two sides to negotiate a trade deal.

Formal talks began in March and continued through the pandemic, but there has been concerns over whether a plan would be agreed before that period runs out on 31 December.

Issues that have become particular sticking points between negotiators are state aid - when governments give financial support to businesses - and fishing rules.

The BBC's Europe editor Katya Adler said there had been "rumours of progress" in the talks from UK officials, but they have not been confirmed by EU teams.

She added: "The only thing we know for sure is both sides say they want a deal, but both say not at any price.

"If a deal does eventually emerge, compromises will have to have been made by both sides."

The EU has said a deal must be reached before the end of October to allow it to be signed off by the member states before the end of the year, while Mr Johnson has said both sides should "move on" if agreement was not reached by the middle of the month.

If a deal is not done, the UK will go on to trade with the bloc on World Trade Organisation rules.

Mr Jenrick told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the government was "perfectly content to see the transition period end and us to continue to trade on the same sort of arrangements as Australia" if agreement is not reached.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54384437
 
Back
Top