Imploding Charlie

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, I'm sure you already know this - and perhaps someone else has already pointed it out (I've not read all this thread) - just because GBP has devalued against USD by 20% (or whatever the figure is today) doesn't make me worse off by 20%. If I have income in GBP and most of my payments obligations are in GBP, then my exposure to USD is mitigated. Your figures are only right if I get paid in GBP but life and work in New York - and so all my expenses are in USD.

Re Osborne's "forecasts" - agree, he was assuming an awful lot of things - and then had to look 15 years forward before he had a "scary" number. I guess he didn't see he wouldn't be around to do anything about it.

"Compared to the dollar", "relative to the dollar". I honestly don't know how i could have made it any more clear that I was talking in relative terms about the Pound and Dollar.

[Paul Waine]

I'll accept that point RLC, providing you equally acknowledge the point made by Greenmile (above) - that these predictions were based on the assumption that Cameron would make good his promise to trigger Article 50 the day after the referendum.
Instead, he resigned, and Mark Carney (BofE) intervened to stimulate the economy, and do much to reassure business and the financial markets.

I'm not sure even Mark Carney is now claiming the little bit of adjustments to interest rates and the additional QE (which may be doing more harm than good) is either stimulating the economy or reassuring anyone.

I guess everyone knows that the previous BofE Governor, Lord King - having kept respectively silent through the referendum period (at least I'm pretty sure he did) - has now come out and said that leaving the EU is the right decision.

[Paul Waine]

When people tell me they're prepared to be financially worse off as long as we leave the European Union, I don't think they're brave. I think they're reckless and a bit daft.

Hi John, do you ever think what motivated the revolutionaries in France in 1789? and in Boston/US in 1765? I'm pretty sure none of them thought, "I can't do this - it might harm my economic situation in the near term...."

When we can see that politically/democratically that things were going wrong in Brussels/EU isn't it logical to choose to leave. Yes, it may be that there is some near term economic cost, but surely there is longer term economic gain but not because of trade deals and access to markets, but because freedom and democracy matters - and with freedom and democracy we can build our successful futures.

I guess you also know that the economically successful are mostly those who can defer immediate gain/pleasure now, for a bigger gain/pleasures in the future.

[RingoMcCartney]

"It’s a fair cop to say that the profession is to some degree in crisis"

Andrew Haldane, chief economist at Bank of England

[dsr]

The average household income last year was estimated to be £26,400. Since the day before the referendum the pound has dropped 17% ($1.47 then versus $1.22 today) in value against the dollar. Compared to the dollar we are already £4,488 worse off.

Relative to the dollar £26,400 the day before the vote is worth £21,912 today.

The funny thing is though, Osborne wasn't even talking about households being £4,300 worse off already. He was talking about it happening by 2031.

I was never pretending that the average UK household is currently, actually over £4,300 British pounds worse off

You can say you were never pretending that the average household was £4,488 worse off; but if you weren't, then you are very poor indeed at expressing yourself. It takes a fair talent in sophistry to make that argument with a straight face.

If you never made any claim that we were £4,488 worse off, then why would Osborne's comment be funny?

[Paul Waine]

"Compared to the dollar", "relative to the dollar". I honestly don't know how i could have made it any more clear that I was talking in relative terms about the Pound and Dollar.

Yes, but do you see that the dollar has got nothing to do with the pound, if I get paid in pounds and all my expenditure is in pounds.

Try it: ask yourself how much has my mortgage changed in pounds after the dollar has appreciated against the pound? how much bigger are my mortgage payments as a percentage of my pay which is also in pounds?

[Damo]

Even in threads started by shitkickers in bad faith i'll still try to have a reasonable conversation with someone if they're willing to have it. You weren't, but others were/are.

I was perfectly well aware of why you started the thread with that title, as cute as it is, which is why i didn't respond to your opening post. If you'd expressed more of a willingness to talk reasonably and like adults then you'd have got a response, but people like you don't have a tendancy to do that when it comes to disagreeing with others. It's not your fault it's just how you're wired and i'm not judging you for it. But it is a shame that we can't simply have a chat about things on which we disagree, isn't it?

That's the Turtle Charlie we all know and love.
I'm glad you finally lost your temper at me
It took longer than I expected

[RingoMcCartney]

A report published by the Centre for Business Research at Cambridge University has found that Treasury forecasts over Brexit to have been “flawed and partisan”.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi John, do you ever think what motivated the revolutionaries in France in 1789? and in Boston/US in 1765? I'm pretty sure none of them thought, "I can't do this - it might harm my economic situation in the near term...."

When we can see that politically/democratically that things were going wrong in Brussels/EU isn't it logical to choose to leave. Yes, it may be that there is some near term economic cost, but surely there is longer term economic gain but not because of trade deals and access to markets, but because freedom and democracy matters - and with freedom and democracy we can build our successful futures.

I guess you also know that the economically successful are mostly those who can defer immediate gain/pleasure now, for a bigger gain/pleasures in the future.

America is the result of a tax revolt. Basically they declared independence because they wanted more money (and democracy and representation yadda-yadda). If they're willing to start a war just for a bit more money (this is what hyperbole looks like, Tom!) it's not a stretch to imagine that they'd remain British if otherwise they would lose some of it.

[Imploding Turtle]

That's the Turtle Charlie we all know and love.
I'm glad you finally lost your temper at me
It took longer than I expected

Bless you. You do try.

[Paul Waine]

It wasn't a perfect refutation of an argument, nor was it intended to be because it wasn't responding to an argument at all. Moffitt make a dismissive post about Osborne saying that the average UK household would be £4,300 worse off in 15 years because of Brexit and i showed how by one measure we're already worse off. Moffitt, of course, didn't include the 15 years bit, but i wanted to show him how we're all already worse off as a result of the devalued Pound. The effects of this devaluation hasn't been felt yet, though i never claimed it was.

And i'm pretty sure i made a number of efforts to be absolutely clear that i was saying I was comparing the value of the average households income relative to the US dollar. I was never pretending that the average UK household is currently, actually over £4,300 British pounds worse off because it would be impossible to predict exactly how much the cost of living is going to go up over the next years or two as a result of our currency being devalued.

You and Tom are criticising me for presenting a conclusion that I have not presented, and making an argument that I have not made, and then called me dishonest for it.

As a side note, isn't it funny how you're not criticising Moffitt for deliberately excluding the "15 years" thing from Osbornes comment, you know, for effect? Isn't that dishonest? Actually, of course it's not, because it wasn't deliberate. But isn't it funny how you're willing to give someone with whom you agree the benefit of the doubt while jumping on the back of someone you don't?

Hi IT, I don't think you are dishonest....

And, I hadn't read these other posts before I put my "two pennies - or two and three quarter dollars" in.

None of us is £4,300 worse off now.

And, none of us will be £4,300 worse off in 2030 based on George Osborne's model. His model was flawed in so many respects.

BTW the "remain" supporting media also ignored GO's 15 years - they reported it as though we would be £4,300 worse off if we voted leave.

[Imploding Turtle]

BTW the "remain" supporting media also ignored GO's 15 years - they reported it as though we would be £4,300 worse off if we voted leave.

Their headlines did. But i found the claim by typing "£4300" into google and selecting "4 300 worse off" from the suggested results. The top result points out in its headline that Osborne was referring to 15 years from now.

[Paul Waine]

"It’s a fair cop to say that the profession is to some degree in crisis
Andrew Haldane, chief economist at Bank of England

Haldane is the guy who admits to not understanding pensions. I guess not much of an economist....

[Imploding Turtle]

An economist is what you become is you like both science and mathematics but aren't very good at either.

[USC]

Hi John, do you ever think what motivated the revolutionaries in France in 1789? and in Boston/US in 1765? I'm pretty sure none of them thought, "I can't do this - it might harm my economic situation in the near term...."

Sure there are some similarities, but I think they were very different situations - the Americans wanted to escape high taxes without representation. Their goal was self government, so I suppose in many Brexiters' minds that's what they were looking for (even though they already had it!). However, they (Americans) did it to improve their economic situation not to keep foreigners out.

We don't know yet, and won't until after it happens, but many suspect we'll be worse off outside the EU - certainly in near/medium term (10 years). I personally think it was like turkeys voting for Christmas - the rich will be fine either way; it will be low-middle incomes that are hurt. Already we have dropped to the fifth largest economy and we are likely to drop to the sixth largest. We are not as "great" as we once were. And don't think the EU is going to do us any favours with trade (unless we accept freedom of movement). And don't think we will be any good at negotiating trade deals elsewhere - we have neither the people nor the clout to negotiate a good deal.

So it is good that you don't mind being economically worse off - I guess you can afford it - but I suspect others will not be too pleased once the effects kick in.

[Paul Waine]

Their headlines did. But i found the claim by typing "£4300" into google and selecting "4 300 worse off" from the suggested results. The top result points out in its headline that Osborne was referring to 15 years from now.

HI IT, what's your top result? Google has "FullFact" top on my list. They say: A"t best that’s a red herring. Most economists seem to agree that leaving the EU would cost the UK economically but this amount is an unhelpful summary of the underlying research."

Next three in order are: Guardian, UK Gov; Mirror.

Is it possible to access old BBC News reports? or other broadcast media?

Re-reading the UK Gov is incredible: "Britain will be worse off by £4,300 a year per household if Britain votes to leave European Union, new analysis published today (18 April 2016) by the Treasury shows." "The analysis provides a rigorous and objective economic analysis of the long term impact of remaining a member of the EU compared to the alternatives:"

Anyway, enough.

It's what unites us all that's most important.

[Paul Waine]

An economist is what you become is you like both science and mathematics but aren't very good at either.

Yes, had to "like" it brought a smile to my face - and I studied economics (but, notice I'm not claiming to be an economist).

[biggles]

That's the Turtle Charlie we all know and love.
I'm glad you finally lost your temper at me
It took longer than I expected

like it, Damo. i was thinking it wasn't 'our' turtle at all due to the complete lack of insults and put-downs. maybe we should just accept that he has mental health 'issues' and stop winding him up. it's like kicking a poorly puppy sometimes.

[Imploding Turtle]

S I personally think it was like Turkeys voting for Christmas - the rich will be fine either way; it will be low-middle incomes that are hurt.

This is the most galling thing about it. The people who voted for this are either going to be dead or retired when it happens, or are the people who will lose what are among the most important protections they get from the EU once the tories are allowed to run amok - that's their workers' rights.

To continue the poultry themed metaphors, the turkeys have voted for Christmas and at the same time asked the neighbouthood foxes to guard the chicken coop.

[Paul Waine]

Sure there are some similarities, but I think they were very different situations - the Americans wanted to escape high taxes without representation. Their goal was self government, so I suppose in many Brexiters' minds that's what they were looking for (even though they already had it!). However, they (Americans) did it to improve their economic situation not to keep foreigners out.

We don't know yet, and won't until after it happens, but many suspect we'll be worse off outside the EU - certainly in near/medium term (10 years). I personally think it was like turkeys voting for Christmas - the rich will be fine either way; it will be low-middle incomes that are hurt. Already we have dropped to the fifth largest economy and we are likely to drop to the sixth largest. We are not as "great" as we once were. And don't think the EU is going to do us any favours with trade (unless we accept freedom of movement). And don't think we will be any good at negotiating trade deals elsewhere - we have neither the people nor the clout to negotiate a good deal.

So it is good that you don't mind being economically worse off - I guess you can afford it - but I suspect others will not be too pleased once the effects kick in.

I thought all the opinion and stats were demonstrating that those on lower earnings were suffering under the current arrangements - hence the demographics of the leave vote.

I've posted before that I was thinking about my children and my grandchildren (yet to be born) when I voted - and, also in my mind I was voting for (a) the rest of the UK population and (b) the people in all the EU nations. There's a lot wrong with the EU; Brussels is comparable with Versailles before the French revolution; the "political project" that is the euro is impoverishing large parts of Europe, particularly the youth in most Mediterranean nations.

[Rowls]

Is there any evidence that the number of Aston Martin cars that are sold is restricted because of our current membership of the EU?

Plenty of evidence that we do not trade freely with large portions of the world. "Evidence" is not really needed. The trade restrictions are there, if you understand what they are.

Have you ever tried buying, for example, a waste disposal unit from the USA on Amazon?

Prices can be as low as $15 but the tariffs add typically double that (minimum), making the product cost three times the price it should. So imagine the last DIY item you bought - it may be a drill, a screwdriver or just a simple packet of screws. Remember buying that item at the checkout. Done that? Good. Now imagine how you feel if that item cost you three times as much. That is what trade tariffs mean to the price of goods.

There will be literally thousands (if not more) of other examples.

From your scepticism spijed you might not be aware of how far trade tariffs restrict our businesses and economy as a whole.

[Rowls]

This is the most galling thing about it. The people who voted for this are either going to be dead or retired when it happens, or are the people who will lose what are among the most important protections they get from the EU once the tories are allowed to run amok - that's their workers' rights.
To continue the poultry themed metaphors, the turkeys have voted for Christmas and at the same time asked the neighbouthood foxes to guard the chicken coop.

CharlieTurtle raises good points here - old people may have contributed to the vote. This raises many, many questions:

1. Why didn't the government wait until all the old people had died before allowing the referendum?
2. Should old people have been forcibly stopped from voting in the referendum and how should we have physically restrained them?
3. What age should people have their voting rights stripped from them?

and of course,

4. How soon should one wait before euthanizing an inappropriately inconvenient OAP?

Basically, Britian is going back to the likes of the 20s, 40, 50s and 60s when the Tories were "allowed to run amok" and we never, ever (not once) had Labour governments. Prepare to live your lives in Pathe reels of black and white people. I kid you not.

[Rowls]

Apologies.

I realise now that ImplodingCharlie posted his guff in his drinking hours.

Had I known this, I would not have replied.

Good night.

[dsr]

This is the most galling thing about it. The people who voted for this are either going to be dead or retired when it happens, or are the people who will lose what are among the most important protections they get from the EU once the tories are allowed to run amok - that's their workers' rights.

To continue the poultry themed metaphors, the turkeys have voted for Christmas and at the same time asked the neighbouthood foxes to guard the chicken coop.

Complete red herring. Why should old people not be allowed to vote in the way they think gives their grandchildren the best future?

Remember that these old people who voted against are the ones who voted heavily in favour of the EEC in 1975. They lived through the last 40 years, they saw what the EEC became, and they changed their mind. If so many of the people who have lived through the last 40 years have changed their minds, who is to say that the current young people who voted for the EU wouldn't change theirs too?

[JohnMcGreal]

Hi John, do you ever think what motivated the revolutionaries in France in 1789? and in Boston/US in 1765? I'm pretty sure none of them thought, "I can't do this - it might harm my economic situation in the near term...."

If our situation (as an independent, sovereign nation and a member of the European Union) was in any way comparable to pre-revolutionary France or America as a British colony, I'd understand the need for drastic action.

But I don't think that's the case.

[USC]

I've posted before that I was thinking about my children and my grandchildren (yet to be born) when I voted.

Well I guess you'll have to hope that they thank you for it. I'd be the exact opposite in your position - I would want to give my children/grandchildren opportunities, not take them away. Being able to study, live and work in any EU country is a great opportunity (which I know from experience). And as far as the economy is concerned, our GDP has outperformed other EU countries over the last 30 years and our standard of living has increased year on year (all whilst being in the EU). And then there are environmental protections we get from the EU. Etc. And in the future we can get a "Trump" and then we'd wish we had the EU safety net!

Brussels is comparable with Versailles before the French revolution.

I see no similarities at all.

[Rowls]

If our situation (as an independent, sovereign nation and a member of the European Union) was in any way comparable to pre-revolutionary France or America as a British colony, I'd understand the need for drastic action.
But I don't think that's the case.

I think our situation in the EU was comparable in a very important manner to colonial America - we were not in direct democratic control of our institutions.

This is exactly what they demanded

We the people demand ... "All legislative powers" ... 'no taxation without representation' ... "To regulate commerce" ... "to coin money" ... "To define and punish piracies and felonies" ... "To make rules for the government and Regulation of the land and navy" ... ... ... and on and on.

With the exception of "no taxation without representation' these are all direct quotes from the US constition. These things apply as directly to the UK breaking from EU legislation as they did from the USA breaking from British rule.

We controlled neither business legislation, trade negotiations, immigration, human rights legislation, agricultural policy, fisheries policy, environmental policy and the EU was beginning to intrude of further foreign policy and attempt to widen its scope for military policy.

As a sovereign country I believe our decision to leave the EU was entirely rational and justified, as was the USA's over 300 years ago.

[Imploding Turtle]

Complete red herring. Why should old people not be allowed to vote in the way they think gives their grandchildren the best future?

Where did i say they weren't? Why do you keep criticising me for things i haven't said?

Remember that these old people who voted against are the ones who voted heavily in favour of the EEC in 1975. They lived through the last 40 years, they saw what the EEC became, and they changed their mind. If so many of the people who have lived through the last 40 years have changed their minds, who is to say that the current young people who voted for the EU wouldn't change theirs too?

Are we talking about the same generation that benefited from all kinds of government assistance and programs from free higher education and healthcare to cheap, nationalised utilities and transport? Are we talking about the generation which benefited from the housing bubble and then left my generation to pay for the mess it created when it burst? Are we talking about the generation that made great use of collective bargaining rights and fought to secure for themselves other, vital workers' rights only to then open up the road for future neoliberal governments to gut?

Are we talking about the generation that spent their entire adult lives benefitting from their parents' efforts to build a fantastic and robust welfare state, with all kinds of protections for wage earners and benefits for everyone only for them to have a firesale when it comes to my generation getting to benefit from all the advantages that they had?

Yeah, I think that's the generation we're talking about. They benefited from all these things over the last 40-60 years and then when it comes to my generations turn to enjoy these social programs they were either defunded through tax cuts or sold off so that state pensions can be paid for in the short tem (because that's all they care about since they'll be dead soon). So it should come as no surprise that after spending the last 30 years swiping the rug from under my generation that they do it one more time by leaving us vulnerable to the Tories when it comes to holiday pay, sick pay, maternity and paternity leave, collective bargaining rights, redundancy rights, etc.

That generation can go **** itself.

[USC]

I think our situation in the EU was comparable in a very important manner to colonial America - we were not in direct democratic control of our institutions.

This is exactly what they demanded

We the people demand ... "All legislative powers" ... 'no taxation without representation' ... "To regulate commerce" ... "to coin money" ... "To define and punish piracies and felonies" ... "To make rules for the government and Regulation of the land and navy" ... ... ... and on and on.

With the exception of "no taxation without representation' these are all direct quotes from the US constition. These things apply as directly to the UK breaking from EU legislation as they did from the USA breaking from British rule.

We controlled neither business legislation, trade negotiations, immigration, human rights legislation, agricultural policy, fisheries policy, environmental policy and the EU was beginning to intrude of further foreign policy and attempt to widen its scope for military policy.

As a sovereign country I believe our decision to leave the EU was entirely rational and justified, as was the USA's over 300 years ago.

There are almost no similarities between Brexit and the US Declaration of Independence, other than the mistaken belief in many Brexiters' minds that the UK is not self governing.

The Americans had no voting rights - laws (and more importantly taxes) were imposed by the UK government and the Americans had to follow them. We are in a completely different situation. We elect a UK government who set laws and taxes on our behalf. We also elect a EU parliament and indirectly an EU commission (something most Brexiters don't like to admit - or simply don't understand)!

The US at the time had no control of immigration or desire to do so. UK has control over non EU citizens.

Trade negotiations - thankfully as EU members, we have free trade with all EU member countries = which is good as most of our trade is with them! And we negotiate good deals with other countries through being in the EU. US situation was completely different - John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were sailing between England and France trying to play one off against the other!

I don't recall environmental policy coming into play in US declaration of independence. Thankfully we have (soon to be had) the EU. I suppose you prefer the freedom Trump now has to ignore the Paris accord, drill in Alaska, start surface coal mining again in Virginia, etc?

See - not too many similarities

[dsr]

Where did i say they weren't? Why do you keep criticising me for things i haven't said?

All right, pedant, I will rephrase it. While I fully accept that you accept the legal right of old people to vote the way they want, I dispute your implication that they are in any way acting unfairly towards younger people by voting. Is that better?

[Imploding Turtle]

All right, pedant, I will rephrase it. While I fully accept that you accept the legal right of old people to vote the way they want, I dispute your implication that they are in any way acting unfairly towards younger people by voting. Is that better?

Still no.

[ClaretMoffitt]

It wasn't a perfect refutation of an argument, nor was it intended to be because it wasn't responding to an argument at all. Moffitt make a dismissive post about Osborne saying that the average UK household would be £4,300 worse off in 15 years because of Brexit and i showed how by one measure we're already worse off. Moffitt, of course, didn't include the 15 years bit, but i wanted to show him how we're all already worse off as a result of the devalued Pound. The effects of this devaluation hasn't been felt yet, though i never claimed it was.

And i'm pretty sure i made a number of efforts to be absolutely clear that i was saying I was comparing the value of the average households income relative to the US dollar. I was never pretending that the average UK household is currently, actually over £4,300 British pounds worse off because it would be impossible to predict exactly how much the cost of living is going to go up over the next years or two as a result of our currency being devalued.

You and Tom are criticising me for presenting a conclusion that I have not presented, and making an argument that I have not made, and then called me dishonest for it.

As a side note, isn't it funny how you're not criticising Moffitt for deliberately excluding the "15 years" thing from Osbornes comment, you know, for effect? Isn't that dishonest? Actually, of course it's not, because it wasn't deliberate. But isn't it funny how you're willing to give someone with whom you agree the benefit of the doubt while jumping on the back of someone you don't?

Admittedly, this was about 7 months ago now, but I do not remember any of the remain team mentioning this would be a gradual process over 15 years. The time that stands out most vividly in my memory was on sky news when Osborne was talking about it along side an emergency budget, which was of course to be a much more immediate punishment, i mean measure.

[Imploding Turtle]

Admittedly, this was about 7 months ago now, but I do not remember any of the remain team mentioning this would be a gradual process over 15 years. The time that stands out most vividly in my memory was on sky news when Osborne was talking about it along side an emergency budget, which was of course to be a much more immediate punishment, i mean measure.

It's the sort of detail that gets lost in memory over time. It's no big deal that you forgot, and i knew that was all that had happened.

[claretdom]

We had 1 remain voter on here 30 minutes after the result who said something along the lines of "this is going to be bad for everyone in fact I have already had orders cancelled from customers" which as everyone is told nothing has changed and won't for at least 18 months is clearly ballcocks.

Now we are going to be £4k a year worse off, luckily though only if we are paid in dollars. Glad I earn in pesetas

[Imploding Turtle]

We had 1 remain voter on here 30 minutes after the result who said something along the lines of "this is going to be bad for everyone in fact I have already had orders cancelled from customers" which as everyone is told nothing has changed and won't for at least 18 months is clearly ballcocks.

Now we are going to be £4k a year worse off, luckily though only if we are paid in dollars. Glad I earn in pesetas

This?
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 57#p109757" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently this isn't the first time you whined about it. Do you mind if i ask how it is you know that he lied?
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 50#p221112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[claretdom]

You can ask what you like turtle.

[Imploding Turtle]

How do you know he's lying?

[claretandy]

The IMF stated the Pound was 20% over-valued way before brexit, it is now back down to normal levels.

[JohnMcGreal]

The IMF stated the Pound was 20% over-valued way before brexit, it is now back down to normal levels.

You could argue that everyone's house is 20% over-valued.

Will everyone be happy if house prices suddenly came down to 'normal' levels?

[Paul Waine]

Well I guess you'll have to hope that they thank you for it. I'd be the exact opposite in your position - I would want to give my children/grandchildren opportunities, not take them away. Being able to study, live and work in any EU country is a great opportunity (which I know from experience). And as far as the economy is concerned, our GDP has outperformed other EU countries over the last 30 years and our standard of living has increased year on year (all whilst being in the EU). And then there are environmental protections we get from the EU. Etc. And in the future we can get a "Trump" and then we'd wish we had the EU safety net!


I see no similarities at all.

Hi USC, I've worked in the Netherlands - and loved it. I did this before the creation of the single market - and before the euro. I've also worked in New York - again, no problem and we didn't need to be a member of any supranational group for me to get permission. My daughter has lived and worked in Switzerland and USA. I've got British friends who have lived and worked in Singapore, Australia, Japan, India and many other countries. A niece is currently in China for a year, or more. We didn't need to be a member of the EU to be able to access international opportunities. Similarly, we don't need to be a member of the EU to be able to give opportunities to live and work in the UK to our fellow Europeans. (I have several European friends working who have worked with me in the UK).

As I've said above, the euro is a "political project" and a mistake. It is harming the EU countries that have adopted the euro. It's both a "dumb" economic idea and, more importantly, a "dumb" political idea. The populations of Europe weren't ready for it and aren't ready for it. (Maybe, with a the EU following a different path, we would all be ready for a "united states of Europe" in another 50 years time. When the time is right and the people want it, it will get my vote).

But, Brussels will continue to pursue economic and political integration and the EU/Brussels "elite" will continue to believe in their own "rightness" to the dismissal of all other views. Remember when other countries had votes and voted against various new EU treaties - and the EU asked them to vote again. It is these type of actions that I see as demonstrating the similarities between France in pre-1789 and EU/Brussels today. David Cameron tried to seek various reforms within the EU - and failed. Jeremy Corbyn has also been a "euro-sceptic." But, the EU elites (including it would appear some of our own senior civil servants) continue to drive the "EU project."

I'm afraid "the emperor has no clothes" and this is why the UK people, granted their one chance to express "the wisdom of crowds" has voted to leave the EU.

Personally, I would have preferred the EU to be much more "flexible" and to enable greater freedoms within an "economic community" - which is what the EEC was when the UK joined. But, the EU has been taken over by "minor Brussels princes." The "princes" have forgotten that they exist to serve the population(s) of the EU - rather than that the populations exist to feed "riches" to the princes. That's why it is better for the UK to leave. Who knows, in time, other countries may also leave. Why else does the EU threaten that the process of leaving will be "painful" - it's not because they want the UK to stay, but to "frighten" any other group that might want their member state to also vote to leave.

[claretandy]

You could argue that everyone's house is 20% over-valued.

Will everyone be happy if house prices suddenly came down to 'normal' levels?

Lower house prices would be better for everyone, only benefits those who are downsizing.

[Paul Waine]

You could argue that everyone's house is 20% over-valued.

Will everyone be happy if house prices suddenly came down to 'normal' levels?

Hi John, as an older generation guy, with children who aren't all on the housing ladder, 100% yes. House prices are too high, especially in London. I would happily see house prices fall.

I do think of "my children and my grandchildren" (yet to be born) - and of all the younger generation. The country needs lower house prices - and much smaller gap between house prices in London/S.East and the rest of the country.

There are only two groups who logically should not want lower house prices: those who have bought recently and committed themselves to high mortgages to achieve it. They will be in some "pain" if house prices fall - negative equity may "trap them" in their current home, and prevent them moving elsewhere, either as their families grow or they get an opportunity to work elsewhere.

The second group is the government, whether conservative or labour. They will worry about the disruption to the financial system from bank losses on mortgage loans. Gordon Brown "stepped in" to rescue the banks because of the harm it would do to the economy if they were allowed to fail (but, generally, GB wasn't saving the owners of the banks - the shareholder suffered enormous "hits" on their ownership stakes). QE made borrowing cheap - and, it gave many people the opportunity to buy a house that they couldn't previously afford - and thus pushed up house prices.

[Paul Waine]

Time for this old guy to go to the gym. Got to do my "warm up - plus an hour's "vigourous exercise" to get ready for 3pm kick-off.

UTC

[JohnMcGreal]

Hi Paul. The two groups you mention account for a huge number of people.

A crash in house prices would be very good news for those first time buyers trying to get on the property ladder.

But it wouldn't go down well with the millions of people who've currently got big mortgages on houses that are suddenly going to be worth 20% less than they paid for them.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of pensioners, who have seen a huge increase in the value of their property over the decades, will be as keen as you are to see that profit eaten into to the tune of 20%, either.

If a political party ran on a ticket of reducing house prices, they'd get slaughtered at the ballot box.

If reducing house prices is as popular as you think it is, why wasn't that promise plastered on the side of a bus? Because it would have been suicide for the Leave campaign if they'd done that.

[Lancasterclaret]

Hi DSR, when you say you voted for your grandchildren, do you think that the chances that your generation has had over the last forty years will be repeated?

If that is genuinely your reason, then you need to elaborate because you clearly know your stuff, and you will know that those days are never coming back, whatever success (or lack of) Brexit brings.

[Spijed]

One thing with regards to the older generation is that historically they are less favourable towards multiculturalism than younger people are.

Perhaps that's one reason why they voted to leave the EU.

[Rowls]

See - not too many similarities

Listing the differences does not make the similarities disappear.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul. The two groups you mention account for a huge number of people.

A crash in house prices would be very good news for those first time buyers trying to get on the property ladder.

But it wouldn't go down well with the millions of people who've currently got big mortgages on houses that are suddenly going to be worth 20% less than they paid for them.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of pensioners, who have seen a huge increase in the value of their property over the decades, will be as keen as you are to see that profit eaten into to the tune of 20%, either.

If a political party ran on a ticket of reducing house prices, they'd get slaughtered at the ballot box.

If reducing house prices is as popular as you think it is, why wasn't that promise plastered on the side of a bus? Because it would have been suicide for the Leave campaign if they'd done that.

Hi John,

I agree there are a lot on the other side of the house price exposure, but I believe it is more "nuanced" than many people consider.

Many people have large mortgages because (I) house prices are high and (ii) interest rates are low. It therefore stands that their mortgages won't be so high is house prices weren't so high. And, the concern should be what happens to those large mortgages when interest rates (eventually) start to rise? At what stage do people start to default because they can't cover the mortgage payments? And as this happens house prices will start to fall again - there was a lot of talk of negative equity not that many years ago.

Re pensioners, if we assume that many of them will be looking to downsize (btw the country needs a lot of under-occupied houses putting back on the market), whatever reduction the pensioners experience in the fall of their current house price will be compensated by a fall in the downsized house they want to move to. Yes, I agree, some will want to win on both sides - but, a lot of pensioners have also got children and grandchildren, so (a) they will want to see the lower house prices for their younger generation and (b) they know they "can't take it with them" (no pockets in shrouds) and many would be equally concerned about paying a large share in inheritance tax. It may also be that the older pensioners will be concerned about the availability of "lower cost" housing for their carers, whether cared for at home or moving into an "old folks home."

Didn't George Osborne proclaim the risk of falling house prices as one of the "bad things" that would happen after a "leave" vote? No need for the Brexit guys to put it on their bus. The response GO got was enough to boost the "leave" vote - according to the polls at the time (if my memory serves correctly).

The only way to sort the "housing crisis" is to build more houses - and build them in places where people want to live.

[Paul Waine]

One thing with regards to the older generation is that historically they are less favourable towards multiculturalism than younger people are.

Perhaps that's one reason why they voted to leave the EU.

Hi Spijed, I'm going to suggest that the larger part of the generation you are referring to has already "passed on."

I've posted elsewhere about my international experience and my friends from multiple nations.

And, I've posted elsewhere about my pride in my children's generation and their multicultural friendships.

Yes, I'm sure there are "pockets" of negative feelings for "foreigners" - but I don't think these are particularly prevalent in the pensioners age group.

[Paul Waine]

Where did i say they weren't? Why do you keep criticising me for things i haven't said?

Are we talking about the same generation that benefited from all kinds of government assistance and programs from free higher education and healthcare to cheap, nationalised utilities and transport? Are we talking about the generation which benefited from the housing bubble and then left my generation to pay for the mess it created when it burst? Are we talking about the generation that made great use of collective bargaining rights and fought to secure for themselves other, vital workers' rights only to then open up the road for future neoliberal governments to gut?

Are we talking about the generation that spent their entire adult lives benefitting from their parents' efforts to build a fantastic and robust welfare state, with all kinds of protections for wage earners and benefits for everyone only for them to have a firesale when it comes to my generation getting to benefit from all the advantages that they had?

Yeah, I think that's the generation we're talking about. They benefited from all these things over the last 40-60 years and then when it comes to my generations turn to enjoy these social programs they were either defunded through tax cuts or sold off so that state pensions can be paid for in the short tem (because that's all they care about since they'll be dead soon). So it should come as no surprise that after spending the last 30 years swiping the rug from under my generation that they do it one more time by leaving us vulnerable to the Tories when it comes to holiday pay, sick pay, maternity and paternity leave, collective bargaining rights, redundancy rights, etc.

Hi IT, so, you and I are from different generations. A few of my thoughts on the items you mention:

a) free higher education - I believe when I went to uni there was less than 5% of the school age group got that chance. Today, I believe it's closer to 40% (Tony Blair wanted to target 50%). It is absolutely right to aim that everyone achieves as high a standard of education as can be achieved. The higher numbers also push up the costs of education. Tony Blair (supported by Conservatives) agreed that the student who benefited from the uni education should be the one to pay (a large part of the costs). There is a logic to the argument as it should focus the student's attention on gaining a degree that will enable them to earn a high(er) income. Yes, I know it doesn't always work out like that. And, maybe there is a mis-alignment in the numbers going to uni and the number of degree level (i.e. higher paid) jobs available. I know there needs to be more thought in this area, but maybe it's not the older generation who is responsible for the costs of going to uni.

b) healthcare, i.e. NHS - started with some great ideals after WWII. But, NHS has always been in a mess. I have personal experience of recovering from a (minor) op in the corridors of Accy Vic in 1962! The NHS wasn't right then - and it's not right now. It does some great things - but why do you think no other country has copied the NHS model? When I lived in Netherlands the Dutch insurance system was better.

c) There was nothing, repeat nothing good about the nationalised utilities and transport. Their prices were much too high. Their service standards were very much "take it or leave it." If you wanted a phone in the 1970s, and you could afford it, you could join a waiting list and some months later (4, 5, 6 or more) the phone would be installed. If it went wrong there was a delay in getting it repaired. You couldn't buy your own phone - you had to rent the received from GPO. Train services were many times worse when British Rail ran it all. Electricity and gas prices are significantly lower and more affordable after these industries were privatised. (Yes, there are issues with some suppliers if you switch for a lower price - but it's so much better to have the choice). Then just think about what a great company British Leyland was and what great cars they produced.

d) House prices - see my other posts - but don't assume that it is the house owners who push the prices up - it is an absence of supply. Let's get building more houses.

e) Collective bargaining - blame this on the unions. You probably don't know about Barbara Castle's (Labour Gov't 1960s) attempt to legislate "In place of strife" to control the unions. Many unions are confused between representing their members and leading the next revolution. Why do the union members allow this? If you are of my generation you have experienced too many politically motivated strikes to feel that they are ever a "good thing."

f) Paternity rights - just to pick one out from your long list. Back in the 1980s when I first heard about paternity rights (i.e. a few days off on the birth of a child) I heard a manager say "You've had 9 months to save some holidays for the birth of your child."

Someone else posting on here seems to think we had no "employment rights" before the EU - not true. Similarly, someone believes that all the "environmental" stuff comes from the EU. Some does, but have you ever wondered what type of coal they burn in Germany? Lignite - the filthiest most polluting fuel you can find (but, it's cheap, so Germany burns it). And, what about the "diesel" car pollution rules - which VW has been found out for cheating. It's not a case that EU "good" UK "bad" in environmental issues or in employment issues or in welfare.

g) You mention pensions - though not the public sector "final salary" pensions. These are one of the still hidden scandals and financial burdens. Yes, they will fall more on your (and my children's) generation than they will on mine. The private sector, generally, is exiting defined benefit pension schemes. They are unaffordable, they were always unaffordable if the population didn't die as quickly as generations before us did. But, no one worked this out and the promises were made - and the courts decided that Equitable Life (and others) had to meet these promises. But, in EQ's case - the other EQ investors are the ones to lose out (my generation, including me). For public sector pensions it is the tax payer who will lose out. It is one of the "dirty little secrets" (my guess - there's no data that I'm aware of) - it is one of the reasons why the tax payers payments don't go as far as they used to go. It is the reason why there isn't enough money for many other state expenditures (welfare, NHS, educations included). And, the costs of these public sector pensions will fall increasingly on your (and my children's) generation - and none of you will get your own defined benefit pension to mitigate some of the extra taxes you will be asked to pay. I bore people on this last point - it will effect me because it will effect my children. If I'm lucky enough to live another 3 decades (early 90s for me) these costs will be impacting my old age. We all need them sorted.

God bless.