Support NeoGAF

[Linkstrikesback]

Best case scenario would be to pay a sum of money, as vast as it may be, to protect access to the single market and London's status as the financial capital of europe.

No matter how the UK leaves the EU, London is likely not keeping that status for very long.

If we u turn completely and stay in the EU, even then I'd be entirely unsurprised if the financial markets make secret agreements to move things to EU nations quietly.

 

[frankie_baby]

Read below

How many times does the EU have to say "Freedom of movement is necessary for the single market to be maintained like it is" before people understand they are actually serious? The best case would be a Canada - like agreement (which will probably not include some sectors), this could lead to services not being included and UK still being fucked. I understand that it is good to think they are not being totally serious, but if one party says all the time a point is not negotiable it tends to mean that it is not negotiable.

As said before the "works first" approach by Labour is probably just a way to accept a soft brexit (maybe keeping some control of the eu border for a while like the deal you got with Cameron) by saying that otherwise the effect on the economy would be oo large.

EDIT: Also, all kind of agreements should be approved by all eu members which would mean that good luck discriminating against the eastern members.

I'd imagine most of the eastern members may be easy to placate due to the numbers of their citizens in the UK, i cant see them wanting to hammer us

 

[Xando]

Maintaining tariff free access to the UK would be in germany's interest too so perhaps some monetary deal could let them water down their demand

Once again this 'they need us nonsense'. The EU will be happy to do a deal but they won't threaten the EU for it.

You don't realize this is more than a economic issue for europeans. Even the german chamber of commerce said the government shouldn't do a deal that harms the four freedoms.

 

[frankie_baby]

And you decided to spit on the EU after bending some rules and getting mostly a good deal from exceptions. Good will is not on your side in this case. Plus now you will be an outsider, not part of "home", different rules of negotiations are applied.
Edit: oh yeah the negotiators, that is pretty shitty. Do you have already a core set of them? Cause it will be pretty hard to obtain anything good otherwise.

To be fair i wonder if the EU is regretting giving Hammeron such a weedy deal a little more bending then would probably have kept us in

 

[autumnleaf]

People get too hung up on Tories/Labour said this, the EU said that. It's a two year negotiation for a reason for an unprecedented situation. What is being asked for now will almost certainly be different to the reality in two years time.

 

[barber]

I'd imagine most of the eastern members may be easy to placate due to the numbers of their citizens in the UK, i cant see them wanting to hammer us

They were the most difficult to agree with during the Cameron agreement. After they had made sure right to stay is enforced (which would be good for both UK and EU), they will want their citizens to continue moving there if a tariff free zone is agreed.

To be fair i wonder if the EU is regretting giving Hammeron such a weedy deal a little more bending then would probably have kept us in

The deal was not bad at all plus with the Leave campaign it wouldnt matter unless they had let you have total control for some years (which, as you need agreement from all countries would be impossible).

People get too hung up on Tories/Labour said this, the EU said that. It's a two year negotiation for a reason for an unprecedented situation. What is being asked for now will almost certainly be different to the reality in two years time.

Again, one side has been saying that a point is not negotiable while the other dances around that point
EDIT: forgot the article 50 wasnt called until two months ago or so

EDIT 2: let's not derail the topic, sorry for that. I will want to add that I was actually quite surprised by Corbyn during the election. His actions, compared to his previous actions as president of the Labour party, were much better. He also changed the opinion of all my friends in England which were not that good at the beginning of the campaign. If the Tories believe it was all May's fault, they are in for a surprise next cycle.

 

[Xando]

People get too hung up on Tories/Labour said this, the EU said that. It's a two year negotiation for a reason for an unprecedented situation. What is being asked for now will almost certainly be different to the reality in two years time.

Except any deal has to pass 27 national and one european parliament which have all have a veto and threatened to use it if the 4 freedoms are compromised.

 

[Bleepey]

Considering the current circumstances FWIW, I have some predictions to make:

1. May steps down as leader some time as early August, allowing time for a new leader to be elected by the Tory conference in September. The new leader is a surprise, and has either not had a major cabinet role in the past or is a young backbencher.

2. Corbyn carries on riding high in the polls until the new leader emerges, at which time the new PM will get a bump.

3. The new PM will use conference and the reaction to themselves as PM as the deciding factor on if to go ahead with a snap election.

4. Stormont and Brexit are difficult to call. I think May will probably do everything possible to get Stormont working, because a flaring up of violence in NI during the marching season and the imposition of direct rule is a wombo combo that nobody in their right minds would do. Given the government's Brexit plan is, as far as any commentator can tell, to walk out of negotiations, they are up a creek without a paddle. As we start knocking months more off the schedule, this is something the public might begin to get very nervous about.

So here's some scenarios:

1. May manages to do Stormont, the Queen's Speech and the first chunk of Brexit talks amazingly well. This allows her to hold on as PM.

1a. The above does not happen but out of 300 plus MPs there is exactly nobody who wants the job so she clings on anyway.

2. May goes in August, we get a surprise new PM and that PM thinks they can beat Corbyn in a GE. Parliament reconvenes after the conference season. Labour really want another election and the Tories might be emboldened by a new leader.

2a. The new leader is Hammond, BoJo or another of the badly-smeared May cabinet and take over as caretaker PM. They do not call a GE and Corbyn and McDonnell have to keep the momentum going for two years, which could be hard.

So at this point it all depends on when May steps down, who replaces her and how good a choice that is. It is critical for the Tories, if they wish to remain in power, to find a serious alternative, likely someone young, who can beat Corbyn. But I am seriously struggling to think of someone who can do that.

Here's an odd shot gamble for next Tory leader. Adam Afriye. Think about it, a BME Leader, a cynical fuck might think glass cliff, not affected by expenses, rags to riches story. Supported Brexit which may help.
*i know nothing about politics

 

[Frankfurter]

Maintaining tariff free access to the UK would be in germany's interest too so perhaps some monetary deal could let them water down their demand

Can we just stop with this nonsense please? The freaking German CAR INDUSTRY has said several times that it does not want this kind of a special deal for the UK, because it could damage the single market in the mid- to longterm (which is much, much more important for them than the UK). It's not gonna happen period.

 

[KingSnake]

I'd imagine most of the eastern members may be easy to placate due to the numbers of their citizens in the UK, i cant see them wanting to hammer us

So you think the eastern members will agree with a deal in which UK gets to keep their benefits while their many citizens that are currently in UK will get what? Keep their freedom of movement? Or how do you see this work? "If you don't agree with this we will kick your citizens out!"

If UK gets access to single market without FoM this will provide an incredible boost to right wing parties in a lot of EU countries. It won't happen. Keeping EU together will benefit the EU economy infinitely more than keeping the trade with UK tariff free.

 

[Nordicus]

Boris wants no hard or soft Brexit but a open Brexit
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/not-hard-not-soft-an-open-brexit-is-best-ttvn69s3c

Whatever that means

It means a sunny side up brexit or a scrambled brexit.

 

[Chinner]

https://twitter.com/danhancox/status/876389822713278464

People are being moved as far north as Preston, and if they refuse they are told they are intentionally declaring themselves homeless.

 

[Uzzy]

Well it is a negotiation. You never know, money talks. I agree you can't remain IN the single market without FOM but they've bent plenty of unbendable rules for us in the past.

Unfortunately I know that this is mostly hypotheticals and fantasy as we won't have negotiators capable of aiming for something that nice.

Yeah, I've been surprised at the lack of discussion about just paying for single market access. Given how much we hear about how when we joined the EEC it was just a trading block, discussing the European project in purely mercantile terms, I'd have thought the idea of just sending Brussels a sum of money every year would have been appealing. A simple trade, basically.

Instead it looks as if there's violent palpitations at the idea of even paying Brussels a penny in the talks. It's strange.

 

[Morat]

https://twitter.com/danhancox/status/876389822713278464

People are being moved as far north as Preston, and if they refuse they are told they are intentionally declaring themselves homeless.

When you think you have reached the bottom of human cruelty

 

[nekkid]

Boris wants no hard or soft Brexit but a open Brexit
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/not-hard-not-soft-an-open-brexit-is-best-ttvn69s3c

Whatever that means

Open* Brexit.






*borders

 

[Linkstrikesback]

https://twitter.com/danhancox/status/876389822713278464

People are being moved as far north as Preston, and if they refuse they are told they are intentionally declaring themselves homeless.

And just in case people aren't sure how far north this would be forcing people to move,

Bastards.

 

[Nevasleep]

https://twitter.com/danhancox/status/876389822713278464

People are being moved as far north as Preston, and if they refuse they are told they are intentionally declaring themselves homeless.

What's the alternative solution in these situations? 120 affordable homes/flats is going to be nearly impossible to find quickly in London.
Maybe they should be kept in hotels (still expensive), or given the opportunity to move, then move back, idk.

Interesting article from buzzfeed on newspaper media coverage vs social media in run up to election Buzzfeed link

 

[scamander]

Lots of Brits in here who apparently still don't understand the European project. No wonder you guys voted leave. For the record, the EU won't let you destabilise and compromise it, just so you don't have to bear the consequences of the election as well as your incompetent government. I doesn't matter you haven't talked about buying your way into the single market, because there is no buying in.

What's the alternative solution in these situations? 120 affordable homes/flats is going to be nearly impossible to find quickly in London.

Lot's of disused houses/ mansions in London that could be used for that. Relocating people whom may have lost several family members after such a tragic incident to the other end of the country can only be described as cruel and heartless. I seriously hope this will be talked about in the media, because it is a scandal and the Tories deserve an even bigger backlash than they received so far.

 

[Mivey]

I'd have thought the idea of just sending Brussels a sum of money every year would have been appealing. A simple trade, basically.
.

That's already the case for actual members, everyone pays to be in the market with all rights and obligations. So either Britain has to pay way more, which is probably not going to be popular at home, nor particularly affordable, or you hope that the EU will just totally be okay in treating the UK like the special snowflake itself thinks it is.
Hope against hope, seems to be the negotiation strategy of Westminster here.

 

[Spaced Harrier]

May is truly a spineless leader, but also just bad at appearing to have a spine.

"I commit to providing high quality modern housing to the survivors of the grenfall disaster and their families, in the area so that they can continue their great community that showed us the best of British spirit, during this crisis."


Just some bullshit like that.

 

[Pinkuss]

https://twitter.com/danhancox/status/876389822713278464

People are being moved as far north as Preston, and if they refuse they are told they are intentionally declaring themselves homeless.

Don't the Tories realise this is already looking bad for them, are they stupid to not think this will reflect even worse? These are supposed to be educated people with advisers and whatnot aren't they?

 

[RedShift]

Cancelling next year's Queen's Speech is a pretty blatant ploy to avoid a key vote that could bring down the government isn't it?

 

[JonnyDBrit]

https://twitter.com/danhancox/status/876389822713278464

People are being moved as far north as Preston, and if they refuse they are told they are intentionally declaring themselves homeless.

And just in case people aren't sure how far north this would be forcing people to move,


Bastards.

And there Sharma was, claiming the priority was to rehouse people within the local area.

Gave the man too much benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jezbollah]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[SuperBowser]

https://twitter.com/danhancox/status/876389822713278464

People are being moved as far north as Preston, and if they refuse they are told they are intentionally declaring themselves homeless.

I know for a fact Kensington area has extremely limited housing options. They regularly rehouse homeless people to East London as a "temporary" solution. Waiting times in East London are anywhere from 6 months to many years (5+) already. It sounds horrible, but there was simply no way to rehome residents of Grenfell without bumping off people that have waited years and desperately need accommodation too. Despite the horror of Grenfell, I imagine there are people on the waiting list that still need housing more.

It's crazy how many public systems in the UK have been allowed to crumble in the past decade and society is only waking up now.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

I know for a fact Kensington area has extremely limited housing options. They regularly rehouse homeless people to East London as a "temporary" solution. Waiting times in East London are anywhere from 6 months to many years (5+) already. It sounds horrible, but there was simply no way to rehome residents of Grenfell without bumping off people that have waited years and desperately need accommodation too. Despite the horror of Grenfell, I imagine there are people on the waiting list that still need housing more.

It's crazy how many public systems in the UK have been allowed to crumble in the past decade and society is only waking up now.

Reminds me of that documentary series: How to get a Council House. It was depressing in its brutal honesty of how clogged up the system is.

Simultaneously, as has been brought up though, there's a lot of empty properties in the borough due to rich people with second/third/whatever homes. Of course, the Tories don't want to dare risk some sort of compromise to make those available.

 

[daviyoung]

Lot's of disused houses/ mansions in London that could be used for that.

Haha, good one! Those still belong to someone. The government will need to negotiate with the private landlords if they want to take it off them.

 

[Morat]

Haha, good one! Those still belong to someone. The government will need to negotiate with the private landlords if they want to take it off them.

Compulsory purchase orders exist. Not that they will use them.

 

[Zaph]

I know for a fact Kensington area has extremely limited housing options. They regularly rehouse homeless people to East London as a "temporary" solution. Waiting times in East London are anywhere from 6 months to many years (5+) already. It sounds horrible, but there was simply no way to rehome residents of Grenfell without bumping off people that have waited years and desperately need accommodation too. Despite the horror of Grenfell, I imagine there are people on the waiting list that still need housing more.

It's crazy how many public systems in the UK have been allowed to crumble in the past decade and society is only waking up now.

Meanwhile, K&C has the highest number of empty homes in London.

I'm not opposed to the idea of property being worth a lot of money, but there is something fundamentally wrong with the system when homes in our city are better used as de facto bank accounts.

 

[daviyoung]

Compulsory purchase orders exist. Not that they will use them.

Didn't know that, but seems like last resort. Of course they won't use them, those people have money and are the governments friends.

 

[Acorn]

Meanwhile, K&C has the highest number of empty homes in London.

I'm not opposed to the idea of property being worth a lot of money, but there is something fundamentally wrong when homes in our city are better used as de facto bank accounts.

That's the truth everywhere these days. Housing is pretty much govt backed up to always increase for those sweet,sweet get out of jail bubbles.

 

[jimbobsmells]

God the Marr / Stramer interview was frustrating to watch. "Will be in the customs union, yes or no. Will be in the single market, yes or no."
Marr acting like there is no nuance involved here, that we can't try and at least negotiate our own model (relationship) which doesn't fit the current binary options of 'yes or no'.

 

[scamander]

Haha, good one! Those still belong to someone. The government will need to negotiate with the private landlords if they want to take it off them.

Well, I don't know how it is in the UK, but in Germany the government can force owners of empty homes to make those available during a crisis. They used it a few years ago because of the refugee crisis.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Didn't know that, but seems like last resort. Of course they won't use them, those people gave money and are the governments friends.

The particular sticking point is that there needs some form of compensation, IIRC. For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-G_v_De_Keyser's_Royal_Hotel_Ltd

Yes, this is a case about wartime use, but wartime use is also usually the scenario in which most things can be excused, for the sake of the realm. So if the government can't just take/use your stuff without compensation in World War 1, they probably can't do it in peacetime a hundred years later. So that would mean making a deal of some sort with the property owners, which will almost certainly piss them off no matter what, and as mentioned, the Tories are likely to be averse to that.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Personally, despite supporting it in principal I think it's a bit dangerous to be talking of confiscating property at this stage, it's exactly the sort of thing that those who can't countenance Corbyn or Socialism will use against Labour.

However I could well be wrong (again) and this may be popular with the voters.

 

[Theonik]

Maybe the nuclear 9 were right and the UK should consider the use of the nuclear deterrent against Berlin/Brussels.
Rule Britannia and all that nonsense.

 

[scamander]

It's property that is not in use and the owners would be compensated. Honestly, it's really despicable those owners didn't offer it themselves. They should be ashamed.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Personally, despite supporting it in principal I think it's a bit dangerous to be talking of confiscating property at this stage, it's exactly the sort of thing that those who can't countenance Corbyn or Socialism will use against Labour.

However I could well be wrong (again) and this may be popular with the voters.

A majority support it - http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougo...itizens-to-house-grenfell-fire-victims-2017-6

That’s only going to grow with news of people being relocated as far away as fucking Preston.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

A majority support it - http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougo...itizens-to-house-grenfell-fire-victims-2017-6

That’s only going to grow with news of people being relocated as far away as fucking Preston.

In that case seize the means.

 

[SuperBowser]

Personally, despite supporting it in principal I think it's a bit dangerous to be talking of confiscating property at this stage, it's exactly the sort of thing that those who can't countenance Corbyn or Socialism will use against Labour.

However I could well be wrong (again) and this may be popular with the voters.

It wouldn't be popular with me. I would view it as a cynical vote grabbing measure that benefits few people (much like current Tory policies). A good start to me would be policies that stop selling government property to private companies and preventing more empty properties being built.

 

[Zaph]

It's property that is not in use and the owners would be compensated. Honestly, it's really despicable those owners didn't offer it themselves. They should be ashamed.

They're not in the country and couldn't give two shits

 

[JonnyDBrit]

It's property that is not in use and the owners would be compensated. Honestly, it's really despicable those owners didn't offer it themselves. They should be ashamed.

I wouldn't be surprised if a number of those owners don't even realise what's going on atm.

Though thinking it, even if compulsory purchase orders were a consideration, I wonder if the Tories would avoid them in order to not undervalue the properties. Few things will anger a Conservative home owner like reducing the value of their investment.

 

[Wrestlemania]

It wouldn't be popular with me. I would view it as a cynical vote grabbing measure that benefits few people (much like current Tory policies). A good start to me would be policies that stop selling government property to private companies and preventing more empty properties being built.

Yeah fuck short term measures which benefit a few hundred people who have just had their homes, friends and families burned to a crisp and saves them being relocated hundreds of miles away. Just as bad as tax cuts for the super rich.

You realise they could do this as well as what you suggest, right?

 

[Orniletter]

Best case scenario would be to pay a sum of money, as vast as it may be, to protect access to the single market and London's status as the financial capital of europe.

Freedom of movement would simply have to go. It's suicidal in many ways on it's own but that is clearly the main point of opposition to the EU.

Even the softest Norway-esque Brexit (as unlikely as that would be) would see London lose it's position as Europe's financial capital. It's been a thorn in rEU's eyes for a long time.

Plans and legislature is already being drafted to rework how euro-clearing will work in the future, in part specifically to move that business from London to countries that actually use the currency.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Meanwhile, K&C has the highest number of empty homes in London.

I'm not opposed to the idea of property being worth a lot of money, but there is something fundamentally wrong with the system when homes in our city are better used as de facto bank accounts.

I can understand the anger and frustration, but there's nothing wrong with using housing as an investment option.

I know doing so drives up prices and sometimes you end up with empty homes for 9+ months of the year, but idea that we should force people to sell homes because of a lack of investment by the government is ridiculous.

Focus the anger towards those who have earned it through decades of selling social housing and not doing enough to make up for the shortfall.

 

[nekkid]

I'd support a temporary occupation order of some kind, but outright confiscating property, even with compensation? That sounds like an incredibly dangerous precedent.

 

[EmiPrime]

Could also be a diplomatic nightmare given how many are foreign owned.

 

[frankie_baby]

I can understand the anger and frustration, but there's nothing wrong with using housing as an investment option.

I know doing so drives up prices and sometimes you end up with empty homes for 9+ months of the year, but idea that we should force people to sell homes because of a lack of investment by the government is ridiculous.

Focus the anger towards those who have earned it through decades of selling social housing and not doing enough to make up for the shortfall.

Theres everything wrong with housing as an investment, its a shit use of a limited resource and has probably been the thing that has fucked our economy over more than anything over the last 30 years

I've no objection to houses having a value but is there any honest reason why just owning a property should be a profitable venture

 

[Acorn]

I'd support a temporary occupation order of some kind, but outright confiscating property, even with compensation? That sounds like an incredibly dangerous precedent.

It happens already with compulsory purchases.

 

[Maledict]

A) I really don't understand the Preston move thing, as there are discussions at the highest level happening right now about reforming people across London. As others have said, locating the homes isn't easy (my borough has 20,000 families waiting for social housing alone) but putting people in Preston already seems bizarre and odd given what's going on.

B) london will lose euro clearing obviously, but it's not going to lose its place as the financial capital of Europe. It's role will diminish, but there's simply no-where else in Europe that can even begin to hope to replace everything london offers. We'll see companies shift over to Paris, Frankfurt, Dublin etc, but london will remain the preeminent place for finance for the foreseeable future.

Unless we hard Brexit of course, as we'll be too busy dealing the the apocalypse if that happens to give a toss about finance.