No, the monies were never promised (certainly from what I have read), and Labour did nothing to change it. As said before, successive governments had chance to change the scheme if they wanted to. But this has nothing to do with Article 50...

I'll tell you about the modern world. It is summed up in microcosm by the doctor getting dragged off the United Airlines flight by police because the airline overbooked the flight by virtue of it deciding it wanted 4 seats for its own employees. Basically, large, faceless money-grabbing companies are aided by the instruments of the state to the detriment of individuals.

You mean the Doctor that was disruptive?

Was he disruptive before he was told that his seat had been sold or, whilst being dragged off the plane

The only person who thought that was the CEO of the airline.



Neither the witnesses or the evidence support that point of view

Both of my Grandmothers were able to buy their houses that they had spent years paying rent on thanks to the right to buy scheme. I cannot criticise it as it has meant that my parents were able to actually inherit something which none of their ancestors were able to do so.



Although I believe that for every council house that was sold off another one should have been built in its place.

I think that youve helped make my point very well.

The tenants who bought their properties did very well indeed and in a way good luck to them.

However, surely, social housing is for the poor and needy and should never be sold cheaply to anyone.

Of course you are pleased, as your family made money out of the deal and they had the chance to own their property, although, the maths is fundamentally flawed.

If the housing stock is sold cheaply, which it was (up to 75% discount IIRC), how can you build a new property when you recover only 25% of the value on the properties that were sold ?



As I said, it was a crude vote catching mechanism, specifically aimed at traditional Labour voters and should never have been allowed.

Simply really - these houses would have been 30-40 years old and as such would have had 30-40 years of rental income so the initial investment would have been paid many times over. So selling them off at that point was possibly a good decision as they would have been at a point where they need significant sums to maintain them.



The problem is where did the monies go - managed correctly there should have been plenty of surplus to build more

There are a few more things than social housing that require an answer to that question!

Can we get back on topic, activating article 50 (which nothing to do with social housing)

Yeah let's do that, now TRESemme has thrown everyone a curve ball.

Frexit Anyone?

Frexit followed by Gexit maybe

what a year that would be

With Merkel saying that the UK must pay it's "divorce" settlement figure before negotiations can begin, are all the brexitiers still feeling confident.



Holland are staying in, France look likely to follow (as Le Pen's share of the vote isnt likely to increase far beyond the 35% that she got in the first round) and then all attention will move to Germany.

Nothing is going to happen until after their election, which makes a large hole on the 2 year timescale for negotiations to be complete.



The whole thing looks worse by the day and with UK consumers tightening their belts (see today's figures growth figures for the first quarter 0.3%) which make for very sorry reading and the currency inflation still working its way through the system will tighten things further.

Not a chance the UK will pay a settlement figure in advance of talks.



You just revert to WTO position on both sides and as the EU sells us more than we sell it so they will be harder hit.



We then need to look to alternative markets to sell our goods and other options for supply e.g. manufacture it ourselves or buy product from outside of the EEC let's face it there are plenty of options. Just because Europe is a big customer now doesn't mean it has to be in the future.



I simply don't get all the negativity - a deal is only a good deal if it works for both parties - the idea the EU can bully us into a deal that is so one sided that it is onerous doesn't make any sense.



The UK is a very important market to the EU you don't on your best customer and expect them to remain your best customer. As I said before what we BMW do if the tarifs slow sales down, they will simply manufacture in the UK - win win.

THe EU do sell more to the UK that we sell to the EU but "their " total sale to the UK are spread amongst the 27 nations (Granted Germany is the biggest single supplying nation).

Therefore the "hit" on our sales, although smaller than the "hit" for the EU is massively higher to the UK.

BMW may move some of their manufacturing over here but, what about the UK car industry, which exports over 80% of its production, much of it to the EU





You say that you dont poop on your best customer but, "we" have just told our best customer that we no longer want to be part of their "club" .





It's sure going to be interesting to see how it all pans out and IF the UK economy starts to slow (sorry, continues to slow), the pressure will build on our negotiating team.



I've been banging on for months about the importance of trading with the EU and others have used the Farage line about new markets but it's just fantasy stuff.



It's like your local Londis or One Stop advertising in the next town for business, whilst ignoring the local trade.

More utter garbage, the decision has been made. GET OVER IT

Utter garbage, really ??



Just remember, we're not out, yet and IF it all starts to look horribly bad, would you still want out or, might you want to think about it.

Lemmings and cliff edge spring to mind.

The leave campaigns major slogan was the 350 million pound we would save upon leaving the eu. Unfortunately it looks like we will be paying considerable sums of money for years to come. Not the 60 billion up front they have asked for which is ludicrous, but monies to keep us trading with the eu. So the 350 million pound saving claim looks completely false.

As I have remarked on several occasions, this will become an extremely bitter and confrontational time between us and the eu.

Already with the eu comments on Northern Ireland and Gibraltar enflaming an already delicate situation.

Whilst I voted to remain I am starting to turn against the Germans. Merkel sits on a huge pile of German money whilst doing nothing to ease the pain of the Southern European countries. Germany with the French poodle will do everything to damage our economy. If things become as fraught as I think they will, we will have tough it out. How you may ask. For one ,Let's pull out of NATO so when the Russian bear with Putin starts threatening the eastern borders our response should be nothing to do with us.

Sort out your own problems.

I can't get why the 5/6th biggest economy in the world will struggling to survive outside of the EU. The EU is one market there are a host of other potential markets where we can increase market share.

A fair point, my concern is the length of time to build up these markets. We should be already exploiting these markets.

I was surprised that Germany exports to India massively exceeds our exports to India . Yet we share the common language with the Indian business community. Germany also exports more to China than we do. Once again they manage to do that whilst being a eu member.

One country that could suffer with our withdrawal from the eu is Ireland. We are big customer of Irish products. Hence the shameful comments from the eu to entice Northern Ireland into the eu.

If that remote situation came about, you can imagine the weeping and wailing from our Scottish cousins north of the border.

IF we can buy product more cheaply from areas outside the EU that previously had large tariffs in place, the EU would prevent us dumping this product in the euro zone, that is just obvious and where exactly are the new markets and why weren't we supplying into those areas previously.

Also, the current suppliers into these areas aren't just going to roll over and let the UK steal their customers.



Despite the positive spin by Farage & Co, there simply aren't massive un-tapped markets that we can waltz into and find heaps of new customers.



Supplying the EU is critical to our future prosperity and although we will have some kind of trade deal, post Brexit, we have put this situation at risk.

Why can't we become more self-sufficient so we make product that we sell internally?



We deal with the EU because its close so our efforts are directed that way - are you saying only the EU wants the products/services we produce?

Yes, utter garbage, like everything you post, people have voted, its done, get grumpy in your jumper and chair and tutt at intelligent people. Thats all you have left.

The UK has always been a trading nation but, we have never been anywhere near self sufficient.

Therefore even IF we could miraculously compete with the cheap labour nations such as China, Indonesia, Pakistan, India and the emerging African nations, where are the raw materials going to come from.

The days are long gone where Britain produced more than half of the worlds coal etc and we simply can not compete with producing other items.

We are strong in finance, innovative in engineering (but, no longer lead the rest of the world) and we have been excellent in the sciences, in research and development but, we have a balance of trade deficit, especially in visible trade, that is huge.