In our 23 February edition, EG published a comment piece entitled “It’s time to end the property Brexit chaos” by Gina Miller, co-founder of SCM Direct and anti-Brexit campaigner, who took the government to court for triggering Article 50 without seeking approval from parliament. EG asked readers for their views on the piece and received an eclectic range of responses.
The real brakes on the housing market
I was surprised that EG printed Gina Miller’s ill-considered and emotionally charged article blaming Brexit fears for “holding back” the residential property market.
Her article would have been entirely without merit had she not cited the increase in stamp duty of up to 12%. But she makes this reference in paragraph nine of her 11 paragraphs. Nowhere in her article does she mention the very significant increases in values since 2009; the very large number of inappropriately upmarket flats delivered to the London market in the past few years; the tax on foreign ownership of property; the additional taxes levied on corporate ownership of property; the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let properties; the abolition of tax relief of costs against rental income on buy-to-let properties; or a whole host of other factors which have collectively conspired against the residential market in the past few years.
She accepts that the market increased in value by 2.5% last year, but this is presented by her as the lowest increase in value since 2013. The real story here is that the market increased at all in value, given all the supply and tax headwinds.
May I suggest that EG goes back to relying on its own very well informed journalists for market analysis?
Ben Habib, chief executive, First Property Group
She understands nothing
You have invited comments and, boy, you deserve them. Why on earth give space to such a politically motivated, narrow-minded, self-opinionated dragon like Gina Miller in a property magazine?
Her article demonstrates that she understands nothing about the housing market and is simply blaming a slow-down in the market which would have happened with or without Brexit. And why does she think she knows it all (when she clearly doesn’t) to the extent of overturning the democratic vote of 17m people?
As for your own article, “Heading for Brexit without a safety net” (p36, 23 February), you are simply guessing that the market will turn downwards on a no-deal Brexit, yet you have no evidence that that would happen. The EU doesn’t want to play fairly so a no-deal Brexit is the only option, and one which will cause as much damage to the EU as the UK.
Finally, and after 56 years in the property business, I don’t expect to continue to read such politically biased views in EG in the future – this is a property magazine, not The Guardian.
Michael Sandover, owner, Sandover Molloy
Reasons to remain
Following the admirable Gina Miller’s excellent article on the Brexit issue, I note that you seek readers’ views on the issue, and I set out mine hereunder.
Ten reasons why Brexit must be stopped:
1. In June 2016 the UK’s economy was the fastest-growing of the G7 countries. By 2019 we were the slowest.
2. In June 2016, all leaders of Western democracies who were canvassed on the topic, stated that, in their opinion, the UK’s best interests would be served by remaining as a member of the European Union. The only national leader to hold the opposite view, was our good friend Mr Putin, subsequently joined, after his election, by Donald Trump.
3. All our living former prime ministers – John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron – are firmly committed “remainers”. They would almost certainly have been joined by Margaret Thatcher, who would have handbagged Donald Tusk to secure the concessions David Cameron could not obtain. In June 2016, 450 of the 650 MPs were remainers.
4. In the 1970s, the UK was “the sick man of Europe”, as a consequence of our feeble economic performance. After 40-plus years’ membership, firstly of the EEC and latterly of the EU, by 2016 we were the best-performing large economy in Europe.
5. When Margaret Thatcher signed the Single Market legislation on behalf of the UK, she considered her work in bringing about its creation to have been her finest political achievement, surpassing even that of victory in the Falkland Islands.
6. Our years of EU membership brought enormous American and Japanese investment in our manufacturing capacity, as they saw us as their preferred route of access into the EU Single Market. Most regrettably, we now see those decisions being reversed, as the Japanese and US car and engine manufacturers announce intentions to withdraw or reduce their investment in the manufacturing capacity here in the UK. Without EU Single Market access, what incentive is there for these companies to remain and continue to invest in the UK?
7. In more than 2,500 years of recorded history, Europe has never previously known more than 70 years of continuous peace among its major nations. With increasingly belligerent Russian behaviour, this is not the time for European unity to be fragmented, and its defence forces weakened.
8. With declining birth rates in all the major European nations, economic growth can only be sustained by permitting and encouraging immigration, albeit selectively. We are already seeing the NHS under considerable strain due to a shortage of doctors and nurses, who cannot be replaced in any sensible timescale by an available supply of medically qualified Britons.
9. It is now an established fact that the substitution of WTO tariffs in place of the Single Market tariff-free status the UK currently enjoys would put our exporters at a significant disadvantage.
10. Since it is totally impractical to unpick 40 years of the legislation which has bound us into the EU legal structures, we have already adopted, almost wholesale, EU legislation as UK law. As a consequence, we would still be fettered by almost all the same regulations post-Brexit, so what is the point of separating ourselves to “take back control” of our laws, which now largely mirror those of the EU?
I would be interested to see whether the Brexiteers could advance any rational reasons in justification of their case, which seems to me to be based on fantasy economies, false memories of a non‑existent golden age, dreams of a vanished empire, and, alas, a degree of racism.
Anthony Ratcliffe, managing partner, Ratcliffes
