Why Car Ownership Is Becoming a Thing of the Past

For decades, car ownership has been an aspiration and something to enjoy, as well as a tool. Recent trends suggest this may no longer be the case for many.



As the roads of the horse-drawn carriages of the Victorian elite have now become filled with the chauffeured Rolls-Royces of today's upper class, how you travel has remained a matter of social status. Having your own personal car has long been an aspiration, a sign of social achievement: as Margaret Thatcher once said, "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure." This quote exemplifies the attitude of the majority, that led to the boom of car ownership in the latter decades of the 20th century.

Times have changed, though. Brits today use cars for 14% fewer trips per year than they did in 2002, travelling 10% fewer miles. While in the 1990s, 80% of 30 year olds were driving, today 80% is only reached by the age of 45. Growth in car ownership has slowed substantially, and as a result many believe that we have reached 'peak car'- and should only expect car ownership to be in decline in the near future.

Some clear trends have emerged in the 21st century that provide some reasoning for why car ownership seems set to become a thing of the past. Environmental awareness is a massive change; car drivers were happy to purchase ice cap melting gas guzzlers in the 20th century, and, to be honest, many people still are (see the wealth of unnecessarily large diesel 4x4s that patrol the streets of London), but there has been a clear shift of consumer demand away from fossil fuels. This has given rise to the phenomenon of hybrid cars, that can operate for periods without burning petrol, and is currently driving appeal of fully electric vehicles (EVs). EVs are not quite there yet- thanks to low supply and the relatively new technology, prices of electric cars remain a barrier for most, as does the young network of infrastructure to support them.

In the meantime, the fossil fuelled cars available currently are unacceptable in their environmental impact- hence why they choose to seek alternatives to car ownership, whether it be public transport, cycling or walking.

Better public transport, has also helped reduce the need to own a car. For citizens of large cities like London, public transport has come on leaps and bounds in the past decades, with metro networks like the London Underground, trams and buses becoming a part of many people's daily commutes. However, the benefit of public transport has been unevenly spread, and focused heavily in metropolitan Britain- rural access to buses has become notoriously poor, given a lack of investment, and consequently car ownership in rural Britain remains higher than in urban areas.

A simple truth is that many people simply can't afford to purchase a car. Car prices aren't just rising- but running costs too, particularly fuel, tax and insurance. Even storing your car has become harder: Properties with car parking command a premium, car parking charges are exorbitant in most places and employers are increasingly keen for their staff to find other ways to get to work (for example, Vodafone provides free of charge employee bus services to its Newbury HQ). While driving remains for many a cheaper, more reliable alternative than the train, efforts are being made to shift from personal to group transport, where emissions per traveler are substantially lower.

The youth have been instrumental to all of the above. A new generation has grown up without the innate urge to whizz around at the helm of a car they could call their own, that was so appealing to previous generations. The youth are actively aware of the climate issues the world faces, and how cars contribute to this. They are happy to commute via public transport, cycle or just walk. And today, young people are those particularly feeling the economic pinch, with disposable incomes stagnant and car insurance for young people at an all time high.

Many carmakers see a future in which customers pay
for the service of car usage, rather than a specific car-
a 'Netflix for Cars'

The phenomenon of car leasing has existed for a long time, and continues to grow, but the wealth of technology at our fingertips means that we have no shortage of ways to flexibly use cars without owning them. Turo is a service that claims to be an 'Airbnb for your car', where people cant rent cars put up on offer by owners. Companies like Zipcar own cars dotted around major cities, which users can pay to use by the hour, being able to unlock the car via their smartphone. These systems are already in place and mean that anyone needing access to a car can find one pretty quickly and easily, and they don't need to worry about insurance, road tax and so on- just pay as much as you use it.

This is just the start: car manufacturers like Tesla and Mercedes-Benz are planning to make their cars open to anyone who needs to use them. The majority of time that you own a car, it will be still- parked up at home or at work. With self-driving technology on the horizon, these firms envisage a future where your car drives you to work, before driving off during the day to act as a 'robot taxi', earning you money, before coming to pick you up at the end of the day. Or, you may come to work in one car, which someone else then takes to use, and you grab another car to go home- meaning you don't own one specific car. Rather, you have access to a wide network of cars.

Ownership in general seems to be a concept that is fading away. Home ownership has been in decline in many countries, as people seek to rent. We now subscribe to 'on demand' services like Netflix rather than buy and store our own movies. So perhaps it makes sense that cars should follow suit.

It's a shame for car enthusiasts, certainly. The days of a car being a 'pride and joy' on your driveway appear to be numbered, as self-driving cars also look set to enter the mainstream in the coming decades. But undoubtedly, for those who see a car more as a tool to get from A to B, which most people do, the future promises a more flexible and perhaps affordable prospect for car usage.

Pros & Cons #6: Buying A House

House ownership is traditionally seen as a sign of steadfast finances and, well, a settled life. So why did 2017 see house ownership in the UK fall to a 30-year low- and is this really a problem?

House ownership among the British population has been in decline over the past decades, culminating in the home ownership rate of 62.9% in 2017, according to the English Housing Survey. This is the lowest ownership rate since 1985, the midst of the turbulent Thatcher premiership. This decline comes despite efforts of successive recent Conservative governments to push home ownership through various incentives (for example, the Help To Buy policy designed to help first time buyers get on the property ladder).

So, why is home ownership at such a low level? The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) asserts that the youngest adults in society are those at the greatest disadvantage compared to those of their age in previous decades. The purchasing power of the young has been disproportionately hurt by the failure of incomes to keep up with the rising costs of living. According to the IFS, "almost 90% of 25-34 year-olds faced average regional house prices of at least four times their income, compared with less than 50% twenty years earlier".

fig.1 - source: Resolution Foundation

Research from the Resolution foundation (fig.1) suggests home ownership among 25-34 year olds is currently at its lowest rate since the 1960s.

Other factors also contribute to the decline in home ownership- for example the decline of construction of new homes, foreign investment in large city centres (both of which have contributed to high prices), and also a changing attitude among the younger generation towards home ownership. Even among those who have the financial capacity to purchase a home, the decision to go ahead with the purchase is becoming less clear cut.

Germany is known for its renting culture- a 2013 study found just 43% of Germans were homeowners- and it could be possible that in the long term, the UK is heading in a similar direction. So what should you weigh up when deciding whether or not to purchase a house?


PRO: Your (Relatively) Stable Asset

The belief that home ownership represents stability is not an old wives' tale- indeed, owning a home means that you own an asset that, in usual circumstances, should be reliable and in fact increase in value over time.

What's more, when you own your home you have full autonomy over what you want to do with it. Renting leaves you dependent on your landlord- if they don't want you to put a nail in the wall to hang up a family photo, you can't. Although there are laws to protect those who rent (tenants), the landlord can also make you leave the property, even against your will. No one can do this to you if you live in a property you own (except the bank, if you don't keep up with your mortgage, that is).

Owning a house leaves you with a fall-back in case of financial catastrophe- it is a valuable asset that you can sell to downsize and shore up emergency funds, or sell to have a helpful hand further up the property ladder. A common practice among people approaching retirement age is to sell their home and downsize- leaving them with a tidy financial benefit to enjoy retirement with.


CON: Responsibility

As the saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility"- and a house is no exception. Owning a house means you are responsible for it completely- you've got to deal with any issues that arise, whether that means a broken window or a fault in the structural integrity of the whole building. If you don't invest where necessary in the maintenance of your home, the value could tank.

On the other hand, tenants enjoy the freedom to pass over (most) issues of maintenance to the landlord, who has the responsibility to sort these things out. Furthermore, while the tenant doesn't take a share of any increase in the value of the property they are renting, the tenant is also protected from any fall in value- it is the landlord who has to absorb this cost.


PRO: Favourable Finances

Depending on when you purchase your home, you can benefit financially from favourable economic conditions.

The most common advantage taken by homebuyers is low interest rates- these are influenced largely by the base interest rate set the Bank of England, which essentially uses it as a tool to either stimulate or reduce demand in the economy. Low rates mean borrowing is cheap, encouraging people to take out loans to purchase houses, generating more activity in the economy.

Furthermore, taking up a fixed interest rate enables a clear idea of payments that are to be made over the time of your mortgage- as opposed to renting under a landlord, where the rent can change upon their whim. Home buyers need to decide, however, whether a fixed or variable (changing) interest rate suits them best- a variable rate helps when the Bank of England lowers its rate during the period of the mortgage, but increases costs should the Bank of England do the opposite.


CON: Lack of flexibility

Purchasing a home is not suited particularly well to a young generation that is more mobile than ever. A 'job for life' was a reality for previous generations that has become increasingly rare for today's youth. This is due not just to increasing job insecurity, but a young workforce that is more willing than ever to relocate regularly- in part thanks to phenomena such as social media tying people down less to 'home'.

Purchasing a home is neither a short nor flexible process- the average mortgage repayment period is 25 years. On the other hand, most renting agreements are 12 months long. Thus, renting offers a more appealing and feasible option to young people who may be changing careers every 2-5 years, or those hoping to upsize their home relatively soon.


PRO: Satisfaction

Studies indicate that home ownership brings a greater sense of security and happiness- a YouGov poll from 2017 found 73% of home owners to be satisfied with their standard of living, as opposed to just 53% of renters. 

How Businesses Can Make Money Out Of Your Misery

Apple recently admitted to reducing performance on older devices- leading to understandable discontent with the firm. But such practice is in fact more common than you'd first think. 





















Though Apple refused the accusations, its recent apology for the 'misunderstanding' regarding how it treats devices with older batteries only reassured what many cynics suspected- that Apple had been slowing down older devices, in order to push users of these devices to upgrade. There is no way of knowing 100% that this is was Apple's intention- but, if this suspicion were to be true, Apple would not be alone in such a practice.

This is a strategy known as 'planned obsolescence', and it dates back as far as 1932. At this time, America was in the pits of its economic depression- and Bernard London, a real-estate broker, asserted in his paper 'Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence' that businesses should "chart the obsolescence of capital and consumption goods at the time of their production". Essentially, he wanted businesses to plan for the goods they sell to become obsolete, and thus demand for the goods to be reinvigorated. So because goods would become obsolete, people would buy essential items more often, providing a boost to the economy.

Planned obsolescence is all around us in today's world. Some argue that shaving razor companies, for example, deliberately do not select the most durable materials for their razors, as they want users to continue to replace their razors regularly. Even something like a 'best before' date on food and drink could be argued to accommodate planned obsolescence- many people throw away milk that is perfectly fine, just because it has passed the best before date by one day. Of course, they then buy more milk to replace it.

The problem is that it is usually difficult to identify where it is happening, as it is not a practice most businesses would be happy to admit to. 'Best before' dates may be deliberately early to protect the consumer from any possibility of spoilt food (or protect the seller from legal action). Razor companies may not use the most durable material for their razors because it might not be profitable to do so. Going back to the Apple example- one cannot be certain that the company practiced planned obsolescence for revenues' sake, as we have no fully reliable insight into the company's intentions when it decided to reduce performance on older devices.

Given that the world of business, however, is not always the most ethical, it is almost certain that many businesses engage in planned obsolescence with the primary intention of squeezing more money out of the customer, with little care for the disruption caused to them.

Another practice that is closely related to, and perhaps overlapping with, planned obsolescence, and is arguably easier to detect, is what Tim Wu of The New Yorker calls 'calculated misery'. In his very insightful piece, Wu explores what he sees as calculated misery being dished out by American airline firms to its customers, to accommodate its fees system. "Basic service, without fees, must be sufficiently degraded in order to make people want to pay to escape it", Wu says- and when you think about it, this is true indeed.

Many of the airlines practicing calculated misery tactics have contributed to flying being generally known today as a miserable experience, at least for those not able to shell out on business or first class seats.

The emergence of premium economy is a classic example of this. Premium economy has recently emerged as a mid-way point between economy and business class, typically for middle-class passengers with a little more money to spend, but not enough for business class. They enjoy features like longer legroom, maybe some extra food, and other amenities.

To accommodate the extra space needed for these seats, some airlines have had to redesign their plane layouts- and of course, they would not make any changes that would come at the cost of the highest paying passengers up front. Rather, some airlines have made subtle changes to economy class- whether it is bunching together more cramped seats in a row, or more commonly, pushing together seats and reducing legroom. The phenomenon of falling legroom has been so common that investigations have been ordered into it by courts in the USA. Not only does this change allow more room for the greater profiting premium economy seats, but it also dishes out calculated misery to those in economy- squeezing them (quite literally) and incentivising them to pay the extra sum for premium economy.

Another recent example of calculated misery being dished out is evident in British Airways' recent plans to board passengers in order of how much they paid for their ticket. Even within classes- those paying the least are made to board last. Despite the fact that this is a less than optimal strategy for boarding, it again incentivises passengers to pay more for their ticket.

So, to summarise: some businesses, whether through planned obsolescence or calculated misery tactics, are squeezing more money from consumers, despite and in fact because, they are providing a worse customer experience.

But how are businesses getting away with it? The fact is, that the lack of competition between them is allowing them to do whatever they want. If one airline charges extra to jump ahead of the boarding queue, it won't suffer- if the rest of the industry does the same. As consumers, we are often held to ransom by collusion between businesses in an industry, as businesses are allowed to prioritise profits over customer experience.

There is some action that can be taken, however; it is our duty as consumers to show our discontent, both with our words and our pockets, where possible. Government must also intervene to prevent such collusion between businesses, and to ensure healthy competition in the marketplace. Only then will the relationship between business and consumers be mutually beneficial and profitable.

How Will Autonomous Cars Change Our Economy?

Self-driving cars are about to become widespread; the advantages these vehicles have over traditional cars are obvious. One question then is how will this automation impact the economy? Mark Slater investigates...

image: pursuitist.com

Mark Slater
AutoMax, North Carolina

Self-driving cars navigating themselves by computer are becoming an actuality in the 21st century. In fact, it is projected that by 2030 over 50% of the cars on the streets will be driverless. It’s time to carefully examine the effects this will have on our economy and to what extent.

Automated vehicles do have some incredible benefits. It is believed that accidents will be reduced by a considerable amount, mostly because it is estimated that 93% of all vehicular accidents are caused by human error. This is probably one of the best features these cars will bring to the table, but since the roads will be safer when you look at it from the perspective of an insurer or injury lawyer you see the loss of revenue as a direct result of these vehicles. Accidents cost the USA US$900 billion every year in repairs and administration costs- which will also be greatly reduced by the advent of autonomous cars. This could have a massive impact on the economy.

Still, car dealership mechanics need not necessarily fret, as even though there will be a reduction in accidents and the repair work mechanics perform there may actually be an increase in their workload due to a higher need for maintenance as a direct result of an increase in daily automotive use from convenience and vehicle sharing. Mechanics would certainly have to become accustomed with the innovative technology and get themselves through the necessary training. If they invest in these skills they could actually see a substantial increase in revenue over the next few decades.

Morgan Stanley believes US governments could lose US$1.3 billion from more esoteric revenue sources such as parking fees. This is mostly because automated cars can be on the road much more. Here is an example: imagine a parent going to work in the morning and directing the car to go back home and take his daughter to university before directing it to come back to pick him up. The vehicle will have much less need for a constant place to park all day.

Similarly, there will be a widespread reduction in the number of parking garages and parking spaces needed, which will allow for more apartment and office space development. Consumers, and not government, will benefit from this more. There is also a projected reduction of vehicle ownership from an average of 2.1 non-automated vehicles per household to 1.2 driverless vehicles per household, and this would reduce government revenue from vehicle registration fees.

Car ownership could even cease to exist by 2030. A Columbia University study suggested Uber would need just 9,000 autonomous vehicles to completely wipe out all taxis in New York City, with consumers only having to wait 36 seconds on average for a ride.

When these vehicles start to show up more, people will naturally be skeptical of how safe they are. This will be the response until these cars start to gain more recognition for safety. When this happens, the travel industry could also be heavily impacted. Why would anyone book a domestic flight or a hotel when they can have their car drive them somewhere overnight while they sleep safely in the vehicle? Why would anyone go through the trouble of reserving a room or even spending any money on a room when their car could drive them the whole way in privacy and luxury? Highway motel operators will take a big hit when these cars become more common.

It is estimated that trucking companies could save up to US $500 billion dollars annually by 2025. This would, however, cause many truck drivers to become unemployed. Indeed, there are many other drivers that will be affected such as taxi drivers, bus drivers, and even shuttle drivers. This level of job loss could put a real strain on the economy through unemployment.

On the other side of things, however, IT workers and analyst will see a positive impact as they will be more important in the age of automation. Disabled people will also benefit from these vehicles as their mobility, freedom, and income are expected to increase.

Despite the shifting tides, driverless cars could add as much as $7 trillion to the global economy. There will be winners and losers as with anything, but these vehicles will make our lives more efficient, safer, and convenient.

The Dark Side of Supermarket Warfare

All competition is good competition... right?



Entering through the doors of your local Tesco, you are not just entering a supermarket. You are entering a battleground. But in this battle, there are no guns or swords- instead, you'll find weapons of words scattered around the place- "I'm cheaper", "Brand Guarantee", and the like.

The supermarket industry has reached saturation point, and as a result, the players are all scrambling to win the pound in your pocket. One of the most prominent tactics to do this, that has risen to fame in the past decade, is the phenomenon of 'Price Matching'. The essence of this is that if you go to your local Tesco, for example, and find that the cereal you are buying could be had for less money in Sainsbury's, if you can prove this to the cashier at Tesco, they will match the cheaper Sainsbury's price in store. In some stores, the offer is made to go even lower than the competitor price.

Seems great, doesn't it? On the surface, yes. Competition is very important in any market, especially one that is as large a part of our daily lives as our supermarkets. Competition leads to better service, better stores, and, perhaps most importantly, lower cost to customers.

And at first glance, price matching seems to be competition set in stone by the supermarkets- a written promise to compete with each other. Furthermore, one could argue that price matching means setting low prices is not enough to compete- it arguably puts stores on a level playing field to compete on other aspects of the customer experience, such as customer service.

But not all is as rosy as it seems, because in reality, price matching is unlikely to lead to a better outcome for the consumer.

Firstly, the notion of price matching allows stores to set higher prices than competitors in the first place. Price matching means stores can attract those who are so sensitive to higher prices that they may have avoided the store if it wasn't a policy. In the case of direct price matching, where one store exactly matches, and doesn't beat, another store's price, the incentive to 'compete' and set truly lower prices is dulled. Essentially, price matching weakens the link between demand and supply that otherwise would drive a store to cut prices.

There are more practical arguments against price matching too. These are well set out in Morten Hviid and Greg Shaffer's 1999 paper on the subject, but in reality these weaknesses are not too difficult to comprehend.

Firstly, the procedure for actually gaining the right to a price match is not so simple- this is usually designed to be an inconvenience by supermarkets. For example, the very act of providing another store offers the same product at a cheaper price is often a hassle. The customer must provide written proof of the competitor's offer, usually a difficult task unless the customer is willing to travel between multiple stores in search of the best price. And if he does so, why would he then not purchase the product at the originally cheapest store?



And once the proof is provided, the ultimate approval is given by the store- who may disagree that the two compared products are the same, or have some other quarrel with the proof provided. The terms and conditions make the process far less open than it first appears.

Furthermore, as Hviid and Shaffer point out, "In every instance it takes longer to complete a transaction when price matching is requested than when it is not". This means there is a non-financial cost to entering a price matching deal, and often the amount you are saving is not enough to make this a cost worth bearing.

So while price matching is indeed a form of competition, it is not as beneficial to the consumer as advertised. It arguably allows stores to be less proactive in setting low prices, and also provides many practical stumbles that to many consumers will just not be worth it. It's a form of what is called imperfect, oligopolistic Bertrand competition- in which there are a few firms who compete with each other on price. In theory, Bertrand competition leads to an optimal solution for the consumer. But the painstaking realities of the price matching process mean this, in practice, is far from the case.

As consumers wise up to this reality, it seems some supermarkets are too- Sainsburys announced the removal of their price matching program last year, highlighting the need for "clear, simple pricing". The question that remains is whether other supermarkets will follow suit.

The Aftermath of Brexit: The Pursuit of Liberation

James Rosanwo takes a look at whether the outcome of Brexit has yet been as calamitous as many had expected. 

A couple of months ago, the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union- and the immediate impact was near catastrophic. The pound dropped as much as 2.2 percent to $1.3, a 31-year low. From then on, many feared the worst was yet to come. The threats of total economic crisis and recession lingered in the air like a sour breath, as individuals panicked, from investors to home buyers. The whole market was in a state of disbelief and incredulity. However, it is beginning to seem that, just maybe, the prophecies of an economic apocalypse were not as well founded as we initially thought.

Before the EU referendum, the British finance ministry warned that a vote to leave the EU would make it harder and more expensive for new home owners to request for loans, forcing the country into a “DIY recession” and driving down equity prices.

However, nearly half of mortgage borrowers look set to gain from the Bank of England’s interest rate cut on August 4^th, while British equity markets have risen.

Unexpectedly, the British economy has recovered well from the momentary Brexit calamity. Due to the fall of the British pound, it has become much cheaper for wealthy tourists to shop in the UK, boosting retail sales. Grocers enjoyed a 0.3% rise in sales in the 12 weeks to 14 August, the best performance since March. The manufacturing sector and the building industry have also shown signs of improved growth. Persimmon, Britain’s biggest house builder, said customers were flocking back to view new build homes.

Nonetheless, many, including myself, maintain the view that it is still considerably early to determine the real effects of Brexit, simply because Article 50 has not yet been triggered- and hence the UK and EU are still occupied with negotiations on a post-Brexit deal.

However, what is still even more alarming is the fact that the British government is yet to provide a clear plan as to how they intend to extricate Great Britain from the EU. Theresa May, the new British Prime Minister, recently rejected the option of a further parliamentary vote. This strongly reiterated her stubborn intent to lead Britain out of the European Union. Despite several warnings from many EU countries, the PM has maintained the view that Great Britain can get exactly what they want: retain free access to the Single Market, while restricting Free Movement.

During the Brexit campaign, one of the only suggestions by the Leave side that inferred some sort of clarity and outline for a post-Brexit Britain was the possibility that the UK could adopt either the Norwegian or Swiss model to regulate and encourage trading with the EU. However, Mrs May recently ruled out other existing models and expects an entirely new model unique to Britain alone.

The public were also promised that the NHS would receive an increased funding of £100 million from the previously allocated EU budget and that Britain could also most likely adopt an Australian style points based immigration system to try and limit immigration; however the PM recently dismissed both notions, explaining that a points-system would simply not be rigorous enough.

Ultimately, Mrs May’s continuous divergence from the Leave campaign’s manifesto has done nothing but add further ambiguity and uncertainty into the future of post-Brexit Britain.

Presently, the future of our great nation perhaps does not seem as doomed as once thought. However, the pursuit for liberation, while illuminating, can be treacherous.  One thing we have learnt from previous economic crises is that calamity has no expiry date.

Forget 'Leave Or Remain' - The Brexit Referendum Should Have Never Been Called In The First Place

With just under a week to go before the vote on the question of Britain’s membership of the European Union, the country is reaching peak referendum fever. 

However, amongst all the hype and excitement, it appears that nobody has stopped to pause and ask a far more fundamental question: whether we should be having this referendum at all. Politicians and political commentators from all sides have hailed the referendum as a fantastic symbol of the strength and vibrancy of our political system. In fact, this referendum is a cynical political ploy which will serve to undermine our system of representative democracy. The referendum was tactically motivated and its merits ill thought through. We should never have called this vote in the first place.

Firstly, let’s immediately demolish this idea that the referendum is some noble expression of our democracy. It’s not. The referendum was included in the Conservative Party’s 2015 election manifesto as an attempt to diffuse the populist threat posed by UKIP. It was a cold political calculation, a cynical attempt to shore up support amongst the party's traditional base. Although some claim that the referendum was called because of the importance of the issue being debated, this is clearly false. None of the most important questions in our democracy’s history were put to referendums. Whether to go to battle in the first world war, or the second world war, or whether to invade Iraq. Nor were referendums held over which economic policies to adopt during the great depression, or the more recent financial crisis of 2008.

There is a very good reason why these huge, seismic political issues were not put to referendums. It is because we, as a nation, have chosen to abide by the principle of representative democracy. The basic idea is simple: every few years we vote in a general election where we choose representatives who vote in parliament on our behalf. These representatives have the time, resources and expertise to discuss, debate and understand the complex issues and public policy questions of the day. As such, they’re much better placed to vote on these questions than we are. And, of course, MPs must have their constituents’ interests at heart because they know that they may well be voted out of office at the next election. Well, that’s the idea at least.

This argument for representative democracy seems particularly applicable to the question of our membership of the EU. It seems bonkers to leave what is undoubtedly an incredibly complex and multi-faceted question to the direct votes of the general public. Who really has the time or expertise to pour through and weigh all the evidence on both sides of the debate? Are we, the people, really better placed to decide this monumentally tricky issue than our elected parliament?

Moreover, the complexity of the issue at hand renders a referendum completely inappropriate in this instance. It is simply not possible to reduce such a challenging and complex issue to a simple yes or no question. With so many competing visions of our post-Brexit future, what does a vote to leave the EU even signify? Does it entail us joining the EFTA, or the EEA, or leaving the single market altogether? This is far from clear. In the event of a leave vote, should we hold another referendum, or should we leave it up to MPs to decide? But what if MPs (approximately two thirds of whom support Bremain) decide to follow the model of Norway, who are outside of the EU but remain inside the single market through membership of the EFTA? Norway must accept the free movement of people and make contributions to the EU budget, but regaining control of our borders and the infamous “£350 million a week” we supposedly send to the EU (we don’t really, but that’s been discussed enough already) have been two of the key arguments propounded by the leave campaign. The inevitable public backlash that would ensue if MPs took us into the EFTA following a leave vote would raise serious constitutional issues. Are the people or parliament ultimately sovereign; who should reign supreme?

Another issue with the referendum campaign is that it has, at times, felt as if we were debating another question entirely. Namely, who should be the prime minister, rather than the question of our membership of the EU. The campaign has seen a huge focus on personalities and individual ambitions, rather than the substantive issues we should instead be discussing. But this is a consistent theme throughout referendums in the UK. During the Lisbon Treaty referendums in Ireland, abortion and conscription became major issues. During the "yes" campaign for the 1997 Welsh devolution referendum, an aeroplane flew across Wales with a banner which read, “Vote Yes, Vote Blair”. Referendums often become about something entirely different to the real question at hand.

I hope it is now clear that there is a very strong case to be made against the idea that we should be having this referendum at all. But you would think that, with such a multiplicity of issues and problems with the very idea of holding this referendum, some sort of parliamentary committee might have thought to investigate the use of referendums in the UK before we called this vote. Well, you’d be right! In fact, the House of Lords Constitution Committee looked at the merits of the use of referendums back in 2010, weighing the evidence on both sides before concluding that:

“The balance of the evidence that we have heard leads us to the conclusion that there are significant drawbacks to the use of referendums. In particular, we regret the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day.”

The committee identified all the never-ending problems with the use of referendums outlined in this article, and more, before reaching the same conclusion that I have. It is abundantly clear that the EU referendum was inappropriate and misguided - a bad idea from the outset. It has undermined the axiomatic premise of the sovereignty of parliament and corroded our representative democracy.