If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
Tory ministers get paid to repeat this idiotic lie. Whats your excuse?
The Good Friday Agreement - passed by both countries by BINDING referenda - is not undemocratic. The Backstop preserves the GFA. To continue to parrot "undemocratic" baout something democratic demonstrates the kind of small-minded stupidity this country is increasingly good at.
Its neither idiotic nor a lie. It is the truth. One I've been consistently posting here for a year while the line to take by everyone else was the WA was a good compromise - it is not.
We had an article about Brexit Myths yesterday. Perhaps the biggest myth of all is that the backstop preserves the GFA. From the Irish and Nationalist side it does maybe, but from the unionist side it does not an it is undemocratic. 5/6 unionists oppose it including Lord Trimble who signed the GFA on behalf of unionists.
Until there is a compromise that respects both communities there is no acceptable compromise.
You don’t get to 58% support for the backstop in Northern Ireland solely with nationalist votes.
No you get it with 98% support for nationalists and about 15% support for unionists.
Do you think 15% represents a community?
On that reasoning both NI and Scotland should stay in the EU!
No because it was a binary choice for the UK.
The "spirit of the GFA" much mooted as support for the backstop is not for compelled binary choices were one community forces its will upon the other, it is for compromise between both communities. A solution to the Irish border must respect both communities or it is not a solution that suits the GFA - the backstop does not. Plus it is undemocratic.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
Brain dead.
Yes pushing the undemocratic backstop any further is brain dead I agree. Why do people keep flogging this dead horse?
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
"A post-Brexit alternative to the GFA". That sounds like an admission that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
PB lives off metaphors thats half the fun
What I find strange is the ONS traditionally under reports GDP and does serious upwards revisions over time. You would have thought that for some loose change the CoE found down the back of the No 11 sofa the politicians would push for having better news to report.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
Brain dead.
Yes pushing the undemocratic backstop any further is brain dead I agree. Why do people keep flogging this dead horse?
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Yes. Why on earth is it not linked to pages re gdp, or indeed produced by their pathetic search function? I shall remember the word “releasecalendar” next time, hopefully. Many thanks.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
Brain dead.
Yes pushing the undemocratic backstop any further is brain dead I agree. Why do people keep flogging this dead horse?
No, you're brain dead.
No you are!!!! That's got the level of debate on here even higher.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
"A post-Brexit alternative to the GFA". That sounds like an admission that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA.
No. The backstop is incompatible with it. The first alternative I suggested is not and it is by far the most likely scenario I expect.
But if the Troubles restart then the GFA has failed to cope with Brexit and we will need a new solution.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
Brain dead.
Yes pushing the undemocratic backstop any further is brain dead I agree. Why do people keep flogging this dead horse?
No, you're brain dead.
No you are!!!! That's got the level of debate on here even higher.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
Brain dead.
Yes pushing the undemocratic backstop any further is brain dead I agree. Why do people keep flogging this dead horse?
Probably because they read the BBC and are convinced that Parliament or something else will stop us from proceeding with no deal. Our internal divisions have weakened our hand at every turn. May’s approach and incompetence was a major driver of this unhappy state of affairs.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
"A post-Brexit alternative to the GFA". That sounds like an admission that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA.
No. The backstop is incompatible with it. The first alternative I suggested is not and it is by far the most likely scenario I expect.
But if the Troubles restart then the GFA has failed to cope with Brexit and we will need a new solution.
Could it be that Brexit is the issue here not the GFA?
The EU will happily extend again if we ask for it but they are not bluffing about the WA being the only deal available. Boris can get changes to the PD but he hasn't asked for that.
I've critisiced both sides heavily here but on the EU not bluffing point the remainers are correct.
"This is the USS Enterprise and I demand you change your course by 15 degrees or I will be forced to take action"
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
Although it is not possible to predict growth figures even a quarter out (let alone 20 years), it is Economics 101 that putting up trade barriers with your largest and nearest trading partner will, all things being equal, reduce your growth prospects.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
PB lives off metaphors thats half the fun
What I find strange is the ONS traditionally under reports GDP and does serious upwards revisions over time. You would have thought that for some loose change the CoE found down the back of the No 11 sofa the politicians would push for having better news to report.
My understanding is that it is really difficult to come up with accurate data, except years after the event. I remember back in 2012 it was reported that we entered a double-dip recession, which in fact never happened.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Yes. Why on earth is it not linked to pages re gdp, or indeed produced by their pathetic search function? I shall remember the word “releasecalendar” next time, hopefully. Many thanks.
It's a link right at the top of their homepage if you forget. I agree "Latest Publications" would be better for your/my purposes, but I can see the page has a wider task than that.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
Although it is not possible to predict growth figures even a quarter out (let alone 20 years), it is Economics 101 that putting up trade barriers with your largest and nearest trading partner will, all things being equal, reduce your growth prospects.
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with that. It rather depends on what our FTA with the EU looks like doesn’t it? Until that is known the figures are spurious nonsense built by a model which not only doesn’t reflect our current economy but contains assumptions which may or may not be warranted.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
Brain dead.
Yes pushing the undemocratic backstop any further is brain dead I agree. Why do people keep flogging this dead horse?
Probably because they read the BBC and are convinced that Parliament or something else will stop us from proceeding with no deal. Our internal divisions have weakened our hand at every turn. May’s approach and incompetence was a major driver of this unhappy state of affairs.
I think, contrary to my betting position on this occasion, the best solution would be to have a GE before Oct 31st - Is there still time ?
I think the new parliament can take whatever course it likes post election - May's offer was the deal which is clearly now dead so we need another vote to make sure.
Given the remain's side's dislike of the first referendum and insistence on 'parliamentary sovereignty' I think it would be more appropriate than another referendum which we have no time for anyway.
Perhaps one side or the other can win sufficiently large to put us all out of our misery, a Tory Maj would be sufficient for leaving without a deal to my mind.
Presumably when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated and signed nobody thought the UK would ever be daft enough to leave the EU. It is easy to understand why.
As regards referendums, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me how the EU Referendum comes to be regarded as Holy Writ, whilst those leading to the BA can be ignored.
Personally I regard referendums as essentially advisory, but if they are to be seen as mandatory, why some and not others?
Because they are not inconsistent. It’s Varadkar’s pathetic politicking that has inflamed this sore. Shame on him.
Ah, it's blame the Paddys day in Brexitania. Again.
No doubt Angela and Emmanuel will stoutly fulfil that role later this week. Again.
I’m not blaming the “Paddys” (FWIW as a Irishman by descent - close enough to have the right to a passport - I find that term grossly offensive. It’s like referring to someone as a “P*ki” or a “W*g”)
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
You blame Varadkar because you cannot accept that the Northern Ireland border has turned out to be the issue Brexit backers always claimed it never would be.
No I blame Varadkar because he took a hard line avoid being outflanked by Sinn Féin on the issue. If he’d been a statesman not a party hack he’d have understood that sometimes things are best worked on collaboratively
Presumably when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated and signed nobody thought the UK would ever be daft enough to leave the EU. It is easy to understand why.
As regards referendums, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me how the EU Referendum comes to be regarded as Holy Writ, whilst those leading to the BA can be ignored.
Personally I regard referendums as essentially advisory, but if they are to be seen as mandatory, why some and not others?
Because they are not inconsistent. It’s Varadkar’s pathetic politicking that has inflamed this sore. Shame on him.
Ah, it's blame the Paddys day in Brexitania. Again.
No doubt Angela and Emmanuel will stoutly fulfil that role later this week. Again.
I’m not blaming the “Paddys” (FWIW as a Irishman by descent - close enough to have the right to a passport - I find that term grossly offensive. It’s like referring to someone as a “P*ki” or a “W*g”)
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
You can have an EU passport? No wonder you are so relaxed about Brexit.
Of course I can. My family was from Ireland until we were burnt out of our house in the 1920s and forced to flee to the Far East to rebuild
Once upon a time the Mail was very pro-EEC. Can't recall what they said when it metamorphosed into the EU, but they weren't hostile. Maggie was in favour so they would be in favour!
Presumably when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated and signed nobody thought the UK would ever be daft enough to leave the EU. It is easy to understand why.
As regards referendums, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me how the EU Referendum comes to be regarded as Holy Writ, whilst those leading to the BA can be ignored.
Personally I regard referendums as essentially advisory, but if they are to be seen as mandatory, why some and not others?
Because they are not inconsistent. It’s Varadkar’s pathetic politicking that has inflamed this sore. Shame on him.
Ah, it's blame the Paddys day in Brexitania. Again.
No doubt Angela and Emmanuel will stoutly fulfil that role later this week. Again.
I’m not blaming the “Paddys” (FWIW as a Irishman by descent - close enough to have the right to a passport - I find that term grossly offensive. It’s like referring to someone as a “P*ki” or a “W*g”)
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
You blame Varadkar because you cannot accept that the Northern Ireland border has turned out to be the issue Brexit backers always claimed it never would be.
No I blame Varadkar because he took a hard line avoid being outflanked by Sinn Féin on the issue. If he’d been a statesman not a party hack he’d have understood that sometimes things are best worked on collaboratively
He has worked on Brexit collaboratively with the British, in the same sense that a therapist collaborates with his patient.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
PB lives off metaphors thats half the fun
What I find strange is the ONS traditionally under reports GDP and does serious upwards revisions over time. You would have thought that for some loose change the CoE found down the back of the No 11 sofa the politicians would push for having better news to report.
In fairness it is always difficult for statisticians to accurately capture a rapidly evolving picture and the internet is probably changing the way we do business more dramatically than anything since the internal combustion engine. Measuring the value of programs that can be endlessly replicated without any issue of scarcity must be hard. But the tax revenue of the last few years has been noticeably out of step with alleged GDP growth.
Of course Brexiteers are going to head more to a news outlet where like minded people are commenting with the same thoughts as themselves. It's like the ghastly #FBPE on tw@tter. If you sum the Mail and BBC though you arrive at 1440 pro EU/ 3199 anti. Or a "bloodbath" as you put it for the BBC comments ratio.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
PB lives off metaphors thats half the fun
What I find strange is the ONS traditionally under reports GDP and does serious upwards revisions over time. You would have thought that for some loose change the CoE found down the back of the No 11 sofa the politicians would push for having better news to report.
In fairness it is always difficult for statisticians to accurately capture a rapidly evolving picture and the internet is probably changing the way we do business more dramatically than anything since the internal combustion engine. Measuring the value of programs that can be endlessly replicated without any issue of scarcity must be hard. But the tax revenue of the last few years has been noticeably out of step with alleged GDP growth.
I agree with that, which is why I still dont get why were not investing more in ONS to get a better view of how things are changing. I dont underestimate the difficulty of the task its why I think we need more people on it.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
Brain dead.
Yes pushing the undemocratic backstop any further is brain dead I agree. Why do people keep flogging this dead horse?
Probably because they read the BBC and are convinced that Parliament or something else will stop us from proceeding with no deal. Our internal divisions have weakened our hand at every turn. May’s approach and incompetence was a major driver of this unhappy state of affairs.
I think, contrary to my betting position on this occasion, the best solution would be to have a GE before Oct 31st - Is there still time ?
I think the new parliament can take whatever course it likes post election - May's offer was the deal which is clearly now dead so we need another vote to make sure.
Given the remain's side's dislike of the first referendum and insistence on 'parliamentary sovereignty' I think it would be more appropriate than another referendum which we have no time for anyway.
Perhaps one side or the other can win sufficiently large to put us all out of our misery, a Tory Maj would be sufficient for leaving without a deal to my mind.
I think that this is inevitable, despite Corbyn’s best efforts to screw it up.
Presumably when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated and signed nobody thought the UK would ever be daft enough to leave the EU. It is easy to understand why.
As regards referendums, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me how the EU Referendum comes to be regarded as Holy Writ, whilst those leading to the BA can be ignored.
Personally I regard referendums as essentially advisory, but if they are to be seen as mandatory, why some and not others?
Because they are not inconsistent. It’s Varadkar’s pathetic politicking that has inflamed this sore. Shame on him.
Ah, it's blame the Paddys day in Brexitania. Again.
No doubt Angela and Emmanuel will stoutly fulfil that role later this week. Again.
I’m not blaming the “Paddys” (FWIW as a Irishman by descent - close enough to have the right to a passport - I find that term grossly offensive. It’s like referring to someone as a “P*ki” or a “W*g”)
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
You blame Varadkar because you cannot accept that the Northern Ireland border has turned out to be the issue Brexit backers always claimed it never would be.
No I blame Varadkar because he took a hard line avoid being outflanked by Sinn Féin on the issue. If he’d been a statesman not a party hack he’d have understood that sometimes things are best worked on collaboratively
Shouldn't that comment include the names Theresa May/Boris Johnson and UKIP/Nigel Farage in place of those that you've used?
So, Boris had 14 weeks before Oct 31. He has wasted 4 of them on the usual Tory 101 fantasy, that the EU would fold. 10 weeks to go. Also, how does the EU does its deals at the last minute square with a WDA and PD negotiated with months to spare?
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
Although it is not possible to predict growth figures even a quarter out (let alone 20 years), it is Economics 101 that putting up trade barriers with your largest and nearest trading partner will, all things being equal, reduce your growth prospects.
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with that. It rather depends on what our FTA with the EU looks like doesn’t it? Until that is known the figures are spurious nonsense built by a model which not only doesn’t reflect our current economy but contains assumptions which may or may not be warranted.
Yes, but only an EFTA type arrangement comes close to maintaining existing access.
Any FTA (say Canada or Canada+) is going to dampen growth against a counterfactual where we don’t leave.
Indeed, the much maligned Treasury made projections for various outcomes which look pretty reasonable, although they were loudly dismissed at the time.
(These are separate and earlier projections from the ones separately commissioned by Osborne to look at the impact of the “shock” of Voting Leave).
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
PB lives off metaphors thats half the fun
What I find strange is the ONS traditionally under reports GDP and does serious upwards revisions over time. You would have thought that for some loose change the CoE found down the back of the No 11 sofa the politicians would push for having better news to report.
In fairness it is always difficult for statisticians to accurately capture a rapidly evolving picture and the internet is probably changing the way we do business more dramatically than anything since the internal combustion engine. Measuring the value of programs that can be endlessly replicated without any issue of scarcity must be hard. But the tax revenue of the last few years has been noticeably out of step with alleged GDP growth.
I agree with that, which is why I still dont get why were not investing more in ONS to get a better view of how things are changing. I dont underestimate the difficulty of the task its why I think we need more people on it.
Along with removing the option of studying higher economics in state schools the SNP have also removed the module for statistics in higher maths. They are thorough, you have to give them that.
Presumably when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated and signed nobody thought the UK would ever be daft enough to leave the EU. It is easy to understand why.
As regards referendums, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me how the EU Referendum comes to be regarded as Holy Writ, whilst those leading to the BA can be ignored.
Personally I regard referendums as essentially advisory, but if they are to be seen as mandatory, why some and not others?
Because they are not inconsistent. It’s Varadkar’s pathetic politicking that has inflamed this sore. Shame on him.
Ah, it's blame the Paddys day in Brexitania. Again.
No doubt Angela and Emmanuel will stoutly fulfil that role later this week. Again.
I’m not blaming the “Paddys” (FWIW as a Irishman by descent - close enough to have the right to a passport - I find that term grossly offensive. It’s like referring to someone as a “P*ki” or a “W*g”)
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
You blame Varadkar because you cannot accept that the Northern Ireland border has turned out to be the issue Brexit backers always claimed it never would be.
No I blame Varadkar because he took a hard line avoid being outflanked by Sinn Féin on the issue. If he’d been a statesman not a party hack he’d have understood that sometimes things are best worked on collaboratively
I think, contrary to my betting position on this occasion, the best solution would be to have a GE before Oct 31st - Is there still time ?
IIUC it's a minimum of 17 working days from dissolution to the election, and they resume on September 3rd, so if Boris requested an election right away and Corbyn immediately agreed you could have it done in time to get a new parliament elected before October 31st.
Once upon a time the Mail was very pro-EEC. Can't recall what they said when it metamorphosed into the EU, but they weren't hostile. Maggie was in favour so they would be in favour!
Around the time of Maastricht, “Up yours Delors”, and a young Boris’s posting in Brussels.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
Although it is not possible to predict growth figures even a quarter out (let alone 20 years), it is Economics 101 that putting up trade barriers with your largest and nearest trading partner will, all things being equal, reduce your growth prospects.
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with that. It rather depends on what our FTA with the EU looks like doesn’t it? Until that is known the figures are spurious nonsense built by a model which not only doesn’t reflect our current economy but contains assumptions which may or may not be warranted.
Yes, but only an EFTA type arrangement comes close to maintaining existing access.
Any FTA (say Canada or Canada+) is going to dampen growth against a counterfactual where we don’t leave.
Indeed, the much maligned Treasury made projections for various outcomes which look pretty reasonable, although they were loudly dismissed at the time.
(These are separate and earlier projections from the ones separately commissioned by Osborne to look at the impact of the “shock” of Voting Leave).
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
Once upon a time the Mail was very pro-EEC. Can't recall what they said when it metamorphosed into the EU, but they weren't hostile. Maggie was in favour so they would be in favour!
Around the time of Maastricht, “Up yours Delors”, and a young Boris’s posting in Brussels.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
This is what it is all leading up to. One massive game of chicken over the Irish border. What has the EU indicated will happen to hard Brexit Irish border? And what have the Irish government said?
In my mind they have three options; 1. A hard border is implemented - UK gov refuse to provide infrastructure for this and it is the EU that are seen to be imposing the border - PR win for Brexiteers? However, EU may hope the economic damage will force UK back to negotiating table. Risk of the troubles returning? 2. There is no hard border - Renders the backstop moot If EU don't implement a hard border, then UK gov will claim it is not needed in withdrawal treaty, evidenced by the fact the UK has left but no hard border has been enforced. EU looks weak. 3. There is an unknown/temporary/secret solution - Emergency legislation to keep the border as frictionless as possible, increased checks at all ports for a limited time, then what?
I fear that the UK government is now unhinged and has basically kicked the ball to the EU to decide what kind of catastrophe they would prefer. - An economic battering for and the potential for violence (return to the troubles) effecting EU and UK citizens. - Undermining the European project and the single market by caving to the UK and reopening the withdrawal agreement to remove the backstop.
What comes first? The economic and physical safety of EU citizens or the immutability of the European project, it's treaties and government?
My guess FWIW; hard border will be implemented. Both sides will be economically shafted, UK will feel it more. UK government will fall. New government (LAB with LD, SNP+Remain Tory confidence and supply) will be go back to negotiating table and pass withdrawal agreement plus future relationship based on customs union+. Confirmatory ref on new deal vs remain.
Perhaps one side or the other can win sufficiently large to put us all out of our misery, a Tory Maj would be sufficient for leaving without a deal to my mind.
With a reasonable-sized Con maj you could see them bringing back the NI-only backstop that the DUP nixed and passing the WA.
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict growth figures even a quarter out (let alone 20 years), it is Economics 101 that putting up trade barriers with your largest and nearest trading partner will, all things being equal, reduce your growth prospects.
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with that. It rather depends on what our FTA with the EU looks like doesn’t it? Until that is known the figures are spurious nonsense built by a model which not only doesn’t reflect our current economy but contains assumptions which may or may not be warranted.
(These are separate and earlier projections from the ones separately commissioned by Osborne to look at the impact of the “shock” of Voting Leave).
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
But Brexiters stoutly denied any costs. In fact, they said there would be only benefits.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
Once upon a time the Mail was very pro-EEC. Can't recall what they said when it metamorphosed into the EU, but they weren't hostile. Maggie was in favour so they would be in favour!
Around the time of Maastricht, “Up yours Delors”, and a young Boris’s posting in Brussels.
Up yours, Delors was the Sun wasn't it?
Yes. But it was part of a broader Eurosceptic turn by the right wing media.
To be fair, without this “turn” we would now have the Euro. And Maastricht raised questions of sovereignty which were never satisfactorily resolved in that they were glossed over by Euro-enthusiasts.
Brexit started circa 1992, although it awaited the unparalleled immigration of the Blair years to metastise.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict growth figures even a quarter out (let alone 20 years), it is Economics 101 that putting up trade barriers with your largest and nearest trading partner will, all things being equal, reduce your growth prospects.
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with that. It rather depends on what our FTA with the EU looks like doesn’t it? Until that is known the figures are spurious nonsense built by a model which not only doesn’t reflect our current economy but contains assumptions which may or may not be warranted.
(These are separate and earlier projections from the ones separately commissioned by Osborne to look at the impact of the “shock” of Voting Leave).
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
But Brexiters stoutly denied any costs. In fact, they said there would be only benefits.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
"A post-Brexit alternative to the GFA". That sounds like an admission that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA.
No. The backstop is incompatible with it. The first alternative I suggested is not and it is by far the most likely scenario I expect.
But if the Troubles restart then the GFA has failed to cope with Brexit and we will need a new solution.
Could it be that Brexit is the issue here not the GFA?
No.
I am not a lawyer but is not a fundamental principle of law that if two laws clash then the most recently passed takes precedence?
Yes the GFA is international law agreed by both UK and Ireland.
But so too is Lisbon. Which includes Article 50.
The Irish ratified as law Article 50 after the GFA was passed. So Brexit was made lawful after the GFA was passed.
So if there is a clash then Brexit takes precedence.
I think, contrary to my betting position on this occasion, the best solution would be to have a GE before Oct 31st - Is there still time ?
IIUC it's a minimum of 17 working days from dissolution to the election, and they resume on September 3rd, so if Boris requested an election right away and Corbyn immediately agreed you could have it done in time to get a new parliament elected before October 31st.
Nope it's 25 working days.
Starting Parliament also takes 2 weeks so you really need 35 working days - it's very close very quickly so perfectly far for Labour to ask for an extension first.
Which is why an election isn't an option as you want the extension to allow Farage to scream traitor everytime he sees Boris.
Once upon a time the Mail was very pro-EEC. Can't recall what they said when it metamorphosed into the EU, but they weren't hostile. Maggie was in favour so they would be in favour!
Around the time of Maastricht, “Up yours Delors”, and a young Boris’s posting in Brussels.
Up yours, Delors was the Sun wasn't it?
Yes. But it was part of a broader Eurosceptic turn by the right wing media.
To be fair, without this “turn” we would now have the Euro. And Maastricht raised questions of sovereignty which were never satisfactorily resolved in that they were glossed over by Euro-enthusiasts.
Brexit started circa 1992, although it awaited the unparalleled immigration of the Blair years to metastise.
Agree; didn't really gain momentum for a while though. Mid 90's a family member was working on the Metal Exchange and came across Farage, who just getting involved with UKIP. Didn't like him.
So, Boris had 14 weeks before Oct 31. He has wasted 4 of them on the usual Tory 101 fantasy, that the EU would fold. 10 weeks to go. Also, how does the EU does its deals at the last minute square with a WDA and PD negotiated with months to spare?
It squares by recognising May as crap. She caved and swallowed everything Barnier gave her rather than planning for No Deal and waiting for them to blink.
Ken Clarke at 20-1 on the exchange is batshit bonkers. Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
But Brexiters stoutly denied any costs. In fact, they said there would be only benefits.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
So, Boris had 14 weeks before Oct 31. He has wasted 4 of them on the usual Tory 101 fantasy, that the EU would fold. 10 weeks to go. Also, how does the EU does its deals at the last minute square with a WDA and PD negotiated with months to spare?
It squares by recognising May as crap. She caved and swallowed everything Barnier gave her rather than planning for No Deal and waiting for them to blink.
I don't think there's enough patience in the world!
Corbyn being a barely more palatable option than Swinson or Lucas should* be a bit of a wake-up call for the die-hard fans.
(*but won't)
Bit disappointed that Swinson not preferred to Corbyn, tbh.
You're looking at the wrong figures (as are YouGov in their tweet). The important number here is the 'Would not make a good PM' one, since the whole idea is to find someone broadly acceptable to all sides. On that measure, Corbyn's figures are absolutely dire (as is right and proper, of course).
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
But Brexiters stoutly denied any costs. In fact, they said there would be only benefits.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
But Brexiters stoutly denied any costs. In fact, they said there would be only benefits.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
There’s probably a Latin term for this kind of lie.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
"A post-Brexit alternative to the GFA". That sounds like an admission that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA.
No. The backstop is incompatible with it. The first alternative I suggested is not and it is by far the most likely scenario I expect.
But if the Troubles restart then the GFA has failed to cope with Brexit and we will need a new solution.
Could it be that Brexit is the issue here not the GFA?
No.
I am not a lawyer but is not a fundamental principle of law that if two laws clash then the most recently passed takes precedence?
Yes the GFA is international law agreed by both UK and Ireland.
But so too is Lisbon. Which includes Article 50.
The Irish ratified as law Article 50 after the GFA was passed. So Brexit was made lawful after the GFA was passed.
So if there is a clash then Brexit takes precedence.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
Ken Clarke at 20-1 on the exchange is batshit bonkers. Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Yeah I've laid a little at that price.
I actually think Corbyn at 4.4 might be value. Looks likely he'll be leading Labour into the next election, he could become PM before that and it doesnt seem likely Boris is going to be replaced as Tory leader anytime soon.
Once upon a time the Mail was very pro-EEC. Can't recall what they said when it metamorphosed into the EU, but they weren't hostile. Maggie was in favour so they would be in favour!
Around the time of Maastricht, “Up yours Delors”, and a young Boris’s posting in Brussels.
Up yours, Delors was the Sun wasn't it?
Yes. But it was part of a broader Eurosceptic turn by the right wing media.
To be fair, without this “turn” we would now have the Euro. And Maastricht raised questions of sovereignty which were never satisfactorily resolved in that they were glossed over by Euro-enthusiasts.
Brexit started circa 1992, although it awaited the unparalleled immigration of the Blair years to metastise.
Immigration under Blair sounds plausible but does not quite fit the timeline implied by Ukip's European election results with Ukip scoring 16 per cent in 2004 and East European accession to the EU coming in mid-2004 and 2007.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA. Indeed they put forward a lot of compromises to get there. But you simply don’t care.
Ken Clarke at 20-1 on the exchange is batshit bonkers. Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Yeah I've laid a little at that price.
I actually think Corbyn at 4.4 might be value. Looks likely he'll be leading Labour into the next election, he could become PM before that and it doesnt seem likely Boris is going to be replaced as Tory leader anytime soon.
Labour most seats price is 7-2 as well. There are routes where one or the other may not win but perhaps they should be a similiar price.
I'm surprised Bercow has been matched below 30 too, I assumed @AlistairMeeks and @Rottenborough were matching in the low hundreds as per their conversation on the matter.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. Permitting it via the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
By removing the democratic consent of the people of NI over EU regulations?
Can anyone find this story on the ONS website? Surely one of the worst websites on the planet. If they were trying to be obscurantist they would never have succeeded to this extent.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases ?
Anyway the driving force of these changes up to 2016 are significant underestimates of software, a trend they note increases over time. In light of that it is very likely that we will get increases post 2016 in due course.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another metaphor given your recent experience but our Chancellors really do drive the bus of our economy wearing a blindfold relying on instinct as much as the crummy data they are provided with. How anyone can take projections of less growth in 10-20 years even vaguely seriously is beyond me.
I bet it won't stop them using the GERS figures tomorrow though.....
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA. Indeed they put forward a lot of compromises to get there. But you simply don’t care.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. It and the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. It and the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
GFA is subordinate to Brexit in priorities.
Why? What legal or moral principle makes the GFA subordinate? I’m all ears.
Ken Clarke at 20-1 on the exchange is batshit bonkers. Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Yeah I've laid a little at that price.
I actually think Corbyn at 4.4 might be value. Looks likely he'll be leading Labour into the next election, he could become PM before that and it doesnt seem likely Boris is going to be replaced as Tory leader anytime soon.
Labour most seats price is 7-2 as well.
I think he has a better chance of being PM than most seats in next GE though. Either he can get there without an election (unlikely but not impossible) or he could still become PM if after the next election he has less seats than Tories, but wins backing of SNP, LDs etc.
Singling out Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s insistence that the backstop must be maintained, she [Foster] added: “I am not surprised by the Taoiseach’s reaction. I am almost tempted to say ‘He would say that, wouldn’t he?’.
“But I think the letter that the Prime Minister has sent to President Tusk explains very clearly why the backstop cannot be entered into.
“Apart from, of course, the simple political reality that it has been rejected three times by the House of Commons, it is anti-democratic, it is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and, of course, it risks weakening the delicate balance, as is pointed out in the letter, between the parties to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.
“I think that’s very important because, of course, the Belfast Agreement has been used to justify the backstop but, as the prime minister points out, it doesn’t have the support of ourselves – political unionism as we are so-called.
“I mean, when you look across unionism, we are all against the backstop so that should concern the Dublin Government, because if the Dublin Government is genuine and values the Belfast Agreement they should be very concerned that unionism does not support the backstop.”
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
Ken Clarke at 20-1 on the exchange is batshit bonkers. Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Yeah I've laid a little at that price.
I actually think Corbyn at 4.4 might be value. Looks likely he'll be leading Labour into the next election, he could become PM before that and it doesnt seem likely Boris is going to be replaced as Tory leader anytime soon.
Labour most seats price is 7-2 as well.
I think he has a better chance of being PM than most seats in next GE though. Either he can get there without an election (unlikely but not impossible) or he could still become PM if after the next election he has less seats than Tories, but wins backing of SNP, LDs etc.
Labour doesn't need to win most seats. It just needs to win enough seats so that Labour + SNP +LDs have a majority.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then
The GFA took 30 years to come about. .
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. It and the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. It and the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
GFA is subordinate to Brexit in priorities.
Why? What legal or moral principle makes the GFA subordinate? I’m all ears.
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
Ken Clarke at 20-1 on the exchange is batshit bonkers. Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Yeah I've laid a little at that price.
I actually think Corbyn at 4.4 might be value. Looks likely he'll be leading Labour into the next election, he could become PM before that and it doesnt seem likely Boris is going to be replaced as Tory leader anytime soon.
Labour most seats price is 7-2 as well.
I think he has a better chance of being PM than most seats in next GE though. Either he can get there without an election (unlikely but not impossible) or he could still become PM if after the next election he has less seats than Tories, but wins backing of SNP, LDs etc.
He might, and I grant this is an outside chance... become the next PM even if Johnson wins a majority or something close. The Labour brand is strong, no deal could be a disaster and Corbyn is sticky.
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. Permitting it via the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
The Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty...
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
Ken Clarke at 20-1 on the exchange is batshit bonkers. Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Yeah I've laid a little at that price.
I actually think Corbyn at 4.4 might be value. Looks likely he'll be leading Labour into the next election, he could become PM before that and it doesnt seem likely Boris is going to be replaced as Tory leader anytime soon.
Labour most seats price is 7-2 as well.
I think he has a better chance of being PM than most seats in next GE though. Either he can get there without an election (unlikely but not impossible) or he could still become PM if after the next election he has less seats than Tories, but wins backing of SNP, LDs etc.
Labour doesn't need to win most seats. It just needs to win enough seats so that Labour + SNP +LDs have a majority.
Agree. I think LDs and SNP have to back him if we haven't yet left the EU. It's why he needs a GE asap. After we've left, it gets trickier I think.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
I honestly don't think Johnson knows that. Sure there are white lies (as he would see them) about the details, but he thinks it is an essential truth that the EU institutions are ultimately not necessary, and we can have all the same benefits just by some kind of intergovernmental agreement to trust each other.
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
Because we have voted to leave the EU. It's called democracy. If the GFA can't take the strain of democracy then it's due re-negotiation
Once upon a time the Mail was very pro-EEC. Can't recall what they said when it metamorphosed into the EU, but they weren't hostile. Maggie was in favour so they would be in favour!
Around the time of Maastricht, “Up yours Delors”, and a young Boris’s posting in Brussels.
Up yours, Delors was the Sun wasn't it?
Yes. But it was part of a broader Eurosceptic turn by the right wing media.
To be fair, without this “turn” we would now have the Euro. And Maastricht raised questions of sovereignty which were never satisfactorily resolved in that they were glossed over by Euro-enthusiasts.
Brexit started circa 1992, although it awaited the unparalleled immigration of the Blair years to metastise.
1992 as a turning point would be right. With the small Majority of John Major and the ratification process of the Maastricht Treaty, the "Eurosceptics" started playing up and the tabloid press got behind them. Then in 1997 when Labour won such a stonking majority helped in no small part by the disunity of the Eurosceptics in the tory party, they kept their heads down for a few years.
Comments
The "spirit of the GFA" much mooted as support for the backstop is not for compelled binary choices were one community forces its will upon the other, it is for compromise between both communities. A solution to the Irish border must respect both communities or it is not a solution that suits the GFA - the backstop does not. Plus it is undemocratic.
What I find strange is the ONS traditionally under reports GDP and does serious upwards revisions over time. You would have thought that for some loose change the CoE found down the back of the No 11 sofa the politicians would push for having better news to report.
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1163786885535358976
But if the Troubles restart then the GFA has failed to cope with Brexit and we will need a new solution.
Top rated:
BBC 1214 Pro EU/708 Anti EU
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7374523/Furious-EU-officials-slam-Boris-Johnsons-demands-ditch-backstop.html
Daily Mail 226 Pro EU / 2491 Anti EU.
"Cripes, you mean we'd need to pass an Act of Parliament for that? Golly gosh!"
Probably because they read the BBC and are convinced that Parliament or something else will stop us from proceeding with no deal. Our internal divisions have weakened our hand at every turn. May’s approach and incompetence was a major driver of this unhappy state of affairs.
"This is a lighthouse. Your call"
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I think the new parliament can take whatever course it likes post election - May's offer was the deal which is clearly now dead so we need another vote to make sure.
Given the remain's side's dislike of the first referendum and insistence on 'parliamentary sovereignty' I think it would be more appropriate than another referendum which we have no time for anyway.
Perhaps one side or the other can win sufficiently large to put us all out of our misery, a Tory Maj would be sufficient for leaving without a deal to my mind.
If you sum the Mail and BBC though you arrive at 1440 pro EU/ 3199 anti. Or a "bloodbath" as you put it for the BBC comments ratio.
Or did you just not bother to read a bloody word of what was being discussed - yet again?
10 weeks to go.
Also, how does the EU does its deals at the last minute square with a WDA and PD negotiated with months to spare?
Any FTA (say Canada or Canada+) is going to dampen growth against a counterfactual where we don’t leave.
Indeed, the much maligned Treasury made projections for various outcomes which look pretty reasonable, although they were loudly dismissed at the time.
(These are separate and earlier projections from the ones separately commissioned by Osborne to look at the impact of the “shock” of Voting Leave).
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1163787744415485952?s=21
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
But Brexiters stoutly denied any costs.
In fact, they said there would be only benefits.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
This time, as opposed to what the Tories just did.
(*but won't)
To be fair, without this “turn” we would now have the Euro. And Maastricht raised questions of sovereignty which were never satisfactorily resolved in that they were glossed over by Euro-enthusiasts.
Brexit started circa 1992, although it awaited the unparalleled immigration of the Blair years to metastise.
I am not a lawyer but is not a fundamental principle of law that if two laws clash then the most recently passed takes precedence?
Yes the GFA is international law agreed by both UK and Ireland.
But so too is Lisbon. Which includes Article 50.
The Irish ratified as law Article 50 after the GFA was passed. So Brexit was made lawful after the GFA was passed.
So if there is a clash then Brexit takes precedence.
Starting Parliament also takes 2 weeks so you really need 35 working days - it's very close very quickly so perfectly far for Labour to ask for an extension first.
Which is why an election isn't an option as you want the extension to allow Farage to scream traitor everytime he sees Boris.
Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
I actually think Corbyn at 4.4 might be value.
Looks likely he'll be leading Labour into the next election, he could become PM before that and it doesnt seem likely Boris is going to be replaced as Tory leader anytime soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#European_Parliament_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Timeline
See also, Tony Blair's devolution settlement for Scotland.
It's time for a double re-negotiation. Which will hopefully result in the death of Holyrood.
I'm surprised Bercow has been matched below 30 too, I assumed @AlistairMeeks and @Rottenborough were matching in the low hundreds as per their conversation on the matter.
GFA is subordinate to Brexit in priorities.
Mmm, negotiations.
Either he can get there without an election (unlikely but not impossible) or he could still become PM if after the next election he has less seats than Tories, but wins backing of SNP, LDs etc.
“But I think the letter that the Prime Minister has sent to President Tusk explains very clearly why the backstop cannot be entered into.
“Apart from, of course, the simple political reality that it has been rejected three times by the House of Commons, it is anti-democratic, it is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and, of course, it risks weakening the delicate balance, as is pointed out in the letter, between the parties to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.
“I think that’s very important because, of course, the Belfast Agreement has been used to justify the backstop but, as the prime minister points out, it doesn’t have the support of ourselves – political unionism as we are so-called.
“I mean, when you look across unionism, we are all against the backstop so that should concern the Dublin Government, because if the Dublin Government is genuine and values the Belfast Agreement they should be very concerned that unionism does not support the backstop.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-7375399/Stormont-leaders-clash-PM-s-backstop-demand.html
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
The Labour brand is strong, no deal could be a disaster and Corbyn is sticky.