If the EU don't want us as allies and friendly neighbours then why shouldn't they be left to their own devices?
I want a deal not a cold war but if they opt to try and annex part of our country then they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves and we need to look after ourselves. Its funny how people who seem so confident the EU is so mighty and powerful and puny Britain doesn't matter seem horrified at the idea that Britain might not defend mighty Europe anymore.
The EU will be pissing itself at this “threat”. And they are not seeking to annex part of our country. They want a customs arrangement over part of one of their member states we unlawfully annexed. Why are you so keen to piss off our closest and most forgiving allies?
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many wars against the EU and are currently fighting a diplomatic war with the EU now. Meanwhile the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are all offering us a trade deal as is the US president
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
Every single one of those "wars" (The Spanish Armada was not a war) was also fought alongside countries that are now in the EU. One of them -- the Hundred Years' War -- was fought with England and Scotland on opposite sides.
Bar Portugal we have been at war (or Cold War) with every EU nation at least once in the last 500 years
Including Switzerland and the Scandinavian coutries?
Anything under Corbyn would be worse. Even if these "reports" were correct.. which I very much doubt.. You need to look at things over the longer term and NOONE knows how it will pan out.
I agree with your conclusion. But when you have seen how these sorts of forecasts are created, it’s hilarious that anyone takes them seriously.
The world of economic and financial modelling is a bunch of mainly 20-somethings staying up late creating vast spreadsheets.
The innumerable input assumptions are at best open to challenge and at times outright flawed but barely interrogated at all due to time constraints or dogma.
If that was the worst of it maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. But very often the models contain loads of circular references and macros that break down one time out of every three times run. So you can’t even trust the output regardless of the input!
There’s a lot that Gove has to say with which I disagree profoundly. But his infamous comment about experts was perhaps the most wise statement by any politician in recent decades. And you don’t have to look very hard for the evidence. The modelling behind Greece’s Eurozone accession and subsequent austerity programme being good examples.
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
I agree with your conclusion. But when you have seen how these sorts of forecasts are created, it’s hilarious that anyone takes them seriously.
The world of economic and financial modelling is a bunch of mainly 20-somethings staying up late creating vast spreadsheets.
The innumerable input assumptions are at best open to challenge and at times outright flawed but barely interrogated at all due to time constraints or dogma.
If that was the worst of it maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. But very often the models contain loads of circular references and macros that break down one time out of every three times run. So you can’t even trust the output regardless of the input!
There’s a lot that Gove has to say with which I disagree profoundly. But his infamous comment about experts was perhaps the most wise statement by any politician in recent decades. And you don’t have to look very hard for the evidence. The modelling behind Greece’s Eurozone accession and subsequent austerity programme being good examples.
As a research analyst in the City, I would agree with a lot of that. A model is only as good as the inputs that go into it - or "garbage in, garbage out" - which are inevitably influenced by the views of the person inputting the inputs.
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
OT, but is anyone watching the rather interesting "What Britain Buys and Sells in a Day" (BBC2, Monday 9pm)? It was fruit & veg last week, fish this week, cars next week. The complexity of our trading webs with the rest of the world is quite astonishing. This week's fun fact: Most of the fish we catch is exported, while most of the fish we eat is imported.
Labour ‘centrists’ put an option they thought couldn’t win on the ballot in order to make themselves look good. Now they can’t get out of the mess they’ve created. Must have been something in the House of Commons water in 2016
To be fair Labour aren't totally to blame.
I paid £3 and voted for JC/TW just for a laugh and with the faint hope they might actually win...never did I actually think there were so many real Labour members who also wanted Waldorf and Stadler as their leadership team.
But people like Ed Miliband and Margaret Beckett put Corbyn on the ballot to virtue signal their fairness, because they thought he couldn’t win but they would get plaudits for being seen letting him try. That was the original sin
You’re being far too charitable. Miliband and Beckett put them on the ballot to have a debate and thereby humiliate them. It didn’t work.
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
Those who fetishise leaving with no deal, no matter what the damage, disruption and risks to the public that may ensue.
Labour ‘centrists’ put an option they thought couldn’t win on the ballot in order to make themselves look good. Now they can’t get out of the mess they’ve created. Must have been something in the House of Commons water in 2016
To be fair Labour aren't totally to blame.
I paid £3 and voted for JC/TW just for a laugh and with the faint hope they might actually win...never did I actually think there were so many real Labour members who also wanted Waldorf and Stadler as their leadership team.
But people like Ed Miliband and Margaret Beckett put Corbyn on the ballot to virtue signal their fairness, because they thought he couldn’t win but they would get plaudits for being seen letting him try. That was the original sin
You’re being far too charitable. Miliband and Beckett put them on the ballot to have a debate and thereby humiliate them. It didn’t work.
Miliband didn't nominate Corbyn, although his brother nominated Abbott in 2010.
Some surprising names among the backers though - Field and Beckett I knew about, but I didn't realise Sadiq Khan was one as well.
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
Labour ‘centrists’ put an option they thought couldn’t win on the ballot in order to make themselves look good. Now they can’t get out of the mess they’ve created. Must have been something in the House of Commons water in 2016
To be fair Labour aren't totally to blame.
I paid £3 and voted for JC/TW just for a laugh and with the faint hope they might actually win...never did I actually think there were so many real Labour members who also wanted Waldorf and Stadler as their leadership team.
But people like Ed Miliband and Margaret Beckett put Corbyn on the ballot to virtue signal their fairness, because they thought he couldn’t win but they would get plaudits for being seen letting him try. That was the original sin
You’re being far too charitable. Miliband and Beckett put them on the ballot to have a debate and thereby humiliate them. It didn’t work.
Before an urban myth takes hold, you should note that Ed Miliband did not nominate Jeremy Corbyn. He didn’t nominate anyone.
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
So the plan is to fight Islamic extremis by scaling back on security cooperation with European countries. Brave.
Only if Europe doesn't want to cooperate with us as allies. Which would be brave.
Why wouldn't Europe want us as allies?
We’re making the threats, Philip. Or, more accurately, Cummings is. But not even Johnson is going to put UK citizens in danger by refusing to cooperate with other European countries in the fight against terrorism. Go to bed mate. You need to calm down. Night!
I think you'll find Europe have been making threats for the last three years. I'm quite calm, but I'm also quite prepared to put our country first.
Our country? I thought you were from the Republic of Bellendia?
I am from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
And I expect when we leave us to control all customs for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not a fraction of it.
We occupy Northern Ireland. It’s time we accepted that Ireland has a right to at least a say in its governance. We should leave tomorrow in truth.
No we don't, most Northern Ireland seats are held by Unionist parties
Northern Ireland is a gerrymandered entity. The island of Ireland is the proper historical unit.
How much have you studied Carson’s “sentence of death”?
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
It is a think tank. So they have no understanding of economics or business.
I agree with your conclusion. But when you have seen how these sorts of forecasts are created, it’s hilarious that anyone takes them seriously.
The world of economic and financial modelling is a bunch of mainly 20-somethings staying up late creating vast spreadsheets.
The innumerable input assumptions are at best open to challenge and at times outright flawed but barely interrogated at all due to time constraints or dogma.
If that was the worst of it maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. But very often the models contain loads of circular references and macros that break down one time out of every three times run. So you can’t even trust the output regardless of the input!
There’s a lot that Gove has to say with which I disagree profoundly. But his infamous comment about experts was perhaps the most wise statement by any politician in recent decades. And you don’t have to look very hard for the evidence. The modelling behind Greece’s Eurozone accession and subsequent austerity programme being good examples.
I am not sure where you have seen people creating forecasts using spreadsheets containing circular references and broken macros, but as someone who is an economic forecaster for a living (I even worked for one of the organisations with an acronym for a name that the innumerate hack Gove got so worked up about) I think you're talking shite. Take a look at how the economy has performed relative to forecasts by the BOE or OBR and you will see that their forecasts have been pretty accurate. I know of no credible forecaster who doesn't think that Brexit has already harmed the UK economy and will do further damage once implemented, especially on a no deal basis.
It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It's going to be an absolute doddle to present Labour as the risky option in any election where Labour's led by its current lunatics.
But it will also be just as easy to present any party led by Johnson or his puppet master as more or less equally risky. So after a campaign where sane politicians get unprecedented access to the media, there'll be a massive swing to the LDs, Greens, Celtic nationalists, sane former Tories, a sprinkling of Frank Field-style independent social democrats and the statutory one Farageiste able to withstand public scrutiny.
Who, sans the Farageiste but together with the sane Labour survivors then able to chuck Corbyn, will form a Remain majority - while the party formerly known as the Conservatives will start its 20-year journey to rediscovering the virtues of responsible capitalism, fiscal prudence and one-nation managerial competence.
And the pillock behind the collapse of the world's most successful political party ever will slink off to a life of performing the same Cardinal of Lima speech to ever-dwindling groups of drunken hedge fund dinner guests.
But people like Ed Miliband and Margaret Beckett put Corbyn on the ballot to virtue signal their fairness, because they thought he couldn’t win but they would get plaudits for being seen letting him try. That was the original sin
Do you feel that David Cameron's "original sin" was virtue signalling his fairness by putting Brexit on a referendum ballot paper because he thought it couldn’t win but he would get plaudits for being seen to let Leavers try?
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
Those who fetishise leaving with no deal, no matter what the damage, disruption and risks to the public that may ensue.
Greetings of the new day, Have we mobilized the Yeomanry to fight the pernicious frogs yet? That seems to the drift of the nocturnal thread!
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
Those who fetishise leaving with no deal, no matter what the damage, disruption and risks to the public that may ensue.
Greetings of the new day, Have we mobilized the Yeomanry to fight the pernicious frogs yet? That seems to the drift of the nocturnal thread!
If the EU don't want us as allies and friendly neighbours then why shouldn't they be left to their own devices?
I want a deal not a cold war but if they opt to try and annex part of our country then they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves and we need to look after ourselves. Its funny how people who seem so confident the EU is so mighty and powerful and puny Britain doesn't matter seem horrified at the idea that Britain might not defend mighty Europe anymore.
The EU will be pissing itself at this “threat”. And they are not seeking to annex part of our country. They want a customs arrangement over part of one of their member states we unlawfully annexed. Why are you so keen to piss off our closest and most forgiving allies?
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many wars against the EU and are currently fighting a diplomatic war with the EU now. Meanwhile the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are all offering us a trade deal as is the US president
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
Every single one of those "wars" (The Spanish Armada was not a war) was also fought alongside countries that are now in the EU. One of them -- the Hundred Years' War -- was fought with England and Scotland on opposite sides.
Bar Portugal we have been at war (or Cold War) with every EU nation at least once in the last 500 years
How many UK nations have we been at war with?
None in the last 250 years, unlike most of the current EU nations
We have had the same number of wars with Germany as we have with the US (two).
The US has been around about 50% longer so the ratio of war per decade favours then
It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It's going to be an absolute doddle to present Labour as the risky option in any election where Labour's led by its current lunatics.
But it will also be just as easy to present any party led by Johnson or his puppet master as more or less equally risky. So after a campaign where sane politicians get unprecedented access to the media, there'll be a massive swing to the LDs, Greens, Celtic nationalists, sane former Tories, a sprinkling of Frank Field-style independent social democrats and the statutory one Farageiste able to withstand public scrutiny.
Who, sans the Farageiste but together with the sane Labour survivors then able to chuck Corbyn, will form a Remain majority - while the party formerly known as the Conservatives will start its 20-year journey to rediscovering the virtues of responsible capitalism, fiscal prudence and one-nation managerial competence.
And the pillock behind the collapse of the world's most successful political party ever will slink off to a life of performing the same Cardinal of Lima speech to ever-dwindling groups of drunken hedge fund dinner guests.
If the EU don't want us as allies and friendly neighbours then why shouldn't they be left to their own devices?
I want a deal not a cold war but if they opt to try and annex part of our country then they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves and we need to look after ourselves. Its funny how people who seem so confident the EU is so mighty and powerful and puny Britain doesn't matter seem horrified at the idea that Britain might not defend mighty Europe anymore.
The EU will be pissing itself at this “threat”. And they are not seeking to annex part of our country. They want a customs arrangement over part of one of their member states we unlawfully annexed. Why are you so keen to piss off our closest and most forgiving allies?
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many wars against the EU and are currently fighting a diplomatic war with the EU now. Meanwhile the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are all offering us a trade deal as is the US president
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
So in fact we have never fought any war at all against the EU.
Can I politely suggest that instead of posting bollocks on here you take some time to learn some basic facts about recent history.
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
Those who fetishise leaving with no deal, no matter what the damage, disruption and risks to the public that may ensue.
Greetings of the new day, Have we mobilized the Yeomanry to fight the pernicious frogs yet? That seems to the drift of the nocturnal thread!
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
Those who fetishise leaving with no deal, no matter what the damage, disruption and risks to the public that may ensue.
Greetings of the new day, Have we mobilized the Yeomanry to fight the pernicious frogs yet? That seems to the drift of the nocturnal thread!
If the EU don't want us as allies and friendly neighbours then why shouldn't they be left to their own devices?
I want a deal not a cold war but if they opt to try and annex part of our country then they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves and we need to look after ourselves. Its funny how people who seem so confident the EU is so mighty and powerful and puny Britain doesn't matter seem horrified at the idea that Britain might not defend mighty Europe anymore.
The EU will be pissing itself at this “threat”. And they are not seeking to annex part of our country. They want a customs arrangement over part of one of their member states we unlawfully annexed. Why are you so keen to piss off our closest and most forgiving allies?
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many wars against the EU and are currently fighting a diplomatic war with the EU now. Meanwhile the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are all offering us a trade deal as is the US president
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
So in fact we have never fought any war at all against the EU.
Not yet, judging by the armchair soldiers overnight...
If the EU don't want us as allies and friendly neighbours then why shouldn't they be left to their own devices?
I want a deal not a cold war but if they opt to try and annex part of our country then they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves and we need to look after ourselves. Its funny how people who seem so confident the EU is so mighty and powerful and puny Britain doesn't matter seem horrified at the idea that Britain might not defend mighty Europe anymore.
The EU will be pissing itself at this “threat”. And they are not seeking to annex part of our country. They want a customs arrangement over part of one of their member states we unlawfully annexed. Why are you so keen to piss off our closest and most forgiving allies?
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many wars against the EU and are currently fighting a diplomatic war with the EU now. Meanwhile the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are all offering us a trade deal as is the US president
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
So in fact we have never fought any war at all against the EU.
Can I politely suggest that instead of posting bollocks on here you take some time to learn some basic facts about recent history.
So in fact we have fought numerous wars against the EU nations and the rate things are going will soon be in semi state of war with the EU anyway
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
Those who fetishise leaving with no deal, no matter what the damage, disruption and risks to the public that may ensue.
Greetings of the new day, Have we mobilized the Yeomanry to fight the pernicious frogs yet? That seems to the drift of the nocturnal thread!
Thw two things I like best about Philip's post is that he forgets the UK is a European country and that you do not have to live in a country to be a victim of terrorism in it. Tourists and other visitors can be killed as well. He and Cummings might think British lives are worth sacrificing for a No Deal Brexit. I doubt any elected politician in this country does. Not even Boris Johnson.
OT, but is anyone watching the rather interesting "What Britain Buys and Sells in a Day" (BBC2, Monday 9pm)? It was fruit & veg last week, fish this week, cars next week. The complexity of our trading webs with the rest of the world is quite astonishing. This week's fun fact: Most of the fish we catch is exported, while most of the fish we eat is imported.
So the plan is to fight Islamic extremis by scaling back on security cooperation with European countries. Brave.
Only if Europe doesn't want to cooperate with us as allies. Which would be brave.
Why wouldn't Europe want us as allies?
We’re making the threats, Philip. Or,
I think you'll find Europe have been making threats for the last three years. I'm quite calm, but I'm also quite prepared to put our country first.
Our country? I thought you were from the Republic of Bellendia?
I am from the United Kingdom of ction of it.
We occupy Northern Ireland. It’s time we accepted that Ireland has a right to at least a say in its governance. We should leave tomorrow in truth.
No we don't, most Northern Ireland seats are held by Unionist parties
Fermanagh and Tyrone were Catholic majority in 1918.
Good, they can join the Republic then and increase the Protestant and Unionist majority in the remainder of Northern Ireland
Derry and Armagh have since then also become Catholic majority.
Good get rid of them too and ratchet up the Protestant and Unionist majority in NI even more
So how small a statelet does your pure Protestant Norn Iron have to get before even you admit it’s unviable? The Shankill Road?
The majority of the Northern Ireland population live in Protestant and Unionist majority Counties Antrim and Down and as part of the UK they would never be unviable
South Down, West Belfast and the Glens of Antrim are Catholic majority.
Antrim is over 70% Protestant, Down over 60% Protestant.
Their position as part of the UK can and will be defended no matter what the cost
South Down is 75% Nationalist (2017). West Belfast is 74% Nationalist (2017). The Antrim Glens (represented by the former Moyle District Council) were 60% Catholic in 2011.
There are also Protestant and Unionist parts of Fermanagah that does not change the fact the county is majority Catholic as Antrim and Down are majority Protestant
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
People who believe in democracy and disagree with @AlastairMeeks
Good, they can join the Republic then and increase the Protestant and Unionist majority in the remainder of Northern Ireland
Derry and Armagh have since then also become Catholic majority.
Good get rid of them too and ratchet up the Protestant and Unionist majority in NI even more
So how small a statelet does your pure Protestant Norn Iron have to get before even you admit it’s unviable? The Shankill Road?
The majority of the Northern Ireland population live in Protestant and Unionist majority Counties Antrim and Down and as part of the UK they would never be unviable
South Down, West Belfast and the Glens of Antrim are Catholic majority.
Antrim is over 70% Protestant, Down over 60% Protestant.
Their position as part of the UK can and will be defended no matter what the cost
You could get rid of Scotland and London too if you want to ratchet up the Brexiteer majority.
Brexit has already been voted for but I have said losing Scotland would increase the pro Brexit majority despite the fact I oppose it
So the plan is to fight Islamic extremis by scaling back on security cooperation with European countries. Brave.
Only if Europe doesn't want to cooperate with us as allies. Which would be brave.
Why wouldn't Europe want us as allies?
We’re making the threats, Philip. Or, more accurately, Cummings is. But not even Johnson is going to put UK citizens in danger by refusing to cooperate with other European countries in the fight against terrorism. Go to bed mate. You need to calm down. Night!
I think you'll find European
Our country? I thought you were from the Republic of Bellendia?
I am from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
And I expect when we leave us to control all customs for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not a fraction of it.
We occupy Northern Ireland. It’s time we accepted that Ireland has a right to at least a say in its governance. We should leave tomorrow in truth.
No we don't, most Northern Ireland seats are held by Unionist parties
Fermanagh and Tyrone were Catholic majority in 1918.
Good, they can join the Republic then and increase the Protestant and Unionist majority in the remainder of Northern Ireland
Derry and Armagh have since then also become Catholic majority.
Good get rid of them too and ratchet up the Protestant and Unionist majority in NI even more
So how small a statelet does your pure Protestant Norn Iron have to get before even you admit it’s unviable? The Shankill Road?
The majority of the Northern Ireland population live in Protestant and Unionist majority Counties Antrim and Down and as part of the UK they would never be unviable
South Down, West Belfast and the Glens of Antrim are Catholic majority.
Antrim is over 70% Protestant, Down over 60% Protestant.
Their position as part of the UK can and will be defended no matter what the cost
Have you been to NI yet or is that later in the month iirc?
There are also Protestant and Unionist parts of Fermanagah that does not change the fact the county is majority Catholic as Antrim and Down are majority Protestant
Anything under Corbyn would be worse. Even if these "reports" were correct.. which I very much doubt.. You need to look at things over the longer term and NOONE knows how it will pan out.
It reminds me of the 364 economists bullshit
Cancelling Brexit and pump priming the economy with oodles of borrowed cash would cause a short-lived Corbyn boom of about 12-18 months.
If he tried to put exchange controls back in and introduce confiscatory policies on property that’d result in contraction in short order after as investment dried up, and money was taken out of the economy.
And that’s before we get to his desire to dismantle our military and security apparatus.
For the record, I’m not impressed by Javid’s fiscal incontinence in pumping borrowing up to £50bn deficit per calendar year again either.
If the EU don't want us as allies and friendly neighbours then why shouldn't they be left to their own devices?
I want a deal not a cold war but if they opt to try and annex part of our country then they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves and we need to look after ourselves. Its funny how people who seem so confident the EU is so mighty and powerful and puny Britain doesn't matter seem horrified at the idea that Britain might not defend mighty Europe anymore.
The EU will be pissing itself at this “threat”. And they are not seeking to annex part of our country. They want a customs arrangement over part of one of their member states we unlawfully annexed. Why are you so keen to piss off our closest and most forgiving allies?
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many wars against the EU and are currently fighting a diplomatic war with the EU now. Meanwhile the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are all offering us a trade deal as is the US president
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
So in fact we have never fought any war at all against the EU.
Can I politely suggest that instead of posting bollocks on here you take some time to learn some basic facts about recent history.
So in fact we have fought numerous wars against the EU nations and the rate things are going will soon be in semi state of war with the EU anyway
More bollocks I see.
You made a statement which was comprehensively and laughably untrue. Don’t be a putz and double down on your mistake.
No-one will think any the worse of you for admitting that you made an error. If anything the opposite. Whereas if you continue trying to justify your original nonsense, well, the words “spades” and “digging” come to mind.
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
It is a think tank. So they have no understanding of economics or business.
There are different types of think tanks. Some of them - mostly clustered around Tufton Street - take millions of pounds of corporate money which they don't disclose and produce biased research that is little more than lobbying. The IFS by contrast is fiercely independent and staffed by some of the smartest and most rigorous economists you will ever meet. If you think they have no understanding of economics then you are revealing your own ignorance rather than exposing theirs.
If the EU don't want us as allies and friendly neighbours then why shouldn't they be left to their own devices?
I want a deal not a cold war but if they opt to try and annex part of our country then they're big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves and we need to look after ourselves. Its funny how people who seem so confident the EU is so mighty and powerful and puny Britain doesn't matter seem horrified at the idea that Britain might not defend mighty Europe anymore.
The EU will be pissing itself at this “threat”. And they are not seeking to annex part of our country. They want a customs arrangement over part of one of their member states we unlawfully annexed. Why are you so keen to piss off our closest and most forgiving allies?
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many esident
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
So in fact we have never fought any war at all against the EU.
Can I politely suggest that instead of posting bollocks on here you take some time to learn some basic facts about recent history.
So in fact we have fought numerous wars against the EU nations and the rate things are going will soon be in semi state of war with the EU anyway
More bollocks I see.
You made a statement which was comprehensively and laughably untrue. Don’t be a putz and double down on your mistake.
No-one will think any the worse of you for admitting that you made an error. If any the opposite. Whereas if you continue trying to justify your original nonsense, well, the words “spades” and “digging” come to mind.
The EU is not yet a state (even if that is the aim) but made up of European nations most of whom we fought wars against, I refuse to back down as I have nothing to back down for
Anything under Corbyn would be worse. Even if these "reports" were correct.. which I very much doubt.. You need to look at things over the longer term and NOONE knows how it will pan out.
It reminds me of the 364 economists bullshit
Cancelling Brexit and pump priming the economy with oodles of borrowed cash would cause a short-lived Corbyn boom of about 12-18 months.
If he tried to put exchange controls back in and introduce confiscatory policies on property that’d result in contraction in short order after as investment dried up, and money was taken out of the economy.
And that’s before we get to his desire to dismantle our military and security apparatus.
For the record, I’m not impressed by Javid’s fiscal incontinence in pumping borrowing up to £50bn deficit per calendar year again either.
One of the advantages of cancelling Brexit is that the measures in your second paragraph would be impossible. They are only possible in a No Deal state, and indeed quite a likely outcome of such a way point.
There are also Protestant and Unionist parts of Fermanagah that does not change the fact the county is majority Catholic as Antrim and Down are majority Protestant
Free the occupied six counties!
They are not occupied, certainly no more than Israel and have been in existence with a Protestant and Unionist majority for longer than the USA.
Those who would give them away without consent are traitors just as the traitors to democracy who refuse to respect the Leave vote
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
It is a think tank. So they have no understanding of economics or business.
There are different types of think tanks. Some of them - mostly clustered around Tufton Street - take millions of pounds of corporate money which they don't disclose and produce biased research that is little more than lobbying. The IFS by contrast is fiercely independent and staffed by some of the smartest and most rigorous economists you will ever meet. If you think they have no understanding of economics then you are revealing your own ignorance rather than exposing theirs.
Is the claim they are staffed by smart economists an admission that I was right and they have no understanding of economics?
There are also Protestant and Unionist parts of Fermanagah that does not change the fact the county is majority Catholic as Antrim and Down are majority Protestant
Free the occupied six counties!
They are not occupied, certainly no more than Israel and have been in existence with a Protestant and Unionist majority for longer than the USA.
These budget estimates show you the point of the LibDem Revoke pledge. Corbyn can't spend that money, because the voters might vote Leave again. The LibDem manifesto can turn all those billions directly into fabulous presents.
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
It is a think tank. So they have no understanding of economics or business.
There are different types of think tanks. Some of them - mostly clustered around Tufton Street - take millions of pounds of corporate money which they don't disclose and produce biased research that is little more than lobbying. The IFS by contrast is fiercely independent and staffed by some of the smartest and most rigorous economists you will ever meet. If you think they have no understanding of economics then you are revealing your own ignorance rather than exposing theirs.
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
People who believe in democracy and disagree with @AlastairMeeks
Leaving aside the fact that no-deal Brexit was angrily disavowed by the Leave campaign during the referendum campaign, just how many deaths would you regard as an acceptable casualty count to secure a no-deal Brexit? I keep asking this question, but the death cultists are curiously evasive.
The EU is not yet a state (even if that is the aim) but made up of European nations most of whom we fought wars against, I refuse to back down as I have nothing to back down for
Is it surprising that an organisation made up of all our nearest neighbours includes a number of countries that we have fought wars against, especially in the pre-20th century period when all countries' wars were fought against near neighbours? The EU also includes countries that we went to war to protect (Belgium, Poland), our oldest allies (Portugal), and countries that we helped liberate from occupation (France, the Netherlands). So the statement "we have fought many wars against the EU" seems not just literally untrue but also devoid of any deeper meaning.
These budget estimates show you the point of the LibDem Revoke pledge. Corbyn can't spend that money, because the voters might vote Leave again. The LibDem manifesto can turn all those billions directly into fabulous presents.
All parties seem to have an orchard of magic money trees. The reality is that the world economy is slowing dangerously, and our debt levels remain high. A bit of judicious green infrastructure spending may be wise, ballooning the deficit rather less so.
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many esident
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
So in fact we have never fought any war at all against the EU.
Can I politely suggest that instead of posting bollocks on here you take some time to learn some basic facts about recent history.
So in fact we have fought numerous wars against the EU nations and the rate things are going will soon be in semi state of war with the EU anyway
More bollocks I see.
You made a statement which was comprehensively and laughably untrue. Don’t be a putz and double down on your mistake.
No-one will think any the worse of you for admitting that you made an error. If any the opposite. Whereas if you continue trying to justify your original nonsense, well, the words “spades” and “digging” come to mind.
The EU is not yet a state (even if that is the aim) but made up of European nations most of whom we fought wars against, I refuse to back down as I have nothing to back down for
Oh dear. You made a statement that was wrong. Plain wrong. Instead of accepting this you keep on going trying to justify your original nonsense. I have interviewed lots of people who have taken the same approach. It does not end well.
There is no shame in admitting that you meant to say “countries in Europe” instead of “the EU”. It would be to your credit. We all make mistakes, me included.
But if you can’t see that and think that obstinacy is the way to go I can’t help you. I am though vastly amused. So thank you for that.
Anyway I expect you need to get going. They will surely need your wise counsel at No 10 to prepare for our imminent semi-war against the EU or maybe Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
It is a think tank. So they have no understanding of economics or business.
There are different types of think tanks. Some of them - mostly clustered around Tufton Street - take millions of pounds of corporate money which they don't disclose and produce biased research that is little more than lobbying. The IFS by contrast is fiercely independent and staffed by some of the smartest and most rigorous economists you will ever meet. If you think they have no understanding of economics then you are revealing your own ignorance rather than exposing theirs.
Is the claim they are staffed by smart economists an admission that I was right and they have no understanding of economics?
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
It is a think tank. So they have no understanding of economics or business.
There are different types of think tanks. Some of them - mostly clustered around Tufton Street - take millions of pounds of corporate money which they don't disclose and produce biased research that is little more than lobbying. The IFS by contrast is fiercely independent and staffed by some of the smartest and most rigorous economists you will ever meet. If you think they have no understanding of economics then you are revealing your own ignorance rather than exposing theirs.
Good morning Mr Dancer. Looking like a very wet and windy weekend in Japan, thanks to Typhoon Hagibis. Hopefully the F1 event will go off as scheduled, the latest rumour is that the Honda-powered cars will be allowed to run their engines in Q mode during the race - they don’t care if they have to replace them all next week, so long as they can get someone on the podium at the end of the race. Mercedes should be favourites here, but they will have their eyes on the championship so won’t be taking risks they don’t need to.
Anything under Corbyn would be worse. Even if these "reports" were correct.. which I very much doubt.. You need to look at things over the longer term and NOONE knows how it will pan out.
It reminds me of the 364 economists bullshit
Cancelling Brexit and pump priming the economy with oodles of borrowed cash would cause a short-lived Corbyn boom of about 12-18 months.
If he tried to put exchange controls back in and introduce confiscatory policies on property that’d result in contraction in short order after as investment dried up, and money was taken out of the economy.
And that’s before we get to his desire to dismantle our military and security apparatus.
For the record, I’m not impressed by Javid’s fiscal incontinence in pumping borrowing up to £50bn deficit per calendar year again either.
One of the advantages of cancelling Brexit is that the measures in your second paragraph would be impossible. They are only possible in a No Deal state, and indeed quite a likely outcome of such a way point.
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
People who believe in democracy and disagree with @AlastairMeeks
Leaving aside the fact that no-deal Brexit was angrily disavowed by the Leave campaign during the referendum campaign, just how many deaths would you regard as an acceptable casualty count to secure a no-deal Brexit? I keep asking this question, but the death cultists are curiously evasive.
Well, Mr Meeks, we know the answer to that now. We will shortly be going to war with the EU - or Part 24 of the Hundred Years’ War, as I believe it will soon be called.
I shall ask my builder to start preparing the Anderson Shelter in Cumbria, though I dare say French arrows won’t reach that far, which will be a relief.
Mr. Sandpit, yeah, heard about the possible typhoon impact. I'll check the first practice market just in case and maybe spray 10p bets each way on the lower half of the field.
Come race day, Toro Rosso were tasty in the wet before, Verstappen and Hulkenberg might be worth considering too.
The EU are not our closest allies at all, our closest allies are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
You are 40 years out of date.
No, still very much up to date, we have never fought any wars against 3/4 of those nations and we share a Head of Stage, we have fought many esident
“We have fought many wars against the EU”.
I seem to have missed these. When were these wars? Who won?
The Hundred Years War, the 7 years War, the Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and WW2 were all fought against nations now in the EU.
All of our wars in the last 100 years were fought alongside one of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the USA, most of the time all 4
So in fact we have never fought any war at all against the EU.
Can I politely suggest that instead of posting bollocks on here you take some time to learn some basic facts about recent history.
So in fact we have fought numerous wars against the EU nations and the rate things are going will soon be in semi state of war with the EU anyway
More bollocks I see.
You made a statement which was comprehensively and laughably untrue. Don’t be a putz and double down on your mistake.
No-one to mind.
The EU is not yet a state (even if that is the aim) but made up of European nations most of whom we fought wars against, I refuse to back down as I have nothing to back down for
Oh dear. You made a statement that was wrong. Plain wrong. Instead of accepting this you keep on going trying to justify your original nonsense. I have interviewed lots of people who have taken the same approach. It does not end well.
There is no shame in admitting that you meant to say “countries in Europe” instead of “the EU”. It would be to your credit. We all make mistakes, me included.
But if you can’t see that and think that obstinacy is the way to go I can’t help you. I am though vastly amused. So thank you for that.
Anyway I expect you need to get going. They will surely need your wise counsel at No 10 to prepare for our imminent semi-war against the EU or maybe Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I wonder how many EU member states actually existed as independent entities at the start of the 20th century. You can't fight a war against a country that does not exist.
There are also Protestant and Unionist parts of Fermanagah that does not change the fact the county is majority Catholic as Antrim and Down are majority Protestant
Free the occupied six counties!
For several generations there was building pressure in rural Ireland to overturn what they saw as fundamental inequities in the structure of society. Even despite Wolfe Tone it was an economically driven campaign (“Fair rents! Free sale! Fixity of tenure!)
It was handled poorly by the British government, expertly exploited by Daniel O’Connell and had a bit of luck with Kitty Shaw
Despite all this there was a very significant Irish Unionist Party which strongly campaigned against independence
Ultimately the situation became untenable which led to the Buckingham Palace Agreement (which saw a time limited arrangement whereby Ulster would remain part of the U.K. for 6 years before joining an independent Ireland - Carson’s “sentence of death” with a “stay of execution”)
The final compromise was the Fourth Home Rule Bill which created two autonomous Home Rule regions - the majority Unionist Northern Ireland and the 26 counties to be ruled by Dublin (with a Council of Ireland and a common Lord Lieutenant which were expected to evolve into an all Ireland government over time)
It was never implemented in the south because of the War of Independence and the Civil War, but still forms the basis of Northern Ireland today.
You can’t do justice to the complexities of Irish history in a short post but the North isn’t occupied: it is governed with the consent and support of its citizens. Should they withdraw their consent the things will change but, until and unless they do, the status quo remains the legitimate arrangement
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
It is a think tank. So they have no understanding of economics or business.
There are different types of think tanks. Some of them - mostly clustered around Tufton Street - take millions of pounds of corporate money which they don't disclose and produce biased research that is little more than lobbying. The IFS by contrast is fiercely independent and staffed by some of the smartest and most rigorous economists you will ever meet. If you think they have no understanding of economics then you are revealing your own ignorance rather than exposing theirs.
Meh. The IFS suffers from the same group think as the Treasury and the BoE. They are worth listening to but not taking as gospel
Mr. Sandpit, yeah, heard about the possible typhoon impact. I'll check the first practice market just in case and maybe spray 10p bets each way on the lower half of the field.
Come race day, Toro Rosso were tasty in the wet before, Verstappen and Hulkenberg might be worth considering too.
Toro Rosso for points is definitely one bet I’m thinking about, in a very tight midfield pack one team turning up the engines should stand out. Albon for a podium possibly an outside chance too, especially so if LH plays the percentages game with the title in mind.
I’ve never been a fan of practice session markets, as the teams themselves aren’t competing for anything - but if it is wet then your strategy might indeed be useful. I assume the market is void if no-one sets a time during the session?
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
People who believe in democracy and disagree with @AlastairMeeks
Leaving aside the fact that no-deal Brexit was angrily disavowed by the Leave campaign during the referendum campaign, just how many deaths would you regard as an acceptable casualty count to secure a no-deal Brexit? I keep asking this question, but the death cultists are curiously evasive.
Well, Mr Meeks, we know the answer to that now. We will shortly be going to war with the EU - or Part 24 of the Hundred Years’ War, as I believe it will soon be called.
I shall ask my builder to start preparing the Anderson Shelter in Cumbria, though I dare say French arrows won’t reach that far, which will be a relief.
Are other countries in the world as obsessed with past wars and see relations with their neighbours exclusively through such a prism, or is it a peculiarity of these islands?
There are also Protestant and Unionist parts of Fermanagah that does not change the fact the county is majority Catholic as Antrim and Down are majority Protestant
Free the occupied six counties!
For several generations there was building pressure in rural Ireland to overturn what they saw as fundamental inequities in the structure of society. Even despite Wolfe Tone it was an economically driven campaign (“Fair rents! Free sale! Fixity of tenure!)
It was handled poorly by the British government, expertly exploited by Daniel O’Connell and had a bit of luck with Kitty Shaw
Despite all this there was a very significant Irish Unionist Party which strongly campaigned against independence
Ultimately the situation became untenable which led to the Buckingham Palace Agreement (which saw a time limited arrangement whereby Ulster would remain part of the U.K. for 6 years before joining an independent Ireland - Carson’s “sentence of death” with a “stay of execution”)
The final compromise was the Fourth Home Rule Bill which created two autonomous Home Rule regions - the majority Unionist Northern Ireland and the 26 counties to be ruled by Dublin (with a Council of Ireland and a common Lord Lieutenant which were expected to evolve into an all Ireland government over time)
It was never implemented in the south because of the War of Independence and the Civil War, but still forms the basis of Northern Ireland today.
You can’t do justice to the complexities of Irish history in a short post but the North isn’t occupied: it is governed with the consent and support of its citizens. Should they withdraw their consent the things will change but, until and unless they do, the status quo remains the legitimate arrangement
You’re right that a short post cannot do justice to the complexities of Irish history.
The situation became untenable, as you put it, because a minority in Ireland refused to accept the democratically expressed wishes of the majority. It is one of the many historical ironies that the party which supported that minority is so loudly now proclaiming its adherence to the principle that a majority should get its way regardless of the wishes of the minority. Had this party held onto that principle then there might never have existed the artificially created border which is creating such grief today for that party.
The death cult should think long and hard about that IFS report. It’s going to be very hard to present Labour as the risky option in any election where the Conservatives are campaigning for a no-deal Brexit.
It maty be early in the morning, but who are the "death cult" ?
People who believe in democracy and disagree with @AlastairMeeks
Leaving aside the fact that no-deal Brexit was angrily disavowed by the Leave campaign during the referendum campaign, just how many deaths would you regard as an acceptable casualty count to secure a no-deal Brexit? I keep asking this question, but the death cultists are curiously evasive.
Well, Mr Meeks, we know the answer to that now. We will shortly be going to war with the EU - or Part 24 of the Hundred Years’ War, as I believe it will soon be called.
I shall ask my builder to start preparing the Anderson Shelter in Cumbria, though I dare say French arrows won’t reach that far, which will be a relief.
Are other countries in the world as obsessed with past wars and see relations with their neighbours exclusively through such a prism, or is it a peculiarity of these islands?
It's tiresome, isn't it? Every thread ends up in a remainer/traitor vs brexiteer loon nutjob slanging match. It's enough to make a sane man vote Lib Dem!
OT, but is anyone watching the rather interesting "What Britain Buys and Sells in a Day" (BBC2, Monday 9pm)? It was fruit & veg last week, fish this week, cars next week. The complexity of our trading webs with the rest of the world is quite astonishing. This week's fun fact: Most of the fish we catch is exported, while most of the fish we eat is imported.
These budget estimates show you the point of the LibDem Revoke pledge. Corbyn can't spend that money, because the voters might vote Leave again. The LibDem manifesto can turn all those billions directly into fabulous presents.
All parties seem to have an orchard of magic money trees. The reality is that the world economy is slowing dangerously, and our debt levels remain high. A bit of judicious green infrastructure spending may be wise, ballooning the deficit rather less so.
Right, but the LibDems want the non-Trumpy bit of the Conservative vote, who care whether your sums add up. It's a fairly small niche in the grand scheme of things but they have the potential to take it permanently.
OT, but is anyone watching the rather interesting "What Britain Buys and Sells in a Day" (BBC2, Monday 9pm)? It was fruit & veg last week, fish this week, cars next week. The complexity of our trading webs with the rest of the world is quite astonishing. This week's fun fact: Most of the fish we catch is exported, while most of the fish we eat is imported.
Weren't the economic 'facts' around Greece's Eurozone accession shown subsequently not to be so?
Most modelling starts at the end and works backwards to get the input assumptions. It’s then stressed within artificial bands but rarely with the correct combination with sufficiently vigorous assumptions to break the starting hypothesis.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
That's actually completely untrue, but just go ahead spouting rubbish, it seems to be in fashion.
I must say, as someone with little understanding of economic theory, but some of business, that I found the concept of starting at the end and working backwards somewhat difficult to understand.
It is a think tank. So they have no understanding of economics or business.
There are different types of think tanks. Some of them - mostly clustered around Tufton Street - take millions of pounds of corporate money which they don't disclose and produce biased research that is little more than lobbying. The IFS by contrast is fiercely independent and staffed by some of the smartest and most rigorous economists you will ever meet. If you think they have no understanding of economics then you are revealing your own ignorance rather than exposing theirs.
Meh. The IFS suffers from the same group think as the Treasury and the BoE. They are worth listening to but not taking as gospel
I never said they were the revealed word of God! It's just interesting to me that the trashing of independent economic forecasters by PB Tories seems to coincide so neatly with the same PB Tories advocating a course of action that independent economic forecasters mostly see as reckless and costly. Another example of how Brexit is degrading our political life and institutions.
The Tories are promising voters a future in which they will be poorer, less free and less secure - and they will still beat a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn.
There are also Protestant and Unionist parts of Fermanagah that does not change the fact the county is majority Catholic as Antrim and Down are majority Protestant
Free the occupied six counties!
They are not occupied, certainly no more than Israel and have been in existence with a Protestant and Unionist majority for longer than the USA.
It is striking that it has become a working assumption that the EU will grant an extension. They have previously said that they would only consider doing this if there was a clear reason for going so, e.g. a GE.
Given that under the ridiculous FTPA Corbyn, in effect, chooses when the GE will be, how can the EU be assured that the extension will be followed in the short term (i.e. before the end of the next deadline) by a GE?
These budget estimates show you the point of the LibDem Revoke pledge. Corbyn can't spend that money, because the voters might vote Leave again. The LibDem manifesto can turn all those billions directly into fabulous presents.
All parties seem to have an orchard of magic money trees. The reality is that the world economy is slowing dangerously, and our debt levels remain high. A bit of judicious green infrastructure spending may be wise, ballooning the deficit rather less so.
Right, but the LibDems want the non-Trumpy bit of the Conservative vote, who care whether your sums add up. It's a fairly small niche in the grand scheme of things but they have the potential to take it permanently.
The LDs want the non socialist, non anti Semite bit of Labour and the diehard Remainer bit of the Tories
The Tories are promising voters a future in which they will be poorer, less free and less secure - and they will still beat a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn.
The Tories are promising voters to deliver the Brexit they voted for and regain sovereignty and replace free movement with a points system and beat Jeremy Corbyn
And that’s before we get to his desire to dismantle our military and security apparatus.
Corbo's Government of All the Trots would be a net positive for actual military capability due to having zero inclination toward foreign adventurism and thereby easing the current retention and resourcing crisis. They would also probably be less likely to run defence policy as corporate welfare program for BAE and Babcock.
Also, don't forget he is no leader of any type, as thick as fuck and ineffably lazy so he'll make modest, at best, progress toward any transformative goals he may harbour in his withered breast.
It is striking that it has become a working assumption that the EU will grant an extension. They have previously said that they would only consider doing this if there was a clear reason for going so, e.g. a GE.
Given that under the ridiculous FTPA Corbyn, in effect, chooses when the GE will be, how can the EU be assured that the extension will be followed in the short term (i.e. before the end of the next deadline) by a GE?
A good point. I am not at all convinced they will grant an extension.
Or they could grant a long one to cover the period during which there has to be one under the FTPA, regardless of what Corbyn does or does not do. It might even give the Tories time to polish up their backstop proposals into something workable.
Good morning Mr Dancer. Looking like a very wet and windy weekend in Japan, thanks to Typhoon Hagibis. Hopefully the F1 event will go off as scheduled, the latest rumour is that the Honda-powered cars will be allowed to run their engines in Q mode during the race - they don’t care if they have to replace them all next week, so long as they can get someone on the podium at the end of the race. Mercedes should be favourites here, but they will have their eyes on the championship so won’t be taking risks they don’t need to.
If it's wet, then Hamilton ought to be slight favourite - but it's quite possible Ferrari are going to be faster here, too. And Suzuka isn't the easiest track to overtake on.
OT, but is anyone watching the rather interesting "What Britain Buys and Sells in a Day" (BBC2, Monday 9pm)? It was fruit & veg last week, fish this week, cars next week. The complexity of our trading webs with the rest of the world is quite astonishing. This week's fun fact: Most of the fish we catch is exported, while most of the fish we eat is imported.
Mr. Sandpit, it depends. If no-one goes out at all I'd guess it would be voided. Could get knotty if someone just has an out lap but doesn't set a time.
These budget estimates show you the point of the LibDem Revoke pledge. Corbyn can't spend that money, because the voters might vote Leave again. The LibDem manifesto can turn all those billions directly into fabulous presents.
All parties seem to have an orchard of magic money trees. The reality is that the world economy is slowing dangerously, and our debt levels remain high. A bit of judicious green infrastructure spending may be wise, ballooning the deficit rather less so.
Right, but the LibDems want the non-Trumpy bit of the Conservative vote, who care whether your sums add up. It's a fairly small niche in the grand scheme of things but they have the potential to take it permanently.
The LDs want the non socialist, non anti Semite bit of Labour and the diehard Remainer bit of the Tories
They want those too but that's the easy part, the bit they need to optimize for is Labour voters who are somewhat socialist and/or only slightly anti-semitic, and Tories who are moderate Remain or even moderate Leave but have had enough of all the crazy shit.
There are also Protestant and Unionist parts of Fermanagah that does not change the fact the county is majority Catholic as Antrim and Down are majority Protestant
Free the occupied six counties!
They are not occupied, certainly no more than Israel and have been in existence with a Protestant and Unionist majority for longer than the USA.
Sounds like something an occupier would say.
Sound like something a traitor would say
As someone who has received a fair amount of abuse on here over the years and who thought that various temporary and oddly applied bans on certain terms (GNats, PB Tories) were silly, nevertheless could I ask that use of the word 'traitor' be banned, certainly when applied to the politics of the last 40 years? Being sent mad by Brexit (temporarily or not) is not an excuse.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War
It reminds me of the 364 economists bullshit
The world of economic and financial modelling is a bunch of mainly 20-somethings staying up late creating vast spreadsheets.
The innumerable input assumptions are at best open to challenge and at times outright flawed but barely interrogated at all due to time constraints or dogma.
If that was the worst of it maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. But very often the models contain loads of circular references and macros that break down one time out of every three times run. So you can’t even trust the output regardless of the input!
There’s a lot that Gove has to say with which I disagree profoundly. But his infamous comment about experts was perhaps the most wise statement by any politician in recent decades. And you don’t have to look very hard for the evidence. The modelling behind Greece’s Eurozone accession and subsequent austerity programme being good examples.
The IFS no doubt started from the hypothesis that “No Deal” is the apocalypse and worked backwards. I can build a model that says this for you too if you pay me enough. Equally I can do one that does the opposite. It’s all a giant nonsense, the dirty secret of the economics and financial modelling sectors.
https://twitter.com/daily_record/status/1181451063997665280?s=21
It didn’t work.
Some surprising names among the backers though - Field and Beckett I knew about, but I didn't realise Sadiq Khan was one as well.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news-14-5/who-are-the-morons-who-nominated-jeremy-corbyn-for-the-labour-leadership-contest-10406527.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49961301?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_source=twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews
Can I politely suggest that instead of posting bollocks on here you take some time to learn some basic facts about recent history.
If he tried to put exchange controls back in and introduce confiscatory policies on property that’d result in contraction in short order after as investment dried up, and money was taken out of the economy.
And that’s before we get to his desire to dismantle our military and security apparatus.
For the record, I’m not impressed by Javid’s fiscal incontinence in pumping borrowing up to £50bn deficit per calendar year again either.
You made a statement which was comprehensively and laughably untrue. Don’t be a putz and double down on your mistake.
No-one will think any the worse of you for admitting that you made an error. If anything the opposite. Whereas if you continue trying to justify your original nonsense, well, the words “spades” and “digging” come to mind.
Those who would give them away without consent are traitors just as the traitors to democracy who refuse to respect the Leave vote
Have a good morning.
https://twitter.com/kevinhorourke/status/1181456335122157569?s=19
Boris Johnson talks loudly, and carries a small stick.
There is no shame in admitting that you meant to say “countries in Europe” instead of “the EU”. It would be to your credit. We all make mistakes, me included.
But if you can’t see that and think that obstinacy is the way to go I can’t help you. I am though vastly amused. So thank you for that.
Anyway I expect you need to get going. They will surely need your wise counsel at No 10 to prepare for our imminent semi-war against the EU or maybe Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I shall ask my builder to start preparing the Anderson Shelter in Cumbria, though I dare say French arrows won’t reach that far, which will be a relief.
Come race day, Toro Rosso were tasty in the wet before, Verstappen and Hulkenberg might be worth considering too.
It was handled poorly by the British government, expertly exploited by Daniel O’Connell and had a bit of luck with Kitty Shaw
Despite all this there was a very significant Irish Unionist Party which strongly campaigned against independence
Ultimately the situation became untenable which led to the Buckingham Palace Agreement (which saw a time limited arrangement whereby Ulster would remain part of the U.K. for 6 years before joining an independent Ireland - Carson’s “sentence of death” with a “stay of execution”)
The final compromise was the Fourth Home Rule Bill which created two autonomous Home Rule regions - the majority Unionist Northern Ireland and the 26 counties to be ruled by Dublin (with a Council of Ireland and a common Lord Lieutenant which were expected to evolve into an all Ireland government over time)
It was never implemented in the south because of the War of Independence and the Civil War, but still forms the basis of Northern Ireland today.
You can’t do justice to the complexities of Irish history in a short post but the North isn’t occupied: it is governed with the consent and support of its citizens. Should they withdraw their consent the things will change but, until and unless they do, the status quo remains the legitimate arrangement
I’ve never been a fan of practice session markets, as the teams themselves aren’t competing for anything - but if it is wet then your strategy might indeed be useful. I assume the market is void if no-one sets a time during the session?
Don’t even know how to queue properly!!
The situation became untenable, as you put it, because a minority in Ireland refused to accept the democratically expressed wishes of the majority. It is one of the many historical ironies that the party which supported that minority is so loudly now proclaiming its adherence to the principle that a majority should get its way regardless of the wishes of the minority. Had this party held onto that principle then there might never have existed the artificially created border which is creating such grief today for that party.
https://www.seafish.org/media/publications/Tariffs_on_imported_seafood_170330.pdf
Mackerel should be OK.
Given that under the ridiculous FTPA Corbyn, in effect, chooses when the GE will be, how can the EU be assured that the extension will be followed in the short term (i.e. before the end of the next deadline) by a GE?
Also, don't forget he is no leader of any type, as thick as fuck and ineffably lazy so he'll make modest, at best, progress toward any transformative goals he may harbour in his withered breast.
Or they could grant a long one to cover the period during which there has to be one under the FTPA, regardless of what Corbyn does or does not do. It might even give the Tories time to polish up their backstop proposals into something workable.
While some tariffs are relatively modest, their imposition would be likely to lead to huge disruption/re-organisation of trade flows.
I suppose it would sort itself out in time.