politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The BJohnson bounce and the LD recovery add to the pressure of

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.

Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.

That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1156890526999863296?s=19

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1156890529675776000?s=20

No leader who has led on best PM ratings has failed to win the general election even if their party lacked a clear lead on headline voting intention

Callaghan led Thatcher in best PM ratings in 1979.

I had thought that but apparently Thatcher edged ahead of Callaghan by Spring 1979 on a net satisfied basis too

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/british-public-opinion-march-1979

So it depends how close we are to an election.

How much did May lead Corbyn before the June 2017 where she lost seats and Labour gained?

To be fair today's situation is vastly different with labour in decline and the lib dems rising and threatening to overtake labour

.

dixiedean said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.

Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.

That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1156890526999863296?s=19

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1156890529675776000?s=20

No leader who has led on best PM ratings has failed to win the general election even if their party lacked a clear lead on headline voting intention

I would be grateful if you could provide me with a source for that. Genuinely interested

Could swear Callaghan led Thatcher. But am prepared to be proved wrong.

Callaghan led Thatcher in the Ipsos ratings pretty much up to the Winter of Discontent.

Often quite substantially.

November 1978

Callaghan net rating plus 14

Thatcher net rating minus 13

January 1979

Callaghan net rating minus 31

Thatcher net rating plus 5

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1977-1987

viewcode said:

Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...

Didn't everything else seem dull in comparison afterwards?

Tabman said:

viewcode said:

Tabman said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1156894070763130880

Is he mad enough to do it? Suspect they'll be wondering the same thing in Brussels.

If he convinces Brussels that he is mad enough to do it, then it will be job done.

I wrote earlier this year that we needed to appear mad to Brussels. That what we needed was not just to act hard, but to act full on Vinnie Jones levels of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" stark raving bonkers to the Europeans.

Being "diplomatic" won't work.

They'll just wait for us to come to our senses, at which time our bargaining position will be even weaker than it currently is.

Except we have no need to come to our senses. We can cope either way, even HM Treasuries pessimistic forecasts show we'll be better off in a future no deal scenario than we are now, what will be foregone is some growth. The longer we get past the event horizon of a no deal Brexit the less disruptive it will be to us too.

You're an economist by training. Tell us about the time value of money. How much is a dollar today Vs a dollar tomorrow worth?

I am not sure day to day movements in currency worthwhile.

Lets see where the pound is in the autumn

Big G it's nothing to do with the exchange rate. If you have a dollar today it is worth more than being given a dollar in a year's time. Even at today's low interest rates.

So if we forego growth today and it arrives some time in the future it makes less of an impact on our wealth.

@Philip_Thompson will explain.

If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.

This is known as Net Present Value.

Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...

We accountant trainees used to have a few jokes (sad I know). One in particular was "What's the definition of an actuary? Someone who thought accountancy would be too exciting." :-D

Extrovert actuary: looks at *your* shoes...

viewcode said:

Tabman said:

viewcode said:

Tabman said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1156894070763130880

Is he mad enough to do it? Suspect they'll be wondering the same thing in Brussels.

If he convinces Brussels that he is mad enough to do it, then it will be job done.

I wrote earlier this year that we needed to appear mad to Brussels. That what we needed was not just to act hard, but to act full on Vinnie Jones levels of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" stark raving bonkers to the Europeans.

Being "diplomatic" won't work.

They'll just wait for us to come to our senses, at which time our bargaining position will be even weaker than it currently is.

Except we have no need to come to our senses. We can cope either way, even HM Treasuries pessimistic forecasts show we'll be better off in a future no deal scenario than we are now, what will be foregone is some growth. The longer we get past the event horizon of a no deal Brexit the less disruptive it will be to us too.

You're an economist by training. Tell us about the time value of money. How much is a dollar today Vs a dollar tomorrow worth?

I am not sure day to day movements in currency worthwhile.

Lets see where the pound is in the autumn

Big G it's nothing to do with the exchange rate. If you have a dollar today it is worth more than being given a dollar in a year's time. Even at today's low interest rates.

So if we forego growth today and it arrives some time in the future it makes less of an impact on our wealth.

@Philip_Thompson will explain.

If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.

This is known as Net Present Value.

Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...

We accountant trainees used to have a few jokes (sad I know). One in particular was "What's the definition of an actuary? Someone who thought accountancy would be too exciting." :-D

Extrovert actuary: looks at *your* shoes...

Yeah we had that one about accountants too!

CatMan said:

Chris said:

The BBC (like others) has fact-checked Dominic Raab's latest pack of lies:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49165836

So Rabb thinks maybe sort of saying it on *ONE* interview on Radio 5 is enough to say that there is a democratic mandate for no deal? Wow.

Apparently he thinks that repeatedly telling people during the referendum campaign that - according to the BBC - "there was no doubt that the UK would get a deal with the EU" is a mandate for leaving without a deal now.

When someone lies so blatantly about things that are a matter of public record, what chance do we stand of getting any truth from them about things that aren't?

The government’s transparent attempts to convince everyone they’re serious are becoming farcical.

https://twitter.com/stevebarclay/status/1156922280158683136?s=21

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:

justin124 said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.

Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.

That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1156890526999863296?s=19

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1156890529675776000?s=20

No leader who has led on best PM ratings has failed to win the general election even if their party lacked a clear lead on headline voting intention

Callaghan led Thatcher in best PM ratings in 1979.

Wilson was certainly more popular than Heath in 1970.

...which is why I asked for a source. @HYUFD may well be correct, in broad if not absolutely, but I still want to look at the figures...

There's two types of polling, Best PM and net satisfaction ratings.

Best PM ratings aren't as good as net satisfaction ratings, from 1979 onwards every party leader that has led on satisfaction ratings has won the general election.

Here's the Ipsos MORI figures on net satisfaction from 1977 onwards

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1977-1987

Best PM is a bit hit and miss, in 1970 and 1979 Wilson and Callaghan led on best PM but lost the election.

Unfortunately most of the pollsters that polled back in 1970 and 1979 no longer poll in the UK, so you'd have go and read the election books by Buttler et al to see the figures.

If there are only two options, the question should be "Better PM".

williamglenn said:

The government’s transparent attempts to convince everyone they’re serious are becoming farcical.

https://twitter.com/stevebarclay/status/1156922280158683136?s=21

The No Deal Establisment wants No Deal. That's what they are saying. And yet, some remain impervious to the message.

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

The government’s transparent attempts to convince everyone they’re serious are becoming farcical.

https://twitter.com/stevebarclay/status/1156922280158683136?s=21

The No Deal Establisment wants No Deal. That's what they are saying. And yet, some remain impervious to the message.

Who gains from no deal? Tice, Mogg and the like you’ve been suckered to allow rich people to become richer but apparently that’s democracy.

The ICC should have given Steve Smith a lifetime ban.

Cheats should never prosper.

It would have sent a message to the world that cheating is never permissible.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The ICC should have given Steve Smith a lifetime ban.

Cheats should never prosper.

It would have sent a message to the world that cheating is never permissible.

Does that include lying in referendums?

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.

Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.

That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1156890526999863296?s=19

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1156890529675776000?s=20

No leader who has led on best PM ratings has failed to win the general election even if their party lacked a clear lead on headline voting intention

Callaghan led Thatcher in best PM ratings in 1979.

I had thought that but apparently Thatcher edged ahead of Callaghan by Spring 1979 on a net satisfied basis too

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/british-public-opinion-march-1979

So it depends how close we are to an election.

How much did May lead Corbyn before the June 2017 where she lost seats and Labour gained?

May still led Corbyn on a net satisfied and best PM basis and won enough seats to form another Tory Government, Corbyn is polling far worse than 2017 now anyway

So in the most recent GE, the person leading best PM lost a couple of dozen seats net.

If Boris were to repeat that we would be in a very well hung parliament.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boris Johnson is a horrible human being

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1156973782617206785

Sarah Wollaston is a TPD.

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boris Johnson is a horrible human being

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1156973782617206785

Sarah Wollaston is a TPD.

And the only one of the TIG Tories not to have turned up in Brecon to support the LibDem campaign.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boris Johnson is a horrible human being

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1156973782617206785

That says way more about Sarah Wollaston than it does about Boris Johnson.

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

No - their position is unaltered

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

No, they offered to change it for Theresa as well. The EU position hasn't changed. Tbh, the time for Boris to be doing this was over two years ago when we still had a majority. It's all completely useless now because the fifth columnist Tory MPs will turn traitor.

This is like a general implementing a strategy that would have worked before the barbarians were at the gate, let alone through it.

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

The PD means nothing, it’s just a statement of understanding. The backstop is in the WA, and if that document doesn’t change then it’s no deal.

Happy to be corrected.

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

They’ve been offering to add a codicil to the PD for ages now.

TOPPING said:

Tabman said:

If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.

This is known as Net Present Value.

It is indeed. So if, say, we have a few years of (oh I don't know Brexit-inspired) bad growth followed by good growth then that good growth will relatively make us less well off compared with the damage done by the next years of bad growth. The further out the growth is the less impact it has on our current wealth.

@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.

I don't ignore it this is the first time I've seen you bring it up and you are 100% correct, Net Present Value is a real issue.

However that doesn't mean we should always prioritise today over the future. Investment is an example of where people forego £'s today in order to get more in the future, using your figures investing £1m today in an investment that expects 7% income means you are 4% better in foregoing £1m today.

On a compound basis if you can generate 7% annual growth and inflation is 2.5% then foregoing £1m today gives you £1.967m in nominal terms a decade later, or £1.537m in real terms.

It all depends upon what you think will be the relevant factors over the whole term.

One can see real life examples where countries have a period of low growth followed by periods of higher growth and the higher growth in the future more than overtakes the lower growth of the past. Within the EU Ireland is a prime example of this.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Tabman said:

If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.

This is known as Net Present Value.

It is indeed. So if, say, we have a few years of (oh I don't know Brexit-inspired) bad growth followed by good growth then that good growth will relatively make us less well off compared with the damage done by the next years of bad growth. The further out the growth is the less impact it has on our current wealth.

@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.

I don't ignore it this is the first time I've seen you bring it up and you are 100% correct, Net Present Value is a real issue.

However that doesn't mean we should always prioritise today over the future. Investment is an example of where people forego £'s today in order to get more in the future, using your figures investing £1m today in an investment that expects 7% income means you are 4% better in foregoing £1m today.

On a compound basis if you can generate 7% annual growth and inflation is 2.5% then foregoing £1m today gives you £1.967m in nominal terms a decade later, or £1.537m in real terms.

It all depends upon what you think will be the relevant factors over the whole term.

One can see real life examples where countries have a period of low growth followed by periods of higher growth and the higher growth in the future more than overtakes the lower growth of the past. Within the EU Ireland is a prime example of this.

7% growth? We're not China.

MaxPB said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

No, they offered to change it for Theresa as well. The EU position hasn't changed. Tbh, the time for Boris to be doing this was over two years ago when we still had a majority. It's all completely useless now because the fifth columnist Tory MPs will turn traitor.

This is like a general implementing a strategy that would have worked before the barbarians were at the gate, let alone through it.

The funny bit - of course - is that a year ago, Boris wrote a header about how we need to ask for a six month extension, and use that renegotiate.

Instead, we're not asking for an extension. And it's not clear that even the WA without the backstop would now pass.

alex. said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The ICC should have given Steve Smith a lifetime ban.

Cheats should never prosper.

It would have sent a message to the world that cheating is never permissible.

I think you’re probably just trolling, but how, precisely has he “prospered” from the cheating?

It's his batting that's prospering. Annoyingly.

We've no chance of getting him out without Anderson, and if we can't get him out we'll be lucky not to lose 5-0.

ydoethur said:

alex. said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The ICC should have given Steve Smith a lifetime ban.

Cheats should never prosper.

It would have sent a message to the world that cheating is never permissible.

I think you’re probably just trolling, but how, precisely has he “prospered” from the cheating?

It's his batting that's prospering. Annoyingly.

We've no chance of getting him out without Anderson, and if we can't get him out we'll be lucky not to lose 5-0.

We just need to get Lyon out. For the next Test if we don't have Anderson we will have Archer.

79.2 overs
Right. England will have four balls at Nathan Lyon.

79.4 overs
Nathan Lyon drives for four.

Nae luck.

Well, I got him in the end.

About 130 runs too late, however.

284 isn't a great result having opted to bat. However, given the fragility of England's batting it will be a test for them.

England need to go big here. Bat patiently and bat long is the watchword.

So naturally they will bat like headless chickens and be all out for 110.

Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.

Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day.

A pair of night watchmen?

Sandpit said:

Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.

Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day

Only 2 overs left apparently which I don't understand given there should be 90 minus 2 in a day and there's only been 81 so that's 5 short.

Are we only going to have 10 batsmen? If we're all out after 9 wickets that could make a difference.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.

Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day

Only 2 overs left apparently which I don't understand given there should be 90 minus 2 in a day and there's only been 81 so that's 5 short.

Time as well. They draw stumps at 7pm regardless of overs bowled.

Was there a rain delay? It rained hard enough here at about 5.30.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.

Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day

Only 2 overs left apparently which I don't understand given there should be 90 minus 2 in a day and there's only been 81 so that's 5 short.

Will finish on the hour, and England will get fined for bowling slowly!

Edit: there was maybe one over lost to the “rain” earlier, but they came back on a minute after they went off.

Sandpit said:

140 for the first eight wickets,

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

The PD means nothing, it’s just a statement of understanding. The backstop is in the WA, and if that document doesn’t change then it’s no deal.

That's not strictly true.

Under international arbitration they would look at the complete agreement - it's just that where the two conflicted (which I'm sure they do), then the WA has precedence.

Which is why, from the EU side, they’re happy to write anything in the PD, but won’t change a single letter of the WA, which is the primary legal treaty document containing all the backstop language.

I'm supremely relaxed about the backstop, because - so long as the people of Northern Ireland made it clear via either their elected representatives or a referendum that they wished to leave the backstop - we would be obliged to tell the EU that under Article 1 of the UN Treaty, the people of Northern Ireland have a right to self determination, and therefore we would be exiting. And it is not possible for any treaty between the UK and a third party to supercede our obligations under those treaties.

Now, the EU might scream and shout at this point, but there would be fundamentally nothing they could do. And, from a matter of morality, this is correct. We cannot allow Article 1 to be superceded by an agreement with the EU. And any international arbitration would look at the UK's existing treaty commitments.

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

If you're perfectly happy to believe that, I'm perfectly happy to let you...

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.

Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day

Only 2 overs left apparently which I don't understand given there should be 90 minus 2 in a day and there's only been 81 so that's 5 short.

Time as well. They draw stumps at 7pm regardless of overs bowled.

Was there a rain delay? It rained hard enough here at about 5.30.

I get that 7 is the end but I don't understand why they're specifically saying 2 overs. It should be possible to get 3 overs in within 13 minutes.

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.

Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day

Only 2 overs left apparently which I don't understand given there should be 90 minus 2 in a day and there's only been 81 so that's 5 short.

Time as well. They draw stumps at 7pm regardless of overs bowled.

Was there a rain delay? It rained hard enough here at about 5.30.

I get that 7 is the end but I don't understand why they're specifically saying 2 overs. It should be possible to get 3 overs in within 13 minutes.

They are ending at 6:52

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Tabman said:

If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.

This is known as Net Present Value.

It is indeed. So if, say, we have a few years of (oh I don't know Brexit-inspired) bad growth followed by good growth then that good growth will relatively make us less well off compared with the damage done by the next years of bad growth. The further out the growth is the less impact it has on our current wealth.

@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.

I don't ignore it this is the first time I've seen you bring it up and you are 100% correct, Net Present Value is a real issue.

However that doesn't mean we should always prioritise today over the future. Investment is an example of where people forego £'s today in order to get more in the future, using your figures investing £1m today in an investment that expects 7% income means you are 4% better in foregoing £1m today.

On a compound basis if you can generate 7% annual growth and inflation is 2.5% then foregoing £1m today gives you £1.967m in nominal terms a decade later, or £1.537m in real terms.

It all depends upon what you think will be the relevant factors over the whole term.

One can see real life examples where countries have a period of low growth followed by periods of higher growth and the higher growth in the future more than overtakes the lower growth of the past. Within the EU Ireland is a prime example of this.

7% growth? We're not China.

PT is talking about returns on investment, rather than growth.

Now, I very much doubt that - across the UK economy - returns on investment are anywhere near 7% real. For the private sector, returns on invested capital are probably around 5%, which works out as 3.5% for debt, and 7% for equity. Returns for government investment are probably a lot lower - quite a lot of its investment will have negative or marginal returns. But let's assume the number is 2%.

Then we have to adjust for inflation, so I suspect the real number is more like 2-2.5% real,

TheScreamingEagles said:

alex. said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The ICC should have given Steve Smith a lifetime ban.

Cheats should never prosper.

It would have sent a message to the world that cheating is never permissible.

I think you’re probably just trolling, but how, precisely has he “prospered” from the cheating?

He's prospered today.

He comes across as a big baby. Smith that’s is not TSE.

Relax. We’ll hit 450+ and grind them into the dust

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1156979446877962243?s=21

It's amazing how well the tariffs have already worked... The US current account deficit has narrowed to... to...

Oh, it's widened. 1Q18 was $113bn. 1Q19 was $130bn.

See: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

140 for the first eight wickets,

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

The PD means nothing, it’s just a statement of understanding. The backstop is in the WA, and if that document doesn’t change then it’s no deal.

That's not strictly true.

Under international arbitration they would look at the complete agreement - it's just that where the two conflicted (which I'm sure they do), then the WA has precedence.

Which is why, from the EU side, they’re happy to write anything in the PD, but won’t change a single letter of the WA, which is the primary legal treaty document containing all the backstop language.

I'm supremely relaxed about the backstop, because - so long as the people of Northern Ireland made it clear via either their elected representatives or a referendum that they wished to leave the backstop - we would be obliged to tell the EU that under Article 1 of the UN Treaty, the people of Northern Ireland have a right to self determination, and therefore we would be exiting. And it is not possible for any treaty between the UK and a third party to supercede our obligations under those treaties.

Now, the EU might scream and shout at this point, but there would be fundamentally nothing they could do. And, from a matter of morality, this is correct. We cannot allow Article 1 to be superceded by an agreement with the EU. And any international arbitration would look at the UK's existing treaty commitments.

Good point. Unfortunately, our noble parliamentarians seem not to understand it.

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.

If you're perfectly happy to believe that, I'm perfectly happy to let you...

My recollection was you have got it wrong, Eu were happy for the PD to change but inflexible on WA. the PD was what May used to snare Corbyn on basis EU happy to see it changed. Come, put whatsoever you want on the PD then vote for the WA was the call. But once we do that, and vote through WA, new PM can rip the PD up can’t they, was Labours response. Let’s be honest the PD has little meaning and to prove the point it will be interesting to see how much the Johnson Regime now changes it.

Lab -17