Nine of the thirty wards in Bradford won't be counted until the Saturday.
That sounds almost American, in trying to give the wrong impression about ballot integrity.
What’s their excuse for reasoning behind taking so long?
All out elections. Three to elect in each ward. Faffing about with counting via the Kangaroo Boards takes a lot longer than just piling up bundles of votes for Candidate A, Candidate B, etc. in a regular election.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
So the UK is an economic union in the same way as the EU is one. Given there hasn't been an economic breakout by the UK or any of the EU countries there is no (economic) incentive to change the status quo. And until that time, the Union is safe.
I mentioned the exemplar of Ireland which exists in two camps. But there are plenty of examples of countries going their own way without wishing to rejoin e.g. Czechoslovakia, or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or Poland and Lithuania. The only country that seems to want to get the old band back again is Russia and that's not going too well.
Polling in Czechia and Slovakia both show majorities think the split was a mistake. The effects of the split long term have been mitigated by both halves joining the EU.
There are plenty of examples of countries coming together and staying together, like Italy, Germany, Spain (going further back), Canada, India, etc.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
All of these models on both sides of the argument have the same flaws. They assume that a particular effect will occur for good or ill without giving any real consideration as to what the response to that effect might be and then allow the model to produce a result.
What we have now, that we did not have at the time of the referendum, is a fairly significant period of real results. Anyone not trying to make a partisan point should focus not on assumptions but on actual results over that period. This is extremely difficult and made much more so by the major intervening events such as Covid, Ukraine and now Iran. Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU? if there is, I have yet to see it. We have certainly not done spectacularly as some claimed we would. But we seem broadly in the middle of the pack. It seems to me that the pre-Brexit trends have continued. That is disappointing. But it is not some disaster.
You say we should focus "on actual results", but you also recognise that "This is extremely difficult"! Isn't that the point ultimately? Not only are predictions hard, but counter-factuals are hard too!
"Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU?" That's not necessarily the right comparison. One would expect both the UK and the remainder of the EU to have been hurt by Brexit.
There is no single right comparison as there is no control. The best we can do is assemble half a dozen flawed comparisons and then take a view on the totality of the evidence. Certainly other EU countries is a valid indicator? as is the UK's pre Brexit growth, also similar unrelated third countries etc etc.
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Reform are polling second in Scotland and Wales on average, whereas in London they are polling third behind the Greens as well as Labour. Indeed in a few polls Reform are even polling 4th in London behind the Tories as well
Polling is one thing, actual votes is the real thing and I expect Reform to underperform
Reform will underperfom in London, in the rest of the UK, even in Wales and maybe Scotland, Reform will likely be at least second
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Reform are polling second in Scotland and Wales on average, whereas in London they are polling third behind the Greens as well as Labour. Indeed in a few polls Reform are even polling 4th in London behind the Tories as well
Polling is one thing, actual votes is the real thing and I expect Reform to underperform
I suspect Scotland, Wales and London won't be the story. It will be Reform taking swathes of Councils across Metro and Shire England. And millions of people who don't follow politics will wake up surprised as to who now runs their Council. Not all of them pleasantly.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Scotland and England fought a war with each other every century from the 11th to 18th centuries and the 1707 Act of Union (if you also count the wars against the Jacobites until 1746).
The fact that 30 years since the USSR broke up, Russia and Ukraine are now at war is not encouraging either
Bits of England fought wars with other bits of England every century too, didn't they? Harrying of the North, 11th C. The Anarchy, 12th C. The Barons' Wars, 13th C. The Peasant Revolt, 14th C. The Wars of the Roses, 15th C. Various rebellions against the Tudors in the 16th C. The Civil War, 17th C. The 1745 Rising in the 18th C.
No, those were more wars between nobles over the Crown and power, a class war over the poll tax, and a war between Parliament and the King. Not wars between nations or beyond arguably the Wars of the Roses, even between English counties and regions.
The 1745 Rising was more a War between a Protestant Hanoverian King and a Roman Catholic Jacobite deposed King's grandson
And the wars between Scotland and England were wars between nobles and kings too. So?
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
So the UK is an economic union in the same way as the EU is one. Given there hasn't been an economic breakout by the UK or any of the EU countries there is no (economic) incentive to change the status quo. And until that time, the Union is safe.
I mentioned the exemplar of Ireland which exists in two camps. But there are plenty of examples of countries going their own way without wishing to rejoin e.g. Czechoslovakia, or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or Poland and Lithuania. The only country that seems to want to get the old band back again is Russia and that's not going too well.
Polling in Czechia and Slovakia both show majorities think the split was a mistake. The effects of the split long term have been mitigated by both halves joining the EU.
There are plenty of examples of countries coming together and staying together, like Italy, Germany, Spain (going further back), Canada, India, etc.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
All of these models on both sides of the argument have the same flaws. They assume that a particular effect will occur for good or ill without giving any real consideration as to what the response to that effect might be and then allow the model to produce a result.
What we have now, that we did not have at the time of the referendum, is a fairly significant period of real results. Anyone not trying to make a partisan point should focus not on assumptions but on actual results over that period. This is extremely difficult and made much more so by the major intervening events such as Covid, Ukraine and now Iran. Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU? if there is, I have yet to see it. We have certainly not done spectacularly as some claimed we would. But we seem broadly in the middle of the pack. It seems to me that the pre-Brexit trends have continued. That is disappointing. But it is not some disaster.
You say we should focus "on actual results", but you also recognise that "This is extremely difficult"! Isn't that the point ultimately? Not only are predictions hard, but counter-factuals are hard too!
"Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU?" That's not necessarily the right comparison. One would expect both the UK and the remainder of the EU to have been hurt by Brexit.
There is no single right comparison as there is no control. The best we can do is assemble half a dozen flawed comparisons and then take a view on the totality of the evidence. Certainly other EU countries is a valid indicator? as is the UK's pre Brexit growth, also similar unrelated third countries etc etc.
We are agreed that the comparison is very difficult, although there are a range of things one can try.
The public have made up their minds. One can ask how the public came to that conclusion. I suggest that it is the failure of the Brexiteers to deliver on their promises.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
So the UK is an economic union in the same way as the EU is one. Given there hasn't been an economic breakout by the UK or any of the EU countries there is no (economic) incentive to change the status quo. And until that time, the Union is safe.
I mentioned the exemplar of Ireland which exists in two camps. But there are plenty of examples of countries going their own way without wishing to rejoin e.g. Czechoslovakia, or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or Poland and Lithuania. The only country that seems to want to get the old band back again is Russia and that's not going too well.
Polling in Czechia and Slovakia both show majorities think the split was a mistake. The effects of the split long term have been mitigated by both halves joining the EU.
There are plenty of examples of countries coming together and staying together, like Italy, Germany, Spain (going further back), Canada, India, etc.
India was partitioned in 1947.
But various parts of today's India only joined after then, like the hundreds of princely states, Pondicherry and the other French colonies, Goa and the other Portuguese territories, and Sikkim.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
All of these models on both sides of the argument have the same flaws. They assume that a particular effect will occur for good or ill without giving any real consideration as to what the response to that effect might be and then allow the model to produce a result.
What we have now, that we did not have at the time of the referendum, is a fairly significant period of real results. Anyone not trying to make a partisan point should focus not on assumptions but on actual results over that period. This is extremely difficult and made much more so by the major intervening events such as Covid, Ukraine and now Iran. Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU? if there is, I have yet to see it. We have certainly not done spectacularly as some claimed we would. But we seem broadly in the middle of the pack. It seems to me that the pre-Brexit trends have continued. That is disappointing. But it is not some disaster.
You say we should focus "on actual results", but you also recognise that "This is extremely difficult"! Isn't that the point ultimately? Not only are predictions hard, but counter-factuals are hard too!
"Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU?" That's not necessarily the right comparison. One would expect both the UK and the remainder of the EU to have been hurt by Brexit.
There is no single right comparison as there is no control. The best we can do is assemble half a dozen flawed comparisons and then take a view on the totality of the evidence. Certainly other EU countries is a valid indicator? as is the UK's pre Brexit growth, also similar unrelated third countries etc etc.
We are agreed that the comparison is very difficult, although there are a range of things one can try.
The public have made up their minds. One can ask how the public came to that conclusion. I suggest that it is the failure of the Brexiteers to deliver on their promises.
Leave voters were promised their own personal unicorn via Brexit because it wasn’t defined.
Hence it’s not surprising that absolutely everyone is disappointed by Brexit because it could never be delivered
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
All of these models on both sides of the argument have the same flaws. They assume that a particular effect will occur for good or ill without giving any real consideration as to what the response to that effect might be and then allow the model to produce a result.
What we have now, that we did not have at the time of the referendum, is a fairly significant period of real results. Anyone not trying to make a partisan point should focus not on assumptions but on actual results over that period. This is extremely difficult and made much more so by the major intervening events such as Covid, Ukraine and now Iran. Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU? if there is, I have yet to see it. We have certainly not done spectacularly as some claimed we would. But we seem broadly in the middle of the pack. It seems to me that the pre-Brexit trends have continued. That is disappointing. But it is not some disaster.
You say we should focus "on actual results", but you also recognise that "This is extremely difficult"! Isn't that the point ultimately? Not only are predictions hard, but counter-factuals are hard too!
"Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU?" That's not necessarily the right comparison. One would expect both the UK and the remainder of the EU to have been hurt by Brexit.
There is no single right comparison as there is no control. The best we can do is assemble half a dozen flawed comparisons and then take a view on the totality of the evidence. Certainly other EU countries is a valid indicator? as is the UK's pre Brexit growth, also similar unrelated third countries etc etc.
We are agreed that the comparison is very difficult, although there are a range of things one can try.
The public have made up their minds. One can ask how the public came to that conclusion. I suggest that it is the failure of the Brexiteers to deliver on their promises.
The crux of the debate at the time of the referendum was about project fear.
One side said they didn't like the EU and we could manage without it, and the other side said they didn't much like the EU either, but the sky would fall in if we left so we shouldn't do it. Clearly the Brexiteers had the better of the argument.
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Reform are polling second in Scotland and Wales on average, whereas in London they are polling third behind the Greens as well as Labour. Indeed in a few polls Reform are even polling 4th in London behind the Tories as well
Polling is one thing, actual votes is the real thing and I expect Reform to underperform
I suspect Scotland, Wales and London won't be the story. It will be Reform taking swathes of Councils across Metro and Shire England. And millions of people who don't follow politics will wake up surprised as to who now runs their Council. Not all of them pleasantly.
Labour losing the Welsh government will be national news.
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
The issues comes down to who let Mandelson start work before vetting was completed - and I the answer to that is SKS.
That is why he needs to go - the secondary problem is there is no one in a position to replace him
So Starmer will survive, as it it has still not been shown he was shown that Mandelson failed vetting.
Plus Labour has no mechanism for Labour MPs to VONC their leaders which Tory MPs have. So it would require a senior Labour MP to get the nominations to challenge him for leader and then win the Labour members vote, only Rayner of Labour MPs leads Starmer in Labour members polls at present (Burnham also does but is not an MP) and would she even get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs?
Well done BBC on this scoop. Nobody had been discussing this for months. Nope, completely passed everyone by.
If those trades were placed on UK markets, then the FCA and the Bank of England have standing to investigate and seek prosecution. Bit of a test there.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Scotland and England fought a war with each other every century from the 11th to 18th centuries and the 1707 Act of Union (if you also count the wars against the Jacobites until 1746).
The fact that 30 years since the USSR broke up, Russia and Ukraine are now at war is not encouraging either
Bits of England fought wars with other bits of England every century too, didn't they? Harrying of the North, 11th C. The Anarchy, 12th C. The Barons' Wars, 13th C. The Peasant Revolt, 14th C. The Wars of the Roses, 15th C. Various rebellions against the Tudors in the 16th C. The Civil War, 17th C. The 1745 Rising in the 18th C.
No, those were more wars between nobles over the Crown and power, a class war over the poll tax, and a war between Parliament and the King. Not wars between nations or beyond arguably the Wars of the Roses, even between English counties and regions.
The 1745 Rising was more a War between a Protestant Hanoverian King and a Roman Catholic Jacobite deposed King's grandson
And the wars between Scotland and England were wars between nobles and kings too. So?
Scottish Kings and English Kings and I included the the Wars of the Roses as arguably a war between counties even if really between the Dukes of York and Lancaster
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Reform are polling second in Scotland and Wales on average, whereas in London they are polling third behind the Greens as well as Labour. Indeed in a few polls Reform are even polling 4th in London behind the Tories as well
Polling is one thing, actual votes is the real thing and I expect Reform to underperform
I suspect Scotland, Wales and London won't be the story. It will be Reform taking swathes of Councils across Metro and Shire England. And millions of people who don't follow politics will wake up surprised as to who now runs their Council. Not all of them pleasantly.
Very few of them pleasantly I'd have thought. The people running to be Reform councillors are unlikely to be able organise bin collections, keep libraries open, streets safe etc. Where they have any interest in what councils do it'll be on getting rid of LTNs, cycle paths, school streets, 20mph zones, parking enforcement and low emission zones.
As these measures have all been shown to reduce KSIs and pollution related illnesses, it is clear that reverssing them will increase KSIs etc.
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
This comment is massively misleading about lawyers. There are Trollope novels - Orley Farm for example - where the impression is given that lawyers (solicitors and barristers, especially Chaffenbrass) walk into court without having troubled their client about giving their account of what happened.
None of this is even slightly true about the disciplines, rules and practices of criminal lawyers. Whether or not the client's account of the facts amounts to a criminal offence (guilt) is central to their concerns.
That's not really what I meant.
So it's not true that a lawyer is unable to represent a client they know to be guilty? Perhaps I got that from watching too much American TV!
Counter-terror police probe if Iran paying 'thugs for hire' to carry out arson attacks in London Counter-terror officers investigating if Iranian proxies are behind attacks on Jewish community in the capital ... ... The Met said the incidents were “similar in nature” and said Iranian proxy group Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, have claimed responsibility for most of the attacks online. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-arson-attacks-jewish-community-iran-proxy-met-police-b1279263.html
Teenagers arrested over arson attack on synagogue ... Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyya, an Islamist militant group, said it was behind the attack.
It has claimed responsibility for five incidents targeting Jewish sites in London, including the firebombing of four ambulances in Golders Green in March and a botched drone attack on the Israeli embassy last week.
There’s no way that terrorists are motivated by ‘quick cash’ and not an extreme ideology.
Some teenager just doing it for the money, is going to leave both metaphorical and physical fingerprints all over the place.
They do, which is how they are caught so easily. (CCTV is often on social media almost before the 999 call is finished.)
And it is probably ideology and stupidity allied to quick cash. There was a documentary about it called Four Lions. One recent lad looked like he was hoping to get shot, or martyred to ascend to paradise.
Well done BBC on this scoop. Nobody had been discussing this for months. Nope, completely passed everyone by.
They weren't pretending it's a scoop.
It's rather that it's become so blatant that even the most cautious of news organisations (and note the Trump billions-of-dollars lawsuit against the BBC is still ongoing) feel obliged to report it.
@Fishing, can I please request that the next two in the series have the prefix "Brexit Effect:", just like this one did ("Brexit Effect: Employment"). And no sneaking in a "the" or omitting the colon, please.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
So the UK is an economic union in the same way as the EU is one. Given there hasn't been an economic breakout by the UK or any of the EU countries there is no (economic) incentive to change the status quo. And until that time, the Union is safe.
I mentioned the exemplar of Ireland which exists in two camps. But there are plenty of examples of countries going their own way without wishing to rejoin e.g. Czechoslovakia, or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or Poland and Lithuania. The only country that seems to want to get the old band back again is Russia and that's not going too well.
Polling in Czechia and Slovakia both show majorities think the split was a mistake. The effects of the split long term have been mitigated by both halves joining the EU.
There are plenty of examples of countries coming together and staying together, like Italy, Germany, Spain (going further back), Canada, India, etc.
Given the present international situation, I fail to see why anyone should see further fragmentation of either the UK or European states as in the slightest bit attractive given now very real threats from unified mega states (eg. Russia, the US and possibly China) and the fact that any defensive cooperation from our present day Holy Roman EU Empire can be paralysed by just one country acting as a fifth columnist (cf. Hungary in the case of Ukraine.) Those wedded to the idea that alliances between fragmented states can be relied upon to deliver security should remember that Nato's Article 5 is no less of a paper commitment than was the 1938 Munich agreement, and that the chances of Trump being prepared to ever honour Article 5 are probably a lot less than are the chances of him invading Greenland.
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
No no
Starmer created a new process, on the fly, which he complied with 100%. Because whatever he did was The Process.
Someone else forget to write it down, so the new process definition never crossed his desk.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
So the UK is an economic union in the same way as the EU is one. Given there hasn't been an economic breakout by the UK or any of the EU countries there is no (economic) incentive to change the status quo. And until that time, the Union is safe.
I mentioned the exemplar of Ireland which exists in two camps. But there are plenty of examples of countries going their own way without wishing to rejoin e.g. Czechoslovakia, or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or Poland and Lithuania. The only country that seems to want to get the old band back again is Russia and that's not going too well.
Polling in Czechia and Slovakia both show majorities think the split was a mistake. The effects of the split long term have been mitigated by both halves joining the EU.
There are plenty of examples of countries coming together and staying together, like Italy, Germany, Spain (going further back), Canada, India, etc.
India was partitioned in 1947.
But various parts of today's India only joined after then, like the hundreds of princely states, Pondicherry and the other French colonies, Goa and the other Portuguese territories, and Sikkim.
Eastern Bengal (ie. Bangladesh), Western Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, the former Northwest Frontier, and Gilgit-Baltistan will never rejoin India.
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
The issues comes down to who let Mandelson start work before vetting was completed - and I the answer to that is SKS.
That is why he needs to go - the secondary problem is there is no one in a position to replace him
So Starmer will survive, as it it has still not been shown he was shown that Mandelson failed vetting.
Plus Labour has no mechanism for Labour MPs to VONC their leaders which Tory MPs have. So it would require a senior Labour MP to get the nominations to challenge him for leader and then win the Labour members vote, only Rayner of Labour MPs leads Starmer in Labour members polls at present (Burnham also does but is not an MP) and would she even get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs?
Yes.
It's going to happen like this. After the loss of 1,500+ council seats (if Starmer doesn't resign before the local elections), one challenger will announce their intention to challenge Starmer. And then, because pretty well anyone would stand a real chance of getting 80 nominations if they were the only challenger, and quite possibly of winning a vote, in order not to miss out everyone else who would fancy their chances will pile in too, whether they feel the time is optimal or not.
It will take only one to jump. Possibly Streeting, or an outsider with ambition (eg. Carns, Cooper).
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
Starmer reportedly absolutely furious Starmer didnt tell him Starmer had been told that
COUNSEL: My Lord, I concede my earlier statement was false—I only realised later. JUDGE: When? COUNSEL: Last Tuesday. JUDGE: Last Tuesday—and today is Monday? You were in Court last week but said nothing?
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
Starmer reportedly absolutely furious Starmer didnt tell him Starmer had been told that
Such a shame Starmer and Starmer aren't on speaking terms.
Multiple personalities? Should we change his pronoun to "they"?
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Before Edward I this was arguable. Literally so, Scottish kings did at times assert their independence from English suzerainty and at others acknowledge a feudal obligation. After Edward I, the Vladimir Putin of the Middle Ages, and until some time after 1707, Scotland and England were the opposite of close. Not that anyone suggests we should go back to that situation.
Harsh on Edward I - he was far more successful than Putin...
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
You will have to go, Downhill Skyr. Weasel words from a former DPP isn't going to cut it.
The last media attempt to hound Starmer from office backfired and so will this one. People can see Mandelson was dodgy and the victims are owed a full inquiry. They can also see off-the-scale bias and click-farming by self-aggrandising lobby journalists paid more than the PM
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
Starmer reportedly absolutely furious Starmer didnt tell him Starmer had been told that
Such a shame Starmer and Starmer aren't on speaking terms.
Multiple personalities? Should we change his pronoun to "they"?
Its beyond farce now. I can only imagine the relief his drones will feel once freed from defending the indefensible. They'll probably o/d on dishing the dirt
COUNSEL: My Lord, I concede my earlier statement was false—I only realised later. JUDGE: When? COUNSEL: Last Tuesday. JUDGE: Last Tuesday—and today is Monday? You were in Court last week but said nothing?
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Well Starmer’s bread is cooking…
Not quite toast yet, but getting closer with every minute.
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
Starmer reportedly absolutely furious Starmer didnt tell him Starmer had been told that
Such a shame Starmer and Starmer aren't on speaking terms.
Multiple personalities? Should we change his pronoun to "they"?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 5m What Case now proves is Starmer specifically took the decision to appoint Mandelson without any proper due diligence at all, directly against the advice of his officials. Even though he was a major national security risk. Then lied about it. How is that not a resignation issue.
I mean Kemi cant miss from inside a spherical goal can she?
I suspect she will say too much - literally all you need to ask is
Did you receive advice from the civil service (Case) that you had to wait for vetting to be completed? did you (SKS) appoint Mandelson before that vetting was completed?
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
Starmer reportedly absolutely furious Starmer didnt tell him Starmer had been told that
Such a shame Starmer and Starmer aren't on speaking terms.
Multiple personalities? Should we change his pronoun to "they"?
No no
“There are ... ten of us, all of family Starmer. Each one named Starmer. Slight differences in how you pronounced Starmer ... Starmer ... Starmer."
I mean Kemi cant miss from inside a spherical goal can she?
I suspect she will say too much - literally all you need to ask is
did you (SKS) appoint Mandelson before vetting was completed ignoring the advice of the civil service (Case) that you had to wait for vetting to be completed.
1 sentence and the answer to that has to be yes.
Only problem is she is up after he speaks. She can bring it up and then pocket the direct Q for Weds
The last media attempt to hound Starmer from office backfired and so will this one. People can see Mandelson was dodgy and the victims are owed a full inquiry. They can also see off-the-scale bias and click-farming by self-aggrandising lobby journalists paid more than the PM
Mason is hard left... nothing he says is worth listening to as common sense doesn't come into.it.
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Before Edward I this was arguable. Literally so, Scottish kings did at times assert their independence from English suzerainty and at others acknowledge a feudal obligation. After Edward I, the Vladimir Putin of the Middle Ages, and until some time after 1707, Scotland and England were the opposite of close. Not that anyone suggests we should go back to that situation.
Harsh on Edward I - he was far more successful than Putin...
Maybe Wales. Not Scotland. I don't think inhabitants of the north of England had any reason to thank Edward I either.
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
Isn't he toast that has self-incinerated? All this it seems to me is down to him ignoring multitudes of advice and going with McSweeney's desire to get Mandelson into the Oval Office for meetings.
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
Isn't he toast that has self-incinerated? All this it seems to me is down to him ignoring multitudes of advice and going with McSweeney's desire to get Mandelson into the Oval Office for meetings.
SKS’s problem is that he’s already thrown McSweeney to the wolves and the story continued
I wonder how Brixy is dealing with the factual upgrade
Another disaster for Kemi ?
If Kemi gets her scalp, the running order of people most pissed off will be:
3. Starmer 2. Brixy 1. Nigel Farage. Kemi getting results as the LotO - ooh, that's got to hurt. Especially just before the locals. 5% rise for Kemi's Tories, 5% drop for Reform?
(and Labour polling in single digits, to the benefit of the Greens?)
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
Isn't he toast that has self-incinerated? All this it seems to me is down to him ignoring multitudes of advice and going with McSweeney's desire to get Mandelson into the Oval Office for meetings.
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
Isn't he toast that has self-incinerated? All this it seems to me is down to him ignoring multitudes of advice and going with McSweeney's desire to get Mandelson into the Oval Office for meetings.
I'm convinced that he owed Mandelson and making him Ambassador was payback.
The Prime Minister should not feel under any obligation except towards the voters. If Starmer doesn't go over this then it degrades British democracy.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
You're saying that because you want the Leave predictions to have been proven wrong.
But if you look at the 'official' predictions then the Remain side:
By comparison the Leave side predictions were inevitably more vacuous with only semi-official promises of spending more on the NHS and controlling EU migration. Both of which have happened.
Nothing was quite as hilariously wrong as that Vote Leave video, after which Brexit proponents gave up claiming any practical benefits for their project. Now their main vindication is that Brexit is merely damaging rather than catastrophic as some predicted This isn't a winning argument.
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
Isn't he toast that has self-incinerated? All this it seems to me is down to him ignoring multitudes of advice and going with McSweeney's desire to get Mandelson into the Oval Office for meetings.
I'm convinced that he owed Mandelson and making him Ambassador was payback.
The Prime Minister should not feel under any obligation except towards the voters. If Starmer doesn't go over this then it degrades British democracy.
No, rottenborough is right. Mandelson was McSweeney's mucker, not Starmer's. It's ironies all the way down.
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
Isn't he toast that has self-incinerated? All this it seems to me is down to him ignoring multitudes of advice and going with McSweeney's desire to get Mandelson into the Oval Office for meetings.
I'm convinced that he owed Mandelson and making him Ambassador was payback.
The Prime Minister should not feel under any obligation except towards the voters. If Starmer doesn't go over this then it degrades British democracy.
I think the Prime Minister should only go if there’s something more than your conviction. Is there any actual evidence that he owed Mandelson and, as a result, made him ambassador?
Also, no man can get to be Prime Minister without owing much to many people. It’s simply not possible for someone to have no personal or professional obligations.
None of which detracts from the serious charges that Starmer does face, of misleading the House and making an error in appointing Mandelson. What remains unclear to me is whether this is cutting through with the public in the way that, say, Partygate did.
If I was Kemi I would look and point at each cabinet minister on the front bench and simply ask just how can you continue to serve under a PM who puts political expediency above national security
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
Much as I’d love to see Sir Keir ape Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men this afternoon, I just can’t see him being caught out. He is the annoying, dance on the head of a pin berk that would be absolutely wrong in the eyes of any normal person, but manage to wriggle out of it on a technicality
If I was Kemi I would look and point at each cabinet minister on the front bench and simply ask just how can you continue to serve under a PM who puts political expediency above national security
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
It's nice that you think that the Cabinet, either individually or collectively, has a sense of shame.
At what time is Starmer performing today? And at what time does the other shoe drop tomorrow? That will be even more interesting, Starmer's future could be in Robbins' hands.
Robbins has been offered a knighthood or something to keep quiet?
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
I would expect him to announce his resignation and to remain until the new leader is elected
Much as I’d love to see Sir Keir ape Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men this afternoon, I just can’t see him being caught out. He is the annoying, dance on the head of a pin berk that would be absolutely wrong in the eyes of any normal person, but manage to wriggle out of it on a technicality
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
And avoid Betfair, who will make it up as they go along!
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
I would expect him to announce his resignation and to remain until the new leader is elected
Indeed. When was the last time a PM, or any party leader, didn’t do this? I’m sure it’s happened, but it’s uncommon.
EDIT: a propos of nothing, I’m eating a very nice homemade pistachio ice cream.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
Looks like a free 20% to me. Next permanent leader elected by the Labour party are the terms
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
What this demonstrates to me is that relations between Starmer and the Civil Service are now absolutely poisonous. Many governments fall out with their Civil Servants but I cannot honestly recall where Whitehall has been so clear that enough is enough. Even if he survives today governing in such an atmosphere is going to be almost impossible and hopelessly ineffective.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Before Edward I this was arguable. Literally so, Scottish kings did at times assert their independence from English suzerainty and at others acknowledge a feudal obligation. After Edward I, the Vladimir Putin of the Middle Ages, and until some time after 1707, Scotland and England were the opposite of close. Not that anyone suggests we should go back to that situation.
Harsh on Edward I - he was far more successful than Putin...
Given that every morning brings new pictures of Putin’s empire quite literally on fire…
Comments
There are plenty of examples of countries coming together and staying together, like Italy, Germany, Spain (going further back), Canada, India, etc.
It will be Reform taking swathes of Councils across Metro and Shire England.
And millions of people who don't follow politics will wake up surprised as to who now runs their Council.
Not all of them pleasantly.
The public have made up their minds. One can ask how the public came to that conclusion. I suggest that it is the failure of the Brexiteers to deliver on their promises.
Hence it’s not surprising that absolutely everyone is disappointed by Brexit because it could never be delivered
As of January I now access PB infrequently and post less so, but that header was worth an exception.
One side said they didn't like the EU and we could manage without it, and the other side said they didn't much like the EU either, but the sky would fall in if we left so we shouldn't do it. Clearly the Brexiteers had the better of the argument.
Plus Labour has no mechanism for Labour MPs to VONC their leaders which Tory MPs have. So it would require a senior Labour MP to get the nominations to challenge him for leader and then win the Labour members vote, only Rayner of Labour MPs leads Starmer in Labour members polls at present (Burnham also does but is not an MP) and would she even get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs?
Anything much happening today?
The people running to be Reform councillors are unlikely to be able organise bin collections, keep libraries open, streets safe etc.
Where they have any interest in what councils do it'll be on getting rid of LTNs, cycle paths, school streets, 20mph zones, parking enforcement and low emission zones.
As these measures have all been shown to reduce KSIs and pollution related illnesses, it is clear that reverssing them will increase KSIs etc.
So it's not true that a lawyer is unable to represent a client they know to be guilty? Perhaps I got that from watching too much American TV!
And it is probably ideology and stupidity allied to quick cash. There was a documentary about it called Four Lions. One recent lad looked like he was hoping to get shot, or martyred to ascend to paradise.
It's rather that it's become so blatant that even the most cautious of news organisations (and note the Trump billions-of-dollars lawsuit against the BBC is still ongoing) feel obliged to report it.
The PBer @Fishing is publishing a series. Published versions to date include:
- https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/04/14/the-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu/
- https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/04/20/brexit-effect-employment/
@Fishing, can I please request that the next two in the series have the prefix "Brexit Effect:", just like this one did ("Brexit Effect: Employment"). And no sneaking in a "the" or omitting the colon, please.We had a small decision to make about a new fund. We decided to give the US a swerve. Table not straight.
https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/2046175854124785778
Sam Coates reports "We've got some breaking news"
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer created a new process, on the fly, which he complied with 100%. Because whatever he did was The Process.
Someone else forget to write it down, so the new process definition never crossed his desk.
Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
·
24m
Devastating...
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
It's going to happen like this. After the loss of 1,500+ council seats (if Starmer doesn't resign before the local elections), one challenger will announce their intention to challenge Starmer. And then, because pretty well anyone would stand a real chance of getting 80 nominations if they were the only challenger, and quite possibly of winning a vote, in order not to miss out everyone else who would fancy their chances will pile in too, whether they feel the time is optimal or not.
It will take only one to jump. Possibly Streeting, or an outsider with ambition (eg. Carns, Cooper).
Sam Coates on Starmer ignoring Case recommendation:
Labour source
Game, set and match for Starmer
“The Earliest Opportunity”: a new one-act play
COUNSEL: My Lord, I concede my earlier statement was false—I only realised later.
JUDGE: When?
COUNSEL: Last Tuesday.
JUDGE: Last Tuesday—and today is Monday? You were in Court last week but said nothing?
END [of Counsel’s career]
Multiple personalities? Should we change his pronoun to "they"?
This is far worse than Boris
https://x.com/paulmasonnews/status/2046151699836874885
The last media attempt to hound Starmer from office backfired and so will this one. People can see Mandelson was dodgy and the victims are owed a full inquiry. They can also see off-the-scale bias and click-farming by self-aggrandising lobby journalists paid more than the PM
I can only imagine the relief his drones will feel once freed from defending the indefensible. They'll probably o/d on dishing the dirt
Not quite toast yet, but getting closer with every minute.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
5m
What Case now proves is Starmer specifically took the decision to appoint Mandelson without any proper due diligence at all, directly against the advice of his officials. Even though he was a major national security risk. Then lied about it. How is that not a resignation issue.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2046183645778518350
Rather like, say, Boris arguing he did not eat the doughnuts, did not know of the existence of the doughnuts - doesn't even LIKE doughnuts.
All the while, his face smeared with jam and sugar.
Did you receive advice from the civil service (Case) that you had to wait for vetting to be completed?
did you (SKS) appoint Mandelson before that vetting was completed?
2 questions and the answer to that has to be yes.
“There are ... ten of us, all of family Starmer. Each one named Starmer. Slight differences in how you pronounced Starmer ... Starmer ... Starmer."
Mason is hard left... nothing he says is worth listening to as common sense doesn't come into.it.
This is very distracting - I have stuff to do!
Are we on Downing Street Lectern Alert yet?
2026 1.38-1.45
2027 5.2-8.0
2028 14-17.5
2029 onwards 9.8-19
He should. But he won’t.
3. Starmer
2. Brixy
1. Nigel Farage. Kemi getting results as the LotO - ooh, that's got to hurt. Especially just before the locals. 5% rise for Kemi's Tories, 5% drop for Reform?
(and Labour polling in single digits, to the benefit of the Greens?)
Spread with actual lava.
The Prime Minister should not feel under any obligation except towards the voters. If Starmer doesn't go over this then it degrades British democracy.
April-June 2026 4.7-5.6
July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68
Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2
2027 or later 3.2-3.7
Also, no man can get to be Prime Minister without owing much to many people. It’s simply not possible for someone to have no personal or professional obligations.
None of which detracts from the serious charges that Starmer does face, of misleading the House and making an error in appointing Mandelson. What remains unclear to me is whether this is cutting through with the public in the way that, say, Partygate did.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the Slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
Reform leader says that many of his ethnic minority candidates are experiencing huge levels of abuse
https://x.com/hoffman_noa/status/2046178679810568376?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
There's Good News Nigel - many more will now defect to vote for Rupert the Bear instead.
Hope youve bought lots of popcorn
From day one youve been saying Starmer is a snake of a politician and cant be trusted. Youve been proved correct
Enjoy.
EDIT: a propos of nothing, I’m eating a very nice homemade pistachio ice cream.
Next permanent leader elected by the Labour party are the terms