Mr. NorthWales, broadcast news generally has massively declined in the last couple of years. Andrew Neil and Tim Marshal are seen increasingly rarely, Sky's got Faisal Islam, and ITV's Paul Brand is sopping wet (after Grenfell he said it raised questions about the kind of country we are and even who governs us. Later, he had a propaganda piece promoting the idea of lower entry grades for Oxbridge for those from less well-off backgrounds).
Mr. NorthWales, broadcast news generally has massively declined in the last couple of years. Andrew Neil and Tim Marshal are seen increasingly rarely, Sky's got Faisal Islam, and ITV's Paul Brand is sopping wet (after Grenfell he said it raised questions about the kind of country we are and even who governs us. Later, he had a propaganda piece promoting the idea of lower entry grades for Oxbridge for those from less well-off backgrounds).
Tim Marshall isn't even on the tellybox anymore. He has his own minor traffic website.
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
Well it was 12 years so now 15. They are not doing their cause any good at all
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
It is ludicrous. Like predicting how happy you will be ten years after having a baby.
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
I think you’ll find that they can.
I don't mind. Just so long as those of us who are keeping the country afloat aren't in due course going to be expected to shovel more money in the direction of people who voted to immiserate the entire nation. Something about making beds and lying on them springs to mind.
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
Well it was 12 years so now 15. They are not doing their cause any good at all
No that's the point really. It's the digital equivalent of walking up and down Oxford St with a sandwich board saying "the end is nigh". It's been "nigh" so often for so long since GO was the chief sandwich board wearer in May and June 2016, that we've stopped listening and just walk on by on the other side of the street avoiding eye contact.
It's just the 2018 version of "British industry will move en masse to the Continent if we don't join the Euro" which we had to put up with 20 years ago.
This country is going to hell in a handcart, some people need a sense of humour.
A controversial innuendo-laden Christmas advertising campaign from Poundland has been banned.
The retailer's "Elf Behaving Badly" campaign has been deemed irresponsible and likely to cause widespread offence by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Poundland posted a series of images on its Twitter and Facebook pages of an elf toy in a number of sexualised poses, including playing strip poker and sitting in a tub with naked dolls.
The retailer made headlines in the run-up to Christmas when tea company Twinings accused it of "misusing" its product after Poundland tweeted a picture of an elf dangling a Twinings teabag over a female doll, simulating a sex act.
Just so long as those of us who are keeping the country afloat aren't in due course going to be expected to shovel more money in the direction of people who voted to immiserate the entire nation.
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
I think you’ll find that they can.
I don't mind. Just so long as those of us who are keeping the country afloat aren't in due course going to be expected to shovel more money in the direction of people who voted to immiserate the entire nation. Something about making beds and lying on them springs to mind.
Enough of if Corbyn gets elected, what about Brexit...
Just so long as those of us who are keeping the country afloat aren't in due course going to be expected to shovel more money in the direction of people who voted to immiserate the entire nation.
That's a racing cert I expect.
Eighteen years, eighteen years And on her eighteenth birthday he found out it wasn't his
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
I think you’ll find that they can.
I don't mind. Just so long as those of us who are keeping the country afloat aren't in due course going to be expected to shovel more money in the direction of people who voted to immiserate the entire nation. Something about making beds and lying on them springs to mind.
Enough of if Corbyn gets elected, what about Brexit...
We could get the best of both worlds - Corbyn's Brexit.
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
The average age a smoker will live to is 70, that of a non smoker is 80. Just because an individual non smoker might drop dead of a heart attack at 60 doesn't invalidate the statistical model and the science it's based on.
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
Just so long as those of us who are keeping the country afloat aren't in due course going to be expected to shovel more money in the direction of people who voted to immiserate the entire nation.
That's a racing cert I expect.
Perhaps we should ask them all to send "thank you" messages to AM
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
I think you’ll find that they can.
I don't mind. Just so long as those of us who are keeping the country afloat aren't in due course going to be expected to shovel more money in the direction of people who voted to immiserate the entire nation. Something about making beds and lying on them springs to mind.
Enough of if Corbyn gets elected, what about Brexit...
We could get the best of both worlds - Corbyn's Brexit.
I believe there is a documentary in the cinema at the moment which portrays what life in Britain will look after a few years of that....I believe it is called Early Man.
If we panic and go back into the EU now, we would effectively be finished as an independent country.
Pretty much, yes.
I'm not advocating it. I'm just speculating on the chances, as is only right on a political betting website.
I'd be interested in PB-ers opinions: how big would the shift to REMAIN need to be, to scare the government into rowing back on Brexit?
I reckon 60/40 REMAIN would just about do it. 70/30 REMAIN (very unlikely, of course) would finish Brexit completely, and swiftly. The PM would call a 2nd referendum, REMAIN would canter home.
I think 60:40 consistently in the opinion polls would lead to a referendum on "the deal". But absent a recession, I would expect Leave to end up winning. People don't like being asked the same question twice.
If it were 70:30 in the polls, then it would be very different. The government would be effectively forced into holding another referendum, which would probably be won comfortably by Remain, and which would lead to massive, massive bitterness and problems going forward.
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
The average age a smoker will live to is 70, that of a non smoker is 80. Just because an individual non smoker might drop dead of a heart attack at 60 doesn't invalidate the statistical model and the science it's based on.
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
Isn't the Single Market more about protectionism than free trade?
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
The average age a smoker will live to is 70, that of a non smoker is 80. Just because an individual non smoker might drop dead of a heart attack at 60 doesn't invalidate the statistical model and the science it's based on.
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
Isn't the Single Market more about protectionism than free trade?
No, Mrs Thatcher was a supporter/architect of the single market, it is all about free trade.
If we panic and go back into the EU now, we would effectively be finished as an independent country.
Pretty much, yes.
I'm not advocating it. I'm just speculating on the chances, as is only right on a political betting website.
I'd be interested in PB-ers opinions: how big would the shift to REMAIN need to be, to scare the government into rowing back on Brexit?
I reckon 60/40 REMAIN would just about do it. 70/30 REMAIN (very unlikely, of course) would finish Brexit completely, and swiftly. The PM would call a 2nd referendum, REMAIN would canter home.
I think 60:40 consistently in the opinion polls would lead to a referendum on "the deal". But absent a recession, I would expect Leave to end up winning. People don't like being asked the same question twice.
If it were 70:30 in the polls, then it would be very different. The government would be effectively forced into holding another referendum, which would probably be won comfortably by Remain, and which would lead to massive, massive bitterness and problems going forward.
So the more emphatic the victory for Remain, the more bitterness there will be? That makes no sense.
Moreover, if the public suddenly swang behind REMAIN, there would be a serious temptation for a Tory PM to follow the voter mood. Because it would then leave Labour as the only party led by a hardcore Leaver: Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has never changed his mind about anything.
A piquant possibility.
Not going to happen. Leave voters accepted there was some economic risk - but did not base their decision on economics - so all this Remain stuff banging on about economics is just repeating the same argument expecting a different answer.
Bullshit. Foreigners taking our jobs is solely an economic argument. When it becomes evident that booting out people with a funny accent doesn't bring prosperity and work, you don't think they'll change their mind?
Or are you now claiming that the leave vote was built on prejudice and xenophobia?
I'm taking it you didn't read:
We can now reveal just how difficult to shift the Leave vote is – even in the face of economic calamity. BMG Research polling for Best for Britain and Left Foot Forward shows:
When asked whether ‘prices going up significantly’ would make people switch from Leave to Remain, just 7% of Leave voters said it would change their view
We asked if ‘the national economy going into a recession’ would change their view. Just 9% of Leave voters said it would
Even when asked if they’d change support if their ‘personal finances [got] worse’, again only 7% said they would switch to Remain
The figure rises to 11% when asked their view if the ‘NHS [was] damaged / worse off as a result’ of Brexit: 11% of Leave voters would back halting Brexit
All of this goes to show that people – rightly or wrongly – view Brexit as an issue of values, not of rigid economic projections.
Up to you.
I don't believe that polling.
In the abstract people say that they'd take it a hit to reclaim sovereignty. If there are half a million more Brits without jobs, and another four million worrying about their's, then there are a lot of newly scared Leave voters.
Fortunately, we haven't had (Brexit or anything else caused) recession. And the window is closing.
Boundary change or no boundary change the most likely current outcome for the next general election is Tories ahead on seats but Corbyn becomes PM with SNP support
A big issue with the new proposed boundaries is that they have to be drawn with an electorate size only a plus or minus 5% away from the average electorate number. Previously it was 10%.
This has meant obvious coherent communities having to be split up. In the South East where the population has grown sufficiently that existing constituencies meet the enlarged electorate number (with 50 fewer constituencies), they are still having to be unnecessarily split up because of a domino effect from the odd neighbouring constituency being too big to squeeze into the 5% variation.
Also the Boundary Commission has been constrained by constituencies not being allowed to cross EU election region boundaries - despite Brexit.
WTF? Really (re EU). That's insane given that we'll be out in barely more than 12 months.
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
The average age a smoker will live to is 70, that of a non smoker is 80. Just because an individual non smoker might drop dead of a heart attack at 60 doesn't invalidate the statistical model and the science it's based on.
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
Isn't the Single Market more about protectionism than free trade?
No, Mrs Thatcher was a supporter/architect of the single market, it is all about free trade.
I cannot recall an example of where the result of a general election has been the similar to what the polls said it would be at this stage of a parliament.
Governments -especially Tory governments -tend to do better than what they are polling at this stage of a parliament. Miliband and Kinnock were both in double digit leads before losing on general election day. For Corbyn to be level pegging and slightly behind is very bad news.
Since polling began,no opposition has ever formed a government without being at least 15 points ahead between elections. Add to that a new Tory leader, a better Tory manifesto, Brexit done and dusted, Corbyn being 73, a Tory campaign much more brutal and a forensic taking apart of Labour's economic policies, older people coming out to vote in droves, and I think Labour's chances of forming a government so long as Corbyn is leader are very remote indeed whatever the boundaries.
And remember too the self denying phrophecy rule of British politics. The more something is predicted to happen, the less likely it is to come true. The more a Labour government is predicted, the less likely it is to happen. Labour is heading for a very famous defeat in 2022 indeed.
On the other hand, coming on here several times a day telling us Corbyn is useless and how "older" voters are going to turn out in droves to back the Conservatives and how Labour are going to lose heavily in 2022 isn't likely to make the reverse happen....
Moreover, if the public suddenly swang behind REMAIN, there would be a serious temptation for a Tory PM to follow the voter mood. Because it would then leave Labour as the only party led by a hardcore Leaver: Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has never changed his mind about anything.
A piquant possibility.
Not going to happen. Leave voters accepted there was some economic risk - but did not base their decision on economics - so all this Remain stuff banging on about economics is just repeating the same argument expecting a different answer.
Bullshit. Foreigners taking our jobs is solely an economic argument. When it becomes evident that booting out people with a funny accent doesn't bring prosperity and work, you don't think they'll change their mind?
Or are you now claiming that the leave vote was built on prejudice and xenophobia?
I'm taking it you didn't read:
We can now reveal just how difficult to shift the Leave vote is – even in the face of economic calamity. BMG Research polling for Best for Britain and Left Foot Forward shows:
When asked whether ‘prices going up significantly’ would make people switch from Leave to Remain, just 7% of Leave voters said it would change their view
We asked if ‘the national economy going into a recession’ would change their view. Just 9% of Leave voters said it would
Even when asked if they’d change support if their ‘personal finances [got] worse’, again only 7% said they would switch to Remain
The figure rises to 11% when asked their view if the ‘NHS [was] damaged / worse off as a result’ of Brexit: 11% of Leave voters would back halting Brexit
All of this goes to show that people – rightly or wrongly – view Brexit as an issue of values, not of rigid economic projections.
Up to you.
If there are half a million more Brits without jobs
Since the Brexit vote there are nearly half a million more Brits with jobs.
I cannot recall an example of where the result of a general election has been the similar to what the polls said it would be at this stage of a parliament.
Governments -especially Tory governments -tend to do better than what they are polling at this stage of a parliament. Miliband and Kinnock were both in double digit leads before losing on general election day. For Corbyn to be level pegging and slightly behind is very bad news.
Since polling began,no opposition has ever formed a government without being at least 15 points ahead between elections. Add to that a new Tory leader, a better Tory manifesto, Brexit done and dusted, Corbyn being 73, a Tory campaign much more brutal and a forensic taking apart of Labour's economic policies, older people coming out to vote in droves, and I think Labour's chances of forming a government so long as Corbyn is leader are very remote indeed whatever the boundaries.
And remember too the self denying phrophecy rule of British politics. The more something is predicted to happen, the less likely it is to come true. The more a Labour government is predicted, the less likely it is to happen. Labour is heading for a very famous defeat in 2022 indeed.
On the other hand, coming on here several times a day telling us Corbyn is useless and how "older" voters are going to turn out in droves to back the Conservatives and how Labour are going to lose heavily in 2022 isn't likely to make the reverse happen....
stevef seems to be a reincarnation of @Plato, in his move from lifelong Labour supporter tn finding them anathema.
A big issue with the new proposed boundaries is that they have to be drawn with an electorate size only a plus or minus 5% away from the average electorate number. Previously it was 10%.
This has meant obvious coherent communities having to be split up. In the South East where the population has grown sufficiently that existing constituencies meet the enlarged electorate number (with 50 fewer constituencies), they are still having to be unnecessarily split up because of a domino effect from the odd neighbouring constituency being too big to squeeze into the 5% variation.
Also the Boundary Commission has been constrained by constituencies not being allowed to cross EU election region boundaries - despite Brexit.
WTF? Really (re EU). That's insane given that we'll be out in barely more than 12 months.
Surely just because the Terms of Reference were set pre Brexit and importantly also before the waves of new registrations from Brexit and GE 2017.
Moreover, if the public suddenly swang behind REMAIN, there would be a serious temptation for a Tory PM to follow the voter mood. Because it would then leave Labour as the only party led by a hardcore Leaver: Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has never changed his mind about anything.
A piquant possibility.
Not going to happen. Leave voters accepted there was some economic risk - but did not base their decision on economics - so all this Remain stuff banging on about economics is just repeating the same argument expecting a different answer.
Bullshit. Foreigners taking our jobs is solely an economic argument. When it becomes evident that booting out people with a funny accent doesn't bring prosperity and work, you don't think they'll change their mind?
Or are you now claiming that the leave vote was built on prejudice and xenophobia?
I'm taking it you didn't read:
We can now reveal just how difficult to shift the Leave vote is – even in the face of economic calamity. BMG Research polling for Best for Britain and Left Foot Forward shows:
When asked whether ‘prices going up significantly’ would make people switch from Leave to Remain, just 7% of Leave voters said it would change their view
We asked if ‘the national economy going into a recession’ would change their view. Just 9% of Leave voters said it would
Even when asked if they’d change support if their ‘personal finances [got] worse’, again only 7% said they would switch to Remain
The figure rises to 11% when asked their view if the ‘NHS [was] damaged / worse off as a result’ of Brexit: 11% of Leave voters would back halting Brexit
All of this goes to show that people – rightly or wrongly – view Brexit as an issue of values, not of rigid economic projections.
Up to you.
If there are half a million more Brits without jobs
Since the Brexit vote there are nearly half a million more Brits with jobs.
I didn't say it was likely (although my views on the precariousness of the British economy are well known on here), merely that in a recession, where people are losing their jobs, that people wouldn't be as sanguine as they are in today's opinion polls.
Moreover, if the public suddenly swang behind REMAIN, there would be a serious temptation for a Tory PM to follow the voter mood. Because it would then leave Labour as the only party led by a hardcore Leaver: Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has never changed his mind about anything.
A piquant possibility.
Not going to happen. Leave voters accepted there was some economic risk - but did not base their decision on economics - so all this Remain stuff banging on about economics is just repeating the same argument expecting a different answer.
Bullshit. Foreigners taking our jobs is solely an economic argument. When it becomes evident that booting out people with a funny accent doesn't bring prosperity and work, you don't think they'll change their mind?
Or are you now claiming that the leave vote was built on prejudice and xenophobia?
I'm taking it you didn't read:
We can now reveal just how difficult to shift the Leave vote is – even in the face of economic calamity. BMG Research polling for Best for Britain and Left Foot Forward shows:
When asked whether ‘prices going up significantly’ would make people switch from Leave to Remain, just 7% of Leave voters said it would change their view
We asked if ‘the national economy going into a recession’ would change their view. Just 9% of Leave voters said it would
Even when asked if they’d change support if their ‘personal finances [got] worse’, again only 7% said they would switch to Remain
The figure rises to 11% when asked their view if the ‘NHS [was] damaged / worse off as a result’ of Brexit: 11% of Leave voters would back halting Brexit
All of this goes to show that people – rightly or wrongly – view Brexit as an issue of values, not of rigid economic projections.
Up to you.
If there are half a million more Brits without jobs
Since the Brexit vote there are nearly half a million more Brits with jobs.
Do they all have UK passports? Do you mean UK residents?
Moreover, if the public suddenly swang behind REMAIN, there would be a serious temptation for a Tory PM to follow the voter mood. Because it would then leave Labour as the only party led by a hardcore Leaver: Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has never changed his mind about anything.
A piquant possibility.
Not going to happen. Leave voters accepted there was some economic risk - but did not base their decision on economics - so all this Remain stuff banging on about economics is just repeating the same argument expecting a different answer.
Bullshit. Foreigners taking our jobs is solely an economic argument. When it becomes evident that booting out people with a funny accent doesn't bring prosperity and work, you don't think they'll change their mind?
Or are you now claiming that the leave vote was built on prejudice and xenophobia?
I'm taking it you didn't read:
We can now reveal just how difficult to shift the Leave vote is – even in the face of economic calamity. BMG Research polling for Best for Britain and Left Foot Forward shows:
When asked whether ‘prices going up significantly’ would make people switch from Leave to Remain, just 7% of Leave voters said it would change their view
We asked if ‘the national economy going into a recession’ would change their view. Just 9% of Leave voters said it would
Even when asked if they’d change support if their ‘personal finances [got] worse’, again only 7% said they would switch to Remain
The figure rises to 11% when asked their view if the ‘NHS [was] damaged / worse off as a result’ of Brexit: 11% of Leave voters would back halting Brexit
All of this goes to show that people – rightly or wrongly – view Brexit as an issue of values, not of rigid economic projections.
Up to you.
If there are half a million more Brits without jobs
Since the Brexit vote there are nearly half a million more Brits with jobs.
Surely half a million more jobs, many filled by non Brits?
I cannot recall an example of where the result of a general election has been the similar to what the polls said it would be at this stage of a parliament.
Governments -especially Tory governments -tend to do better than what they are polling at this stage of a parliament. Miliband and Kinnock were both in double digit leads before losing on general election day. For Corbyn to be level pegging and slightly behind is very bad news.
Since polling began,no opposition has ever formed a government without being at least 15 points ahead between elections. Add to that a new Tory leader, a better Tory manifesto, Brexit done and dusted, Corbyn being 73, a Tory campaign much more brutal and a forensic taking apart of Labour's economic policies, older people coming out to vote in droves, and I think Labour's chances of forming a government so long as Corbyn is leader are very remote indeed whatever the boundaries.
And remember too the self denying phrophecy rule of British politics. The more something is predicted to happen, the less likely it is to come true. The more a Labour government is predicted, the less likely it is to happen. Labour is heading for a very famous defeat in 2022 indeed.
On the other hand, coming on here several times a day telling us Corbyn is useless and how "older" voters are going to turn out in droves to back the Conservatives and how Labour are going to lose heavily in 2022 isn't likely to make the reverse happen....
stevef seems to be a reincarnation of @Plato, in his move from lifelong Labour supporter tn finding them anathema.
Mrs May really screwed the pooch when she lost Dave’s majority.
For this alone she deserves to be ousted.
And here is a letter from the Caliph Republican from Sheffield-Hallam, though not verbatim:
"Can he tie girls [sic] to railings so he can 'jet-thrust' his desires."
Surely this parish must agree that this "member" should be invited to partake accomodation within a police-cell. Sad that this 'exposure' is still required after the distruction of so many lives, dreams and working-class ambitions.
If we panic and go back into the EU now, we would effectively be finished as an independent country.
Pretty much, yes.
I'm not advocating it. I'm just speculating on the chances, as is only right on a political betting website.
I'd be interested in PB-ers opinions: how big would the shift to REMAIN need to be, to scare the government into rowing back on Brexit?
I reckon 60/40 REMAIN would just about do it. 70/30 REMAIN (very unlikely, of course) would finish Brexit completely, and swiftly. The PM would call a 2nd referendum, REMAIN would canter home.
I think 60:40 consistently in the opinion polls would lead to a referendum on "the deal". But absent a recession, I would expect Leave to end up winning. People don't like being asked the same question twice.
If it were 70:30 in the polls, then it would be very different. The government would be effectively forced into holding another referendum, which would probably be won comfortably by Remain, and which would lead to massive, massive bitterness and problems going forward.
At 10pm on referendum night Populus issued a poll predicting a remain win by 55 to 45 - not far off 60 to 40. We should be wary of predictions based on polls!
As we have seen even on the day they can be badly out - let alone months before a vote. MORI had a poll in summer 2015 predicting remain would win by 44 per cent then. Just shows how views can change in months even hours.
And of course the 40 per cent would be mainly Tory - if Tory voters turn against Brexit it's surely more of an issue.
Moreover, if the public suddenly swang behind REMAIN, there would be a serious temptation for a Tory PM to follow the voter mood. Because it would then leave Labour as the only party led by a hardcore Leaver: Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has never changed his mind about anything.
A piquant possibility.
Not going to happen. Leave voters accepted there was some economic risk - but did not base their decision on economics - so all this Remain stuff banging on about economics is just repeating the same argument expecting a different answer.
Bullshit. Foreigners taking our jobs is solely an economic argument. When it becomes evident that booting out people with a funny accent doesn't bring prosperity and work, you don't think they'll change their mind?
Or are you now claiming that the leave vote was built on prejudice and xenophobia?
I'm taking it you didn't read:
We can now reveal just how difficult to shift the Leave vote is – even in the face of economic calamity. BMG Research polling for Best for Britain and Left Foot Forward shows:
When asked whether ‘prices going up significantly’ would make people switch from Leave to Remain, just 7% of Leave voters said it would change their view
We asked if ‘the national economy going into a recession’ would change their view. Just 9% of Leave voters said it would
Even when asked if they’d change support if their ‘personal finances [got] worse’, again only 7% said they would switch to Remain
The figure rises to 11% when asked their view if the ‘NHS [was] damaged / worse off as a result’ of Brexit: 11% of Leave voters would back halting Brexit
All of this goes to show that people – rightly or wrongly – view Brexit as an issue of values, not of rigid economic projections.
Up to you.
If there are half a million more Brits without jobs
Since the Brexit vote there are nearly half a million more Brits with jobs.
Surely half a million more jobs, many filled by non Brits?
I wondered who would pick up on that....a Leaver or a Remainer......
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
The average age a smoker will live to is 70, that of a non smoker is 80. Just because an individual non smoker might drop dead of a heart attack at 60 doesn't invalidate the statistical model and the science it's based on.
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
Isn't the Single Market more about protectionism than free trade?
The EU's average external tariff is 2.7%, which is somewhat lower than China, the US, India or Japan, but worse than South Korea or Canada. It is protectionist in agriculture and automotive, but not particularly elsewhere. Certainly the EU has far more FTAs than any of the other big free trade blocs.
That doesn't, of course, mean we can't - like South Korea - be far more free trade post-Brexit.
If we panic and go back into the EU now, we would effectively be finished as an independent country.
Pretty much, yes.
I'm not advocating it. I'm just speculating on the chances, as is only right on a political betting website.
I'd be interested in PB-ers opinions: how big would the shift to REMAIN need to be, to scare the government into rowing back on Brexit?
I reckon 60/40 REMAIN would just about do it. 70/30 REMAIN (very unlikely, of course) would finish Brexit completely, and swiftly. The PM would call a 2nd referendum, REMAIN would canter home.
I think 60:40 consistently in the opinion polls would lead to a referendum on "the deal". But absent a recession, I would expect Leave to end up winning. People don't like being asked the same question twice.
If it were 70:30 in the polls, then it would be very different. The government would be effectively forced into holding another referendum, which would probably be won comfortably by Remain, and which would lead to massive, massive bitterness and problems going forward.
So the more emphatic the victory for Remain, the more bitterness there will be? That makes no sense.
Errr: I only posit a Remain victory under one (highly unlikely) scenario. So your comment makes no sense. It's almost like you scanned what I said, but didn't parse it properly.
Mrs May really screwed the pooch when she lost Dave’s majority.
For this alone she deserves to be ousted.
And here is a letter from the Caliph Republican from Sheffield-Hallam, though not verbatim:
"Can he tie girls [sic] to railings so he can 'jet-thrust' his desires."
Surely this parish must agree that this "member" should be invited to partake accomodation within a police-cell. Sad that this 'exposure' is still required after the distruction of so many lives, dreams and working-class ambitions.
Don't be dense.
Obviously you've never watched Blackadder Goes Forth.
Only start watching it once you've completed your ESOL course.
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
It is ludicrous. Like predicting how happy you will be ten years after having a baby.
Or how the life of an infamous singleton ex-druggie minor travel writer will turn out.
Hah. Yes. Very good.
Yesterday I noticed that the half empty, glamorous new block of flats next to mine had squatters on the ground floor, druggies and junkies who are littering the entire street.
I cursed them, and resolved to call the owners and get it sorted.
Of course, thirty two years ago I was a drugged up squatter who laughed at the mayhem my pals and I created. Life has a way of biting you on the arse.
If we panic and go back into the EU now, we would effectively be finished as an independent country.
Pretty much, yes.
I'm not advocating it. I'm just speculating on the chances, as is only right on a political betting website.
I'd be interested in PB-ers opinions: how big would the shift to REMAIN need to be, to scare the government into rowing back on Brexit?
I reckon 60/40 REMAIN would just about do it. 70/30 REMAIN (very unlikely, of course) would finish Brexit completely, and swiftly. The PM would call a 2nd referendum, REMAIN would canter home.
I think 60:40 consistently in the opinion polls would lead to a referendum on "the deal". But absent a recession, I would expect Leave to end up winning. People don't like being asked the same question twice.
If it were 70:30 in the polls, then it would be very different. The government would be effectively forced into holding another referendum, which would probably be won comfortably by Remain, and which would lead to massive, massive bitterness and problems going forward.
So the more emphatic the victory for Remain, the more bitterness there will be? That makes no sense.
Errr: I only posit a Remain victory under one (highly unlikely) scenario. So your comment makes no sense. It's almost like you scanned what I said, but didn't parse it properly.
But you're predicting the second scenario would be 'won comfortably' by Remain while the first scenario would be a close run thing. Why would the comfortable win cause more bitterness?
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
The average age a smoker will live to is 70, that of a non smoker is 80. Just because an individual non smoker might drop dead of a heart attack at 60 doesn't invalidate the statistical model and the science it's based on.
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
Isn't the Single Market more about protectionism than free trade?
The EU's average external tariff is 2.7%, which is somewhat lower than China, the US, India or Japan, but worse than South Korea or Canada. It is protectionist in agriculture and automotive, but not particularly elsewhere. Certainly the EU has far more FTAs than any of the other big free trade blocs.
That doesn't, of course, mean we can't - like South Korea - be far more free trade post-Brexit.
I hadn't realised that there are degrees of free trade
If we panic and go back into the EU now, we would effectively be finished as an independent country.
Pretty much, yes.
I'm not advocating it. I'm just speculating on the chances, as is only right on a political betting website.
I'd be interested in PB-ers opinions: how big would the shift to REMAIN need to be, to scare the government into rowing back on Brexit?
I reckon 60/40 REMAIN would just about do it. 70/30 REMAIN (very unlikely, of course) would finish Brexit completely, and swiftly. The PM would call a 2nd referendum, REMAIN would canter home.
I think 60:40 consistently in the opinion polls would lead to a referendum on "the deal". But absent a recession, I would expect Leave to end up winning. People don't like being asked the same question twice.
If it were 70:30 in the polls, then it would be very different. The government would be effectively forced into holding another referendum, which would probably be won comfortably by Remain, and which would lead to massive, massive bitterness and problems going forward.
So the more emphatic the victory for Remain, the more bitterness there will be? That makes no sense.
Errr: I only posit a Remain victory under one (highly unlikely) scenario. So your comment makes no sense. It's almost like you scanned what I said, but didn't parse it properly.
But you're predicting the second scenario would be 'won comfortably' by Remain while the first scenario would be a close run thing. Why would the comfortable win cause more bitterness?
The bitterness would probably come from people who viewed the first decision as being legitimate, and wondering why it is now being reversed. Only the most ardent remainers (naming no names) would remain bitter after losing twice in a row.
So London is better off after Brexit, and the North East worse off.
Interesting. Or simply wrong.
One of the two.
Third option, she missed off the minus signs for London
looks like that! or No Deal is a great deal for the CityC
Pretty scary if correct, or as is possible, wrongly optomistic. There are two possible directions for error. Glad I am in a safe industry. No matter what happens there will be lots of sick people.
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
The average age a smoker will live to is 70, that of a non smoker is 80. Just because an individual non smoker might drop dead of a heart attack at 60 doesn't invalidate the statistical model and the science it's based on.
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
Isn't the Single Market more about protectionism than free trade?
The EU's average external tariff is 2.7%, which is somewhat lower than China, the US, India or Japan, but worse than South Korea or Canada. It is protectionist in agriculture and automotive, but not particularly elsewhere. Certainly the EU has far more FTAs than any of the other big free trade blocs.
That doesn't, of course, mean we can't - like South Korea - be far more free trade post-Brexit.
I hadn't realised that there are degrees of free trade
You could, in theory, abolish all external tariffs (which Patrick Minford recommends).
I find that am intellectually pure, but probably impractical, option.
We want China to open up its financial services market to British firms. What can we offer them other than an FTA to give us access?
Also, the real issue with free trade these days is NTBs. Having zero tariffs but requiring that the manufacture of pills to be sold in the UK must be under the supervision of an inspector from NICE would be a much bigger barrier than a 5% tariff.
So the people who couldn't predict the impact 18 months after the referendum are now predicting fifteen years?
Colour me sceptical
It's like climate change.
The predictions for temperature increases over the long term (and certainly the general trend) are solid, whereas predicting if next winter is going to be a harsh one or a mild one is virtually impossible.
So the people who couldn't predict the impact 18 months after the referendum are now predicting fifteen years?
Colour me sceptical
It's like climate change.
The predictions for temperature increases over the long term (and certainly the general trend) are solid, whereas predicting if next winter is going to be a harsh one or a mild one is virtually impossible.
Have long term economic forecasts typically been at the level of precision required to make the claims in that table?
So the people who couldn't predict the impact 18 months after the referendum are now predicting fifteen years?
Colour me sceptical
It's like climate change.
The predictions for temperature increases over the long term (and certainly the general trend) are solid, whereas predicting if next winter is going to be a harsh one or a mild one is virtually impossible.
I'm now officially worried about climate change.
Open Championship venues such as St Andrews and Royal Troon could be under water by the end of the century if sea levels rise even slightly as a result of climate change, according to a new report.
The Climate Coalition says golf, football and cricket face an "unexpected threat", with cricket to be the "hardest hit".
We want China to open up its financial services market to British firms. What can we offer them other than an FTA to give us access?
And the leverage in FTA negotiations will be asymmetric. China's FTA with Switzerland is very one-sided and has long phase-in periods for things that could be of benefit to Switzerland.
So the people who couldn't predict the impact 18 months after the referendum are now predicting fifteen years?
Colour me sceptical
It's like climate change.
The predictions for temperature increases over the long term (and certainly the general trend) are solid, whereas predicting if next winter is going to be a harsh one or a mild one is virtually impossible.
Have long term economic forecasts typically been at the level of precision required to make the claims in that table?
No that's a somewhat spurious level of accuracy you will always get from an excel model (in my opinion). You need to look at the aggregate value, and the general distribution across the country.
The model will spew out numbers to 10 decimal places, so at least they had the common decency to round them. On more than one occasion I've had to tell an analyst to adjust his report, which was claiming that an airport would have [for example] 17,343,208 passengers in 2030.
So the people who couldn't predict the impact 18 months after the referendum are now predicting fifteen years?
Colour me sceptical
It's like climate change.
The predictions for temperature increases over the long term (and certainly the general trend) are solid, whereas predicting if next winter is going to be a harsh one or a mild one is virtually impossible.
Have long term economic forecasts typically been at the level of precision required to make the claims in that table?
No that's a somewhat spurious level of accuracy you will always get from an excel model (in my opinion). You need to look at the aggregate value, and the general distribution across the country.
Have models been accurate to within 2% after fifteen years for the whole UK (if that is the time period)? That's the accuracy that the table is implying.
Edit: realise now I should have used the word accuracy rather than precision.
So the people who couldn't predict the impact 18 months after the referendum are now predicting fifteen years?
Colour me sceptical
It's like climate change.
The predictions for temperature increases over the long term (and certainly the general trend) are solid, whereas predicting if next winter is going to be a harsh one or a mild one is virtually impossible.
I'm now officially worried about climate change.
Open Championship venues such as St Andrews and Royal Troon could be under water by the end of the century if sea levels rise even slightly as a result of climate change, according to a new report.
The Climate Coalition says golf, football and cricket face an "unexpected threat", with cricket to be the "hardest hit".
We want China to open up its financial services market to British firms. What can we offer them other than an FTA to give us access?
And the leverage in FTA negotiations will be asymmetric. China's FTA with Switzerland is very one-sided and has long phase-in periods for things that could be of benefit to Switzerland.
"While Switzerland will dismantle import duties on almost all (99.7%) products originating from China from day one of the entry into force of the FTA, with only very few reservations for agricultural products where tariffs will remain, Chinese import-taxes on most (96.5%) Swiss products will (merely) be reduced gradually within rather long transition periods ranging from 5 up to 15 years."
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
It is ludicrous. Like predicting how happy you will be ten years after having a baby.
Or how the life of an infamous singleton ex-druggie minor travel writer will turn out.
Hah. Yes. Very good.
Yesterday I noticed that the half empty, glamorous new block of flats next to mine had squatters on the ground floor, druggies and junkies who are littering the entire street.
I cursed them, and resolved to call the owners and get it sorted.
Of course, thirty two years ago I was a drugged up squatter who laughed at the mayhem my pals and I created. Life has a way of biting you on the arse.
I have also noted that karma has a habit of sending lotharios daughters rather than sons to cause a few cold sweats in middle age!
So the people who couldn't predict the impact 18 months after the referendum are now predicting fifteen years?
Colour me sceptical
It's like climate change.
The predictions for temperature increases over the long term (and certainly the general trend) are solid, whereas predicting if next winter is going to be a harsh one or a mild one is virtually impossible.
Have long term economic forecasts typically been at the level of precision required to make the claims in that table?
No that's a somewhat spurious level of accuracy you will always get from an excel model (in my opinion). You need to look at the aggregate value, and the general distribution across the country.
Have models been accurate to within 2% after fifteen years for the whole UK (if that is the time period)? That's the accuracy that the table is implying.
Edit: realise now I should have used the word accuracy rather than precision.
They're talking - I think - the difference between actual and non-Brexit, so we'll never know. Deviations from expected growth tend to have smaller, more precise values than the gross in a forecast.
In absolute terms, getting GDP growth right to within 2% over 15 years would be a matter of luck, not skill! It's a cumulative error of just 0.13% / year (ish) and, well, 'events' do bugger things up.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Yes, it would be nice to see 95% Confidence Intervals.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
It's still rather difficult to get away from the axiom that barriers to trade hurt trade, and that barriers to trade with your largest market hurt trade even more.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
For the record, I think the Treasury is broadly right that a (unprepared) no deal Brexit would have serious negative consequences for the UK. Don't forget that it is not just our trade with the EU that would suddenly be on WTO terms, but also our trade with all of the countries the EU has agreements with. We would also need to get signed treaties that replicate existing recognition of standards, such as the EU has with the US.
Mr. Hopkins, the almost mindless fetish for applying technology where it's not needed is just mad. Reminds me a bit of Jeff Goldblum's warning in Jurassic Park. Or the daft desire some have for electronic voting.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
But to what accuracy? You also don't know how my lifestyle will change in 10 years.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Sky news site now says "losses predicted to come over 15 years". Hmm, so where were all the genius economists in 2003 predicting the worst decline in GDP since the 30's five years hence and interest rates at near enough zero for a decade thereafter.
Really, this is just laughable. It's pin the tail on a donkey.
The average age a smoker will live to is 70, that of a non smoker is 80. Just because an individual non smoker might drop dead of a heart attack at 60 doesn't invalidate the statistical model and the science it's based on.
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
And they can predict the effects over 15 years to decimal points by region, notwithstanding outside events that might happen over that time?
We want China to open up its financial services market to British firms. What can we offer them other than an FTA to give us access?
And the leverage in FTA negotiations will be asymmetric. China's FTA with Switzerland is very one-sided and has long phase-in periods for things that could be of benefit to Switzerland.
"While Switzerland will dismantle import duties on almost all (99.7%) products originating from China from day one of the entry into force of the FTA, with only very few reservations for agricultural products where tariffs will remain, Chinese import-taxes on most (96.5%) Swiss products will (merely) be reduced gradually within rather long transition periods ranging from 5 up to 15 years."
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
For the record, I think the Treasury is broadly right that a (unprepared) no deal Brexit would have serious negative consequences for the UK. Don't forget that it is not just our trade with the EU that would suddenly be on WTO terms, but also our trade with all of the countries the EU has agreements with. We would also need to get signed treaties that replicate existing recognition of standards, such as the EU has with the US.
Leave it to John Redwood.
He'll sort us out I mean if you lot want sovereignty (no EU, WTO, etc) as far as I can see he is the only one telling you that he will deliver it.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
I take your point, government impact assessments can be wildly optomistic.
Comments
He was covering the recent GDP figures.
It's just the 2018 version of "British industry will move en masse to the Continent if we don't join the Euro" which we had to put up with 20 years ago.
Well it is Twitter. So you can.
Might block you though.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/guest-post-why-elves-are-total-bastards.html
And on her eighteenth birthday he found out it wasn't his
Do you reckon Young Boozer will win again in Alabama? I guess lay anyone with name recognition.
https://twitter.com/jerzypawlicki/status/931219494726402050
The inability of supposed free marketeers to understand that barriers to trade reduce trade and hence prosperity is astounding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Baumgardner
If it were 70:30 in the polls, then it would be very different. The government would be effectively forced into holding another referendum, which would probably be won comfortably by Remain, and which would lead to massive, massive bitterness and problems going forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Kox
In the abstract people say that they'd take it a hit to reclaim sovereignty. If there are half a million more Brits without jobs, and another four million worrying about their's, then there are a lot of newly scared Leave voters.
Fortunately, we haven't had (Brexit or anything else caused) recession. And the window is closing.
Interesting. Or simply wrong.
One of the two.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/961219752541736961
"Can he tie girls [sic] to railings so he can 'jet-thrust' his desires."
Surely this parish must agree that this "member" should be invited to partake accomodation within a police-cell. Sad that this 'exposure' is still required after the distruction of so many lives, dreams and working-class ambitions.
As we have seen even on the day they can be badly out - let alone months before a vote. MORI had a poll in summer 2015 predicting remain would win by 44 per cent then. Just shows how views can change in months even hours.
And of course the 40 per cent would be mainly Tory - if Tory voters turn against Brexit it's surely more of an issue.
That doesn't, of course, mean we can't - like South Korea - be far more free trade post-Brexit.
Obviously you've never watched Blackadder Goes Forth.
Only start watching it once you've completed your ESOL course.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/961288154425806849
Pretty scary if correct, or as is possible, wrongly optomistic. There are two possible directions for error. Glad I am in a safe industry. No matter what happens there will be lots of sick people.
I find that am intellectually pure, but probably impractical, option.
We want China to open up its financial services market to British firms. What can we offer them other than an FTA to give us access?
Also, the real issue with free trade these days is NTBs. Having zero tariffs but requiring that the manufacture of pills to be sold in the UK must be under the supervision of an inspector from NICE would be a much bigger barrier than a 5% tariff.
Colour me sceptical
The predictions for temperature increases over the long term (and certainly the general trend) are solid, whereas predicting if next winter is going to be a harsh one or a mild one is virtually impossible.
Open Championship venues such as St Andrews and Royal Troon could be under water by the end of the century if sea levels rise even slightly as a result of climate change, according to a new report.
The Climate Coalition says golf, football and cricket face an "unexpected threat", with cricket to be the "hardest hit".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42936199
The model will spew out numbers to 10 decimal places, so at least they had the common decency to round them. On more than one occasion I've had to tell an analyst to adjust his report, which was claiming that an airport would have [for example] 17,343,208 passengers in 2030.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/961191044212772865
Edit: realise now I should have used the word accuracy rather than precision.
Because Britain never suffered from coastal erosion prior to the industrial age...
"While Switzerland will dismantle import duties on almost all (99.7%) products originating
from China from day one of the entry into force of the FTA, with only very few reservations
for agricultural products where tariffs will remain, Chinese import-taxes on most (96.5%) Swiss
products will (merely) be reduced gradually within rather long transition periods ranging from 5
up to 15 years."
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/961291871736745985
In absolute terms, getting GDP growth right to within 2% over 15 years would be a matter of luck, not skill! It's a cumulative error of just 0.13% / year (ish) and, well, 'events' do bugger things up.
Government forecasts:
"the Treasury noted that abolishing the paper tax disc would save £10m"
Results:
"latest data suggests it is now costing the Treasury more than £107m in lost revenue over a full year"
Source
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, children.
Can they bollocks.
He'll sort us out I mean if you lot want sovereignty (no EU, WTO, etc) as far as I can see he is the only one telling you that he will deliver it.
Whoever would have thought it?
The country is going to be even more dependent on London that has been up to now.