shurlock

Thanks for reminding me of another one of your spectacular meltdowns - one that united nearly everyone here in ridiculing you. Your fourth reich gaffe where you could barely read two paragraphs without getting the wrong end of the stick was another recent highlight, though more of an acquired taste. Meanwhile, even my dog chuckled at your claim that we wouldn't need to rejoin the EEA upon leaving the EU, though she found your grandiose, micky mouse legalese cute. As for the Grieve amendment (2018, not 2017), nobody said it was legally binding but the government would be under considerable political pressure not to ignore it. To think that day in day out (and these examples are only from the past month), you continue to make a fool of yourself and I haven't even mentioned your record on the £, reverse nostradamus. Never mind your threats to smash my face in and string up with piano, though I understand you feel stupid, so are prone to lash out. Who needs Xmas when they have JJ, the gift that keeps on giving.

Who mentioned the euro? After embarrassing yourself yesterday with your ignorant EEA comments and today's gaffes, you might want to take a break.

There are papers that try to create sophisticated counterfactuals of how the UK economy would have performed had it stayed outside the EU. They do so by creating a control group based on other countries that have similar economic characteristics as the UK and followed the same growth path as the UK before the UK joined the EEC/EU- the only difference is that they stayed outside the EEC/EU. The economic cost or benefit of the EU membership is the difference in output between the UK economy and this control. Studies using this approach find that membership has been beneficial.

Les have you done business in China?

Les any response to my comments on your brexitcentral article? Looked at c.9 of the Pink Book yet? If not, I'll assume you agree with me pal.

Sure you've been getting PMs on the subject but do you have any news on Ings? Love your work pal.

Ever since Les gaff over productivity, he's not been the most credible authority on the economy. Yes developing economies tend to grow more rapidly, though as they approach the income levels of developed economies, growth rates slow. Moreover growth rates of developing economies tend to be more volatile - so while there may experience periods of rapid growth, they are also more likely to suffer extreme reversals. Finally many fast-growing economies get stuck at a certain level of income and fail to progress beyond that because they lack right institutional conditions - what some call the middle-income trap, though the term is contested.

I know. He's reeling after embarrassing himself by citing an article from 2017. Clearly the headbangers want to stress that the amendment is not legally binding, though even they concede its has political significance. Likewise, Leadsom, under cabinet collective responsibility, is attempting to sell May's deal and one way of doing that is to stress that the only alternative is a disastrous no deal.

What's your point Les? That manifestos are unenforceable? Yep. That they carry a moral obligation? The electoral consequences are mixed. Never mind that on one reading, May's deal respects the manifesto? How about other promises in the manifesto that are in tension with a no-deal scenario? Ultimately, you forget that while political parties publish manifestos and make promises, it is Parliament which passes legislation, not political parties. Per Vernon Bogdanor, manifestos do not provide a mandate for specific policies. A referendum does provide that mandate. But without going over old ground, the 2016 referendum did not say how the UK would leave the EU - despite what you want to believe.

By citing an article that was discussing a completely different amendment from a year ago A word of advice: learn to read or even know today’s date before you try debating someone who’s out of your league.

JJ you do realise your Prospect article is discussing a completely different amendment from the one passed last week? Only a year out mind Best ask Santa for some reading lessons too pal.

Its from a prospect article from last year referring to a different amendment. Beats JJ usual DT garbage. I actually know the author. Surprise, surprise its partly a matter of opinion, especially on matters so uncertain and unchartered.

Nope pal. As I've said before, the one thing that the Brexiters have on their side is time and the clock winding down. But the government will find it difficult to ignore the amendment. Coupled with the fact that there is no parliamentary majority for a no deal, the government will have to get real once it realise May's deal is unlikely to pass. In those circumstances all bets are off, including extensions of Article 50 or even revoking it altogether. Keep feeding me the sterling tips pal - I've made a killing off chumps like you.

Empire 2.0.

You love it pal. How do the divides in Brexit Britain compare with the Mau Mau Uprising?

Les -before you go all hard and working class hero on us, remember you're a pampered southern baby boomer.

The Grieve amendment is not legally binding but it is effectively politically binding and would be virtually impossible to ignore (read up on the UK's unwritten or uncodified constitution if you want understand how many of parliament's conventions and customs are not law but for practical purposes are treated as law because they are politically binding). And the fact remains there is no parliamentary majority for no deal. Just as Santa doesn't exist. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-deal-vote-parliament-conservatives-labour-dup-commons-a8666846.html

Edit

I used Santa in the context of there being parliamentary support for no deal. There is no majority in parliament. I also said that a no deal could nonetheless happen if the option went to the public in a second referendum. I understand it’s difficult for some to hold or think through more than one idea at a time Always HTH pal.

It’s clear what I said pal. You should ask Santa for some reading lessons along with the sammy saint undies

That it is in the UK’s economic self-interest to stay close to the EU is quite different from the swivel-eyed claim that May and EU were secretly in cahoots to scheme up a deal they knew had no chance of getting through Parliament and are using the threat of no deal Armageddon to bully the UK to stay in the against its democratic wish.

Try reading coleslaw. Slowly. I didn’t say it wouldn’t happen. I said as long as the decision is solely in Parliament’s hands (i.e. no second referendum), I don’t see it happening.

Disagree with the latter. Only weirdos and their conspiracy theories believe the latter.

Afternoon Les. Sorry to play the role of the parent who tells their child that Santa doesn’t exist but there is no parliamentary support for a no deal. If it happens, it’ll happen via a second referendum. Otherwise it’s dead. Chin up little fella.

The EU will grant an extension if there’s a second referendum and it breaks the impasse. They won’t grant an extension if it’s simply to go round the same old circles and kick the can.