Enda

Oh and one last thing on the economics predictions. As Awol is so keen to reference, the most pessimistic mainline projection for post-Brexit economy was the Treasury's. If I'm not mistaken, they predicted that post-Brexit UK GDP would be 1.5% lower (than it would be without Brexit) after eighteen months. That's not the dire prediction the media are portraying it as. As for Haldane's comment that short-term forecasting is in trouble, he's completely right. FWIW I've a PhD on the topic myself and agree that area is ad hoc and not very trustworthy. What is much better understood is the effect of trade. Exiting the single market (or any deal which makes trade harder) will certainly hurt the UK economy in the long run.

That was interesting, thanks. I also liked The Economist's piece this week on the "tortuous" WTO option. Re: "oh he's a miserable so and so, good riddance to him thinking Brexit isn't a great thing" resignation, it absolutely reeks of Ireland just before 2008. Anyone suggesting there was a housing bubble was told they weren't being patriotic, that they should pull on the green jersey, or go jump off a bridge. It's the exact same thing happening again; people who are raising legitimate concerns (even if incorrect) are being pushed aside. That's unlikely to end well. On a tangent, there's an under-emphasised disconnect between the narrative that Brexit was a lashing out after years of austerity and growing inequality, and that suddenly everything in the UK will be fine if you can strike all these wonderful free trade deals with China and India. Those free trade deals will increase growth, but also likely exacerbate inequality. We've learned that free trade generates wealth, but that wealth largely skips over working-class people in rich countries. That wealth should be redistributed. With the Tories in power, and the promise of free trade deals, and an already discontent populace, what could possibly go wrong?

There is a deal, albeit via the WTO. The WTO is extremely complex, but a simplified version of it is "You use our rules", which kind of defeats the point of not using the EU's rules, which encourages more trade than the WTO's rules! The UK's backup is WTO. That's no easy/great deal either.

The UUP were founded before Northern Ireland existed. It was the likes of Carson and Craig and the UUP who brought the gun into twentieth century Irish politics when, in 1913, they promised "any means" to prevent an Act of Parliament granting some devolved powers to Dublin. So loyal to the Queen they'd go to war against her Parliament were the UUP. And people think the IRA were the only terrorists up there. If only; these "any means" would-be terrorists just happened to control a majority in the highly gerrymandered state called Northern Ireland, and thus claimed democratic legitimacy. The name change should have happened in 1922, when the UUP realised they didn't even have a majority in Ulster, nevermind Ireland, and so their little loyalist enclave would have to be restricted to a tighter area around Belfast. Thus the gerrymandering, where Northern Ireland isn't Ulster, and where today the awkward peace that was so difficult to secure would be threatened by a hard border.

Also the real issue with an open border isn't the issue of the UK and Ireland sharing passport details. It's that an open border just isn't feasible (at least with current tech) without a customs union. At which point you've given us control of your border security, and have de facto surrendered your trade sovereignty. Not to mention the delicious reality of Schengen-lite on the island of Ireland, but not between Belfast and London. I could well see a scenario emerging (not the same thing as saying I'm sure it will happen) that there's a hard border at the North to just avoid the headache for Londoners who don't care all that much. That's when I'd fear a return of bombs in pubs and all the rest. Obviously I'd much prefer you lot just stay in the single market.

As you're the man that just disenfranchised the 300,000 people who live in the Republic's share of Ulster, I'll take your predictions on Irish matters with a grain of salt :-)

You know how certain social events can be predicted, like when community services are poorly funded then you can predict petty crime will be higher ten years down the line? (Obviously this doesn't mean one condones or justifies that crime, just predicts it.) If a border is reinstated in Northern Ireland, and the UK reneges on its commitment to the European-based institutions up there, expect bombs. But you'll save money on the EU bananas regulations, innit? The whole thing is really short-sighted madness IMHO. Consider the world in 1800, and consider it today. Now look forward 200 years and think what the world will be like in 2200. Do you think it will be more international, more globalised, more "EU-ish"... or do you want it to look more like 1800 with hard borders and countries shaking fists at each other? I'm heavily predicting it will look like more the EU with free movement and breaking down of national barriers, with men from Birmingham marrying babes from Bratislava more regularly than they do today. In 2200, Brexit will be viewed as a nasty, retrograde step.

I've met a lovely, intelligent, gorgeous American woman. I'm a grumpy, sarcastic Irish bastard. How can I learn to not be pissed off by her enthusiasm/volume? She's not doing anything wrong, she's just not a grumpy Irish bastard.

Most of Wales is officially considered under-developed under the EU's regional policy, and is thus a net recipient of transfers. And as the UK gets a rebate in terms of its contributions, and much more of the UK than Ireland (we have no officially under-developed regions) is classed as under-developed, Wales gets more (per capita) from Ireland than from the UK. So calling it "EU money" is more accurate than "UK Treasury" money. So perhaps they're more astute than they're given credit for, or perhaps they were duped that they'd keep "their money" and have it pumped into the NHS. Hard to say. Anyway, here's a great piece by Kevin O'Rourke on the implications for the Border. Shows some of the difficulties of keeping peace up there with a hard border. What does this mean? Ireland can’t be part of a customs union with both the EU and the UK, unless the UK chooses to stay in the EU customs union. A bilateral trade deal between Ireland and the UK, not involving the rest of the EU, is impossible, both legally and as a practical matter, and it’s very important that everyone in Ireland understand this. If what is meant is that Northern Ireland should remain within the EU customs union (and, preferably, the Single Market also), then that is another matter — this would require customs controls between the two islands, but that would be far preferable from our point of view than customs controls along the Border. But I am not sure that that is what is meant, and so some clarification on this would be helpful. But well done to the House of Lords for raising these issues, and for appearing to take them seriously, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of the British political establishment.

Never go full Schengen.

Sample selection isn't the same as sample size. Sample selection is that we're only seeing half the picture, regardless of sample size. As for taking Awol too literally, he said "By Brussels logic the answer to any and every problem is "more Europe", not less. If logic was involved they wouldn't be in this mess. " to which I said "Sensationalist nonsense". I don't see why you're contesting that.

Sample selection. You don't see all the times the EU decides "Nah, this is better left to the member states". It happens every day, but it doesn't make a juicy Telegraph/Daily Mail headline. What you have left is only reporting on the issues that the EU does decide it could be useful, generating a perception that "the answer to any and every problem is 'more Europe', not less." Which is bollox. The Economist nails it when it mocks David Cameron and "his deal [that ensures] Britain will never become part of European superstate that no one is trying to build."

Sensationalist nonsense again, Awol. The number of actual proto-federalists in Europe is a fraction of the size that the British media suggest. Article 5 is very explicit that the EU only has competence in areas agreed to by the member-states, and that it operates under the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. member-states deal with it unless they agree there are adequate economies of scale to dealing with it at the EU level. "Brussels" and even "The EU" are not single entities. It's not some monolithic institution. Sure there's the Commission that is strongly pro-EU, but not much takes hold without consent of the Council, i.e. the heads of state of each member-state. The Council is where Thatcher gets her rebate, and Ireland says no to corporate tax reform, and Germany strikes a deal to get East Germany in, etc. It's precisely the place where national interests are put before European-wide causes and their meetings are held in, yep, Brussels. Article 5 is a cornerstone of EU policymaking, very clear, and there for a reason. So let's have less of the nonsense that the EU is always looking for EU-wide solutions to problems.

So, Awol, in response to my claim that the UK has a very patchy record in relation to recognising democracies, you mention that it's a "pity" that Ireland "took a holiday from those moral principles" in 1939. I think a few paragraphs comparing the UK's foreign policy in the 20th century to Ireland's is in order. We need to start with the Irish General Election of 1918. The first election with something approaching a universal franchise in the United Kingdom (more work on this coming soon from, er, me and my two mates in QUB - stay tuned!) Coming two years after the Easter Rising, and on a platform of unilaterally withdrawing from the UK and continuing the Irish Republic, the result is an unambiguous declaration of independence. Sinn Fein win 70% of the seats. Outside of the Belfast area, SF (and the IPP) win about 90% of the seats. A meeting is held in the Mansion House in Dublin, and the democratically elected leaders of the country formally declare Ireland as an independent republic. They set up their own parliamentary system, elect a leader, set up courts, and establish an army. The Irish Republican Army is founded. The response of the British authorities is to issue arrest warrants for them all, and ultimately to send over a shower of brutes to fight the IRA. The Brutes assassinate a Lord Mayor in front of his wife and kids; they burn half of Cork to the ground; and they decide it would be great fun to send a tank to shoot into the crowd at Croke Park, killing 14 civilians. (Obviously I mean the "Old IRA" - the boys that even the Queen lays a wreath to - not the same group as the post-1950 organisation that unfortunately stole the name.) So here we have a small democratically-mandated parliament facing a fairly ruthless more powerful neighbour. Needless to say, they look for international support. Woodrow Wilson didn't acknowledge de Valera when we sent him over. At the Paris Peace Conference, Ireland was ignored. Turned away at the door. It's important to note that Ireland had just lost 50,000 men in Flanders and the like, under the promise of independence. And just overwhelmingly voted for self-determination. Ignored. Thanks, Belgium, great bunch of lads. The Canadians, too, were ignored. It was a farce. The only country to recognize Ireland around the time were the fecking Russians. In the face of both absolute hypocrisy and deafening silence from the international community, the fighting in Ireland continued, and Cork continued to burn. Eventually (limited) independence, with an oath of allegiance to the King thrown in just for spite, was won. Only took 800 years. Thanks lads. Fast forward twenty years, to September 1939. (Bear in mind at this stage that it was 1939, not 1945. Nobody knew how WWII would pan out, nor had the Holocaust begun. It was not clear in 1939 that WWII was different. More on this later.) The Austro-Germans are at it again. They'll probably invade France soon. Chamberlain's peace is as perfidious as you'd expect. Ireland has only finally escaped the British military occupation either two years ago (if you're talking about the Treaty Ports) or not yet (if you're from Derry). Churchill makes mention of securing independence if we join the good fight. Hah, thanks pal, heard that one 20 years ago and sent 50,000 lads to die; not falling for that one again. Belgians cry about their democratically elected parliament facing a ruthless more powerful neighbour. Remember Versaille? So what does our parliament do? Send another tenth of her men to die in a European war, two years after finally getting British forces out of the Republic? Fall for the old trick of "Oh, we'll finally give you independence, lads" again? Do we feck. We have a lot of experience of strong neighbours invading. We declare neutrality. Invade us and we'll fight, otherwise we're neutral. Contain the war. Incidentally, this was the exact same approach as the Americans, and the approach that saw FDR re-elected in 1940. That's rarely mentioned. Thankfully the better side won, in part because countries like the US did indeed get involved when they were attacked. As the horrors of the Holocaust emerged it was clear that this had been no ordinary European conquest -- but that was not apparent in 1939. What did become apparent was that this couldn't be allowed to happen again, and that international consensus would be needed to prevent another genocide. Thus Ireland promptly applied for membership to the United Nations (which is not the "Happy World Government of All" that it is sometimes portrayed as these, it was/is the Allies), and has only used its military power for peacekeeping (and the occasional use of the special forces to extract kidnapped Irish citizens, but let me conveniently ignore that.) Ireland has not attacked another country. It has not had an Iraq. Ireland has (probably?) contributed more per capita to peace-keeping than any other country since WWII. Every Irish soldier earns their stripes in Chad, Golan Heights, or some other God-forsaken place where the Defence Forces are stopping war. So much so that we're training your boys in peace-keeping in a continuation of our friendly relations. Awol, when I suggested the UK is not the paragon of democratic values it sometimes sees itself as, you fairly smugly dismissed Ireland's decision to not enter WWII. At best, this exposes a lack of knowledge of Irish history. At worst, it demonstrates an arrogant, rose-tinted nationalism. Your quip misses so much nuance it requires a thousand words just to properly frame the issue, but would no doubt go down well in a pub in Sunderland. Then again, that is true of so much of the Brexit debate.

The supreme irony of sneering about a nation not involving itself in European affairs must be lost on you. If you'd like to talk to me about Ireland's military policy in the 20th Century, I'm very happy to go down that route. Mods mightn't be, though.

Nah it was invented in Dublin in 1919 when the rights of small nations to self-determination was being defended throughout Europe, and perfected in Belfast in 1975 when voting rights were based on how many houses you owned.

Last time we came from behind to win: Remember when Benteke played for us, and Leicester were shit?

The short, safe underpass beneath the Trinity to be renamed Ashley Westwood Pass.

Lads, your head of state is an unelected theocrat.

Not even close. 1. Bloody Sunday, Dublin, 1920. 2. Bloody Sunday, Belfast, 1972. 3. Declaration of war against Austria and Germany, 1914. 4. Armritsir Massacre, 1918. 5. Appointment of Alex McLeish as manager of Aston Villa Football Club, 2011.

If Theresa May is unhappy with this decision, she could appeal it to the European Court.

Parliament now have to vote to both trigger Article 50 and approve the post-Brexit deal. Here's one scenario: "I was pro-Brexit, I voted to trigger Article 50, but this deal is awful. I think we're better in than out." That approach just became much more politically palatable.

I found easily enough through Proquest because it wasn't all that long ago that I had the option to submit my dissertation to them. Sad I know, but I doled out $38 to get the document. Consider it a donation to VT!

We would have lost that 3-1 under the last manager, so credit to Steve Bruce there. But he made some strange decisions. Starting Westwood? Not making a change after 60 minutes when we were clearly losing the run of the game? At that stage he should have made a change along the lines of taking off Ayew and putting on Tish. Gestede should have replaced Kodija earlier, he was clearly knackered. And I thought it was risky to finish the game with four forwards when SHA had the better chance of scoring. Not to mention the long balls. That aside, 2 wins 2 draws, well done Steve.