There seems to be some mistake. This is actually me writing a parody of a column by Dan Hodges, but the Daily Mail have scrubbed my credit at the last minute and published it as a column by Dan Hodges. dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…
I was particularly proud of this paragraph, where, not once, but four times, I turn the tables on the 'ingore the bit before the but' and in fact telegraph that you should only read the bit before the but.
It's a shame that the subs decided to delete "barely audible over the Cornish surf were the ghosts of Cameron clan summer holidays from the time of Remania"
Similarly idk why 'Biden's lick of the Cornish vanilla ice cream was a perfect allegory for his embrace of Johnson commonsenseism' did not make it into the web edition at least.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was going to write a recap thread on the impossible trinity of no border between RoI/NI, no border between NI/GB and leaving the single market, but I just got fresh chilli in my eye so you are spared.
Right. So probably the fundamental cause of the problem is that trade is mostly good; trade is easier with those close by. And nations have commitment problems.
This leads - following a very bumpy road - to the set up of the WTO and its legal structures. Facilitating nations, often close by each other, signing FTAs, and providing some kind of rule based structure to enforce them.
Do you think we may have hit on an entirely new social science methods literature exploring non verbal transcribed outburst responses to propositions? @patricksturg@robfordmancs@chrishanretty ?
1. trying to evade accountability for the policy of sending patients out of hospitals into care homes without testing.
2. trying to defend not adequately funding catch up programs for schoolchildren affected by school closures during the lockdoens.
3. attempting to unpick the Northern Ireland protocol of the Withdrawal Agreement, and argue that the thing it designed and negotatied and presented as a triumph was a thing imposed on it and having effects it was briefed on but now claims were unforeseen.
According to source linked to below, about 2/3 of Unionists voted for Brexit in the Referendum. The checks on goods are the consequence of interpreting that vote as meaning leaving the single market, and holding the UK to the Good Friday Agreement.
I wonder what is going through the heads of those protesters? Are the 1/3 Remainer unionists in there, wishing there had been no Brexit in the first place, or a softer one?
Come on @bankofengland you can do better. This is a matter of huge import. And raising the issue of 'cost'? On a matter like this? With modern electronic search capabilities?
Obvs everyone wants to know whether HMT encouraged you to bend the rules to lend to Greensill. You should be on the front foot disclosing everything without these requests having to come.
These schemes risk blurring operational independence and the the integrity of the Bank's policies. Full transparency will help clarify that all was well. True of course unless all was not well. Which is what one might infer from you not wanting full transparency.
If you are studying economics, you should definitely listen to this.
One of the benefits of studying economics hopefully will be that you do not end up issuing confident and completely incoherent monologues about the world economy like these.
Money and finance and macro are hard, even if you've spent your whole life grappling with it. The confusing and mysterious nature of it tempts many to think that intentions lurk therein, when they don't.
I think also that when you've successfully comandeered an audience for your eccentric VJ narratives about geopolitics, it's excusable to think that you have what it needs to grasp the economic and financial system, and even to think that you see what no-one else has managed to.