Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Jakubclaret]

Nothing to do with being amazingly annoying.

[Greenmile]

Wealthy person decides to take action which will reduce his tax bill - isn't that what Laffer was describing when he said that push the tax rates too high the authorities will collect less tax?

I think the guys who "showed that the Laffer curve is nonsense" were making assumptions that don't hold true in the real world.

It was the real world itself which showed the Laffer curve to be nonsense. Specifically, the US under Reagan.

Of course, many economists would have told you it was rubbish in theory, but this one proved to be rubbish in practice too.

Why is it that, despite it having been disproved, this is the sole bit of economic theory you are happy to promote, whilst you ignore what all other economists are telling you about Brexit? I suspect it’s because it supports your pre-existing biases.

[Tall Paul]

He's blocked me because he's a coward who doesn't like it when his nonsense gets challenged, so would one of you fine people like to share this image with him?

OK.

It doesn't really challenge the part you bolded though, as it was said after the referendum, if the date on the poster is correct.

[Jakubclaret]

Another thing I find surprising as an interested observer rather than an enthusiastic participant in Brexit disputes is how many Labourites seem to be so pro remain. JC's basic problem is he can't be a federalist and a socialist at the same time. The EU prevents many of the major ideological ambitions of traditional Labour, so it is rather surprising just how pro-remain the party as a whole are.

You should participate more on the discussions, it makes a refreshing change to counter on sensible political points instead of all the hot air that usually frequents, the earlier article posted on socialism & the EU barriers is well worth a read & the fissures existing.

[Imploding Turtle]

OK.

It doesn't really challenge the part you bolded though, as it was said after the referendum, if the date on the poster is correct.

If they were saying this after the referendum do you really think they were saying something different before the referendum?

[martin_p]

You should participate more on the discussions, it makes a refreshing change to counter on sensible political points instead of all the hot air that usually frequents, the earlier article posted on socialism & the EU barriers is well worth a read & the fissures existing.

It is well worth a read as is refutes the point made about implementing socialist policies while in the EU. Although it should be noted that the article is by the Socialist Party and the points made are from that parties point of view and shouldn't be taken as some sort of bible for those who subscibe to socialist principles.

[martin_p]

You see the problem with these reports is the use
of the words estimate and forecast. No hard facts then?

If you can give the economist the actual figures for GDP if we'd voted to stay then we won't have to estimate will we. But hang on, we didn't vote to remain so we can't have actual figures. All we can do is look at the direction of the economy before the leave vote, the fact that most other economies are performing better and that the major differentiating factor between us and those other economies is Brexit and draw conclusions.

But if you're unwilling to accept that the only way we can compare something that has happened to something that hasn't happened is to estimate then you're never going to belive anything about Brexit (which by the way means Brexit can never be proved a success either).

[martin_p]

Hi martin, economics is the study of the interaction of people in "economic" ways. But, there's no "science" to those interactions, just "social science." So, there's no certainty that the exact same facts on one occasion will result in the exact same outcomes in a second identical situation. What is rational for many can also be irrational for some. Things change, fashions change, opinions change. Economists use the phrase ceteris paribus, all other things being equal, to demonstrate a proposition. But, when we are building an econometric model the maths cannot handle all the real variability in the real world - a model is, after all, an attempt to mathematically simplify and represent reality. If the model did capture (and, none of them do) all the variables in a historic occasion, it is still impossible to know that the model can with any degree of accuracy forecast the outcomes in the future. That's why, and i'm sure you understand this, scenarios are used to "paint pictures" of the future under an imagined set of theoretical outcomes.

It's late. Let me know if what I've written makes any sense.

So basically you're basing your belief in Brexit on the fact that something may happen that the economists haven't thought of. Ok fine. But yet again it's arguing against something that has been defined and is known with something that might happen which no one can define. It's pretty much the Wrongo school of 'belief' to be honest.

[Tall Paul]

If they were saying this after the referendum do you really think they were saying something different before the referendum?

No, but it doesn't matter. A quote from after the referendum isn't refuting the point that was made.

I'm sure there are loads of quotes from before the referendum that you could've used.

[Imploding Turtle]

No, but it doesn't matter. A quote from after the referendum isn't refuting the point that was made.

I'm sure there are loads of quotes from before the referendum that you could've used.

If i'd bothered to look for them, yes. But i only chanced upon that quote while looking through the Led by Donkeys Twitter feed.

I waste as little time as possible on people like Crosspool because i can spend hours debunking his opinion and he wouldn't be interested, he'll still believe his lie.

He's not the only one on here who argues in bad faith, and i've learned not to waste too much time on them too.

[martin_p]

Looks like the Labour split will happen today with four MPs resigning from the party. I think that may be the end of any official Labour support for a second referendum. Bad timing really.

[Paul Waine]

It was the real world itself which showed the Laffer curve to be nonsense. Specifically, the US under Reagan.

Of course, many economists would have told you it was rubbish in theory, but this one proved to be rubbish in practice too.

Why is it that, despite it having been disproved, this is the sole bit of economic theory you are happy to promote, whilst you ignore what all other economists are telling you about Brexit? I suspect it’s because it supports your pre-existing biases.

Hi Greenmile, you've got my attention. Where I can I find this "proof" that there isn't truth in the Laffer curve? What did Reagan do that showed the Laffer curve "is nonsense?"

Who says I'm "promoting" the Laffer curve? All I've done is suggest that Ratcliffe seeking to protect a little of his wealth from the threat of Corbyn - though with this morning's news, maybe Corbyn/McDonnell Labour is coming to a close - taxing him "for the many not the few."

If you've read any of my posts you will have seen an extensive range of views; economic forecasting is one of the more recent, the consequences of stamp duty land tax - and replacing with taxation on the land, pensions and many more. You may even have noticed that some of my thoughts are far from the current government's taxation policies and would benefit the younger generations and the less well off.

But, yes, I'm not keen on the UK following Venezuela's approach to "economics."

Have a great day.

[Paul Waine]

So basically you're basing your belief in Brexit on the fact that something may happen that the economists haven't thought of. Ok fine. But yet again it's arguing against something that has been defined and is known with something that might happen which no one can define. It's pretty much the Wrongo school of 'belief' to be honest.

Hi martin, no, not beliefs, 40+ years of experience and a little bit of knowledge. There are economists on both side of the Brexit debate. Maybe you've not noticed. I've occasionally posted links to groups of economists who have produced "alternative" views of the outcomes of Brexit.

No worries, we will all see what happens in time.

[Paul Waine]

If you can give the economist the actual figures for GDP if we'd voted to stay then we won't have to estimate will we. But hang on, we didn't vote to remain so we can't have actual figures. All we can do is look at the direction of the economy before the leave vote, the fact that most other economies are performing better and that the major differentiating factor between us and those other economies is Brexit and draw conclusions.

But if you're unwilling to accept that the only way we can compare something that has happened to something that hasn't happened is to estimate then you're never going to belive anything about Brexit (which by the way means Brexit can never be proved a success either).

Hi martin, I agree your point about requring estimates, no problem with that for me. However, are you sure that "most other economies are performing better...."

I know we can take a start point of Jun-2016 and look at GDP growth from that date to now, but does that really establish that "most other economies are performing better....." What if we take a different start date? or a variety of dates for different economies? or extend the end date to 1 or 2 years into the future - or 2 years post-UK finally departing the EU?

A snap shot in time may be interesting but, overall, it won't be that informative, will it?

[elwaclaret]

You’re right it does:

‘Are you saying that - unless we leave the EU - it will never be possible to implement socialist policies in Britain?

No, of course not. The Socialist Party opposes the EU because of its laws and institutions but they could not stop a determined workers' government supported by a mass movement from carrying out socialist policies. However, they are another hurdle to overcome, with real consequences for the day-to-day struggles to defend working class interests.’

I agree with you Martin, a Socialist Europe could agree in a Federal institution. However how likely is it that Europe is about to turn Socialist? A federal institution by definition acts on the federation's members vote; not the national vote based on the individual ideology of one of its constituency parts.

As for opinion polls, they are I agree the best markers for estimating public opinion, but as we see time and time again they rarely get beyond "pop" politics. People quite often will say one thing and vote another, they may be ashamed to do so but in the privacy of the ballot box, they feel quite safe voting Conservative, Trump etc. I'm surprised how many still point to them tbh they haven't got close to reality for several elections

[martin_p]

Hi martin, no, not beliefs, 40+ years of experience and a little bit of knowledge. There are economists on both side of the Brexit debate. Maybe you've not noticed. I've occasionally posted links to groups of economists who have produced "alternative" views of the outcomes of Brexit.

No worries, we will all see what happens in time.

There are, but the overwhelming majority are forecasting an economic downturn. And 40+ years of experience in what?

[Paul Waine]

There are, but the overwhelming majority are forecasting an economic downturn.

I know. In some of things I do I can be thought of as a contrarian.

[martin_p]

Hi martin, I agree your point about requring estimates, no problem with that for me. However, are you sure that "most other economies are performing better...."

I know we can take a start point of Jun-2016 and look at GDP growth from that date to now, but does that really establish that "most other economies are performing better....." What if we take a different start date? or a variety of dates for different economies? or extend the end date to 1 or 2 years into the future - or 2 years post-UK finally departing the EU?

A snap shot in time may be interesting but, overall, it won't be that informative, will it?

What an odd argument! Why wouldn’t you choose the date we voted to Leave the EU if you were trying to assess it’s economic impact? Not doing so would be like trying to assess the impact Sean Dyche has had on Burnley by looking at results since (say) 2010.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Hi martin, I agree your point about requring estimates, no problem with that for me. However, are you sure that "most other economies are performing better...."

I know we can take a start point of Jun-2016 and look at GDP growth from that date to now, but does that really establish that "most other economies are performing better....." What if we take a different start date? or a variety of dates for different economies? or extend the end date to 1 or 2 years into the future - or 2 years post-UK finally departing the EU?

A snap shot in time may be interesting but, overall, it won't be that informative, will it?

Good morning. Quick catch up on this thread in a tea break so don’t have time to read all the posts on this GDP bit, but all I would add is that I saw an interesting row on Twitter the other day between Andrew Neil and Chris Giles, Economics Editor of the FT (presumably one of the majority of economists that Martin refers to).

The row was concerning GDP growth in the U.K. compared to major EU countries, and our recent growth relative to past periods has been generally more impressive than, say, Germany and France. I studied the tweets and it was clear that Neil, who as usual had researched it perfectly and was challenging people on both sides of the debate, was right and the “expert” was wrong. Likely the FT guy had a preferred narrative in his head and was trying to explain the figures in a way that suited his narrative (I.e. Brexit bad, GDP affected, Eurozone doing better, etc).

That sums up economists and this issue. I trust their expertise in many cases, but I don’t trust them to use that expertise in an impartial way. I guess we will see, but we will only ever see one direction of travel’s outcome, not the counter factual.

[elwaclaret]

Politics runs in cycles Martin, you as (I seem to recall) an activist should know that... it cost the Labour party big time in the 70's. Asquith beating Churchill led to America plunging Britain into spiraling debt in War repayments that almost killed the NHS at birth and prevented so many of his reforms. Callahan took over the treasury to find the nation bankrupt and so spent the best part of the seventies fire fighting past Tory policies. On the flip side, New Labour was boosted massively by policies implemented by Major's government. Second terms are when we really get a feel for how a government is performing because the impact of policies is being felt.

Unfolding events or trends rarely if ever reflect any long term reality. For example, Asquith put through freedom of movement within the empire on the nod in the forties, as no one believed many would choose to relocate. It was the sixties before the impact was felt and led to our multicultural Britain.

Democratic politics is a long game, not a quick fix, that is what dictators are for. As Brits we don't want to go back there.

[Jakubclaret]

Hi martin, economics is the study of the interaction of people in "economic" ways. But, there's no "science" to those interactions, just "social science." So, there's no certainty that the exact same facts on one occasion will result in the exact same outcomes in a second identical situation. What is rational for many can also be irrational for some. Things change, fashions change, opinions change. Economists use the phrase ceteris paribus, all other things being equal, to demonstrate a proposition. But, when we are building an econometric model the maths cannot handle all the real variability in the real world - a model is, after all, an attempt to mathematically simplify and represent reality. If the model did capture (and, none of them do) all the variables in a historic occasion, it is still impossible to know that the model can with any degree of accuracy forecast the outcomes in the future. That's why, and i'm sure you understand this, scenarios are used to "paint pictures" of the future under an imagined set of theoretical outcomes.

It's late. Let me know if what I've written makes any sense.

That appears a perfectly logical conclusion to make, anybody with a modicum of graduate level business acumen would have grasped.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm still amazed at the mental process required to ignore economic advice.

I get it if there are loads of opinions on both sides, but not when the overwhelming evidence is one way.

[Jakubclaret]

I'm still amazed at the mental process required to ignore economic advice.

I get it if there are loads of opinions on both sides, but not when the overwhelming evidence is one way.

Sometimes it just boils down to plain common sense which never did anybody any harm.

[martin_p]

Sometimes it just boils down to plain common sense which never did anybody any harm.

You know 'common sense' is all based on evidence and experience don't you?

[Jakubclaret]

You know 'common sense' is all based on evidence and experience don't you?

I'll give you the experience, the evidence lets not go there again please.

[martin_p]

Politics runs in cycles Martin, you as (I seem to recall) an activist should know that... it cost the Labour party big time in the 70's. Asquith beating Churchill led to America plunging Britain into spiraling debt in War repayments that almost killed the NHS at birth and prevented so many of his reforms. Callahan took over the treasury to find the nation bankrupt and so spent the best part of the seventies fire fighting past Tory policies. On the flip side, New Labour was boosted massively by policies implemented by Major's government. Second terms are when we really get a feel for how a government is performing because the impact of policies is being felt.

Unfolding events or trends rarely if ever reflect any long term reality. For example, Asquith put through freedom of movement within the empire on the nod in the forties, as no one believed many would choose to relocate. It was the sixties before the impact was felt and led to our multicultural Britain.

Democratic politics is a long game, not a quick fix, that is what dictators are for. As Brits we don't want to go back there.

Well I'm certainly no activist, just someone who takes an interest and tries to use information to form an opinion rather than belief or gut instinct.

I don't remember anyone mentioning this 'long game' in the Leave campaign. In fact there was a distinct whiff of 'quick fix' about the whole thing,

[martin_p]

I'll give you the experience, the evidence lets not go there again please.

Go on then, give me the experience.

[Imploding Turtle]

Sometimes it just boils down to plain common sense which never did anybody any harm.

Common sense once said that injecting a disease into yourself was a bad idea.
Common sense said the earth was flat.
Common sense has said a lot of things that turned out to be wrong.

Stop trusting common sense just because it seems right.

[RingoMcCartney]

Reading the posts of this boards Ceaseless Remoaners, it's apparent that common sense is not that common.

[Lancasterclaret]

"Plain common sense" on a complex issue.

You do know that common sense would be to listen to people who know what they are talking about.

[RingoMcCartney]

Two, so far.

And as I said to Rowls, I have no problem with being dull (or drab). It beats being a simpleton any day.

And as a mere simpleton I have to doff my cap to anybody , like your good self, that manages to combine all three.

Fair play.

[RingoMcCartney]

What he would say is “ok, you have formed that opinion because you have considered the available evidence, you have read reports from a number of foreign investors that they are investing in the U.K. because they see an opportunity to get a good return on their investment.

He might go on to say “however, the majority of the money seems to be going into property speculation and that in itself won’t replace the investment into business that has left or benefit the Exchequer to the same amount”

Both using the same evidence but getting different OPINIONS!

All throughout this thread I've said Brexiteers and Remoaners alike, only have OPINIONS. it's only Remoaners who despite being told again and again and again who claim they gave EVIDENCE.

Now.

In your words, in the above post, it's possible for 2 people to have different OPINIONS from what you call "EVIDENCE."


However, only one of these opposing views , namely, whether brexit will have a negative or positive impact on the uk, will be proven to be correct.

Only when it's proven which opinion was correct , through the passage of time. Will either side be able to look back and claim the event (in this case record levels of foreign investment into the uk) was EVIDENCE.

We have not left the European Union yet. Nobody ever has previously. There is only OPINION based on forecasts and short term events. Short term events that may prove to be a a potent of things to come AFTER we have left. They may not.

But if you concede that these events , whether it's banks moving to Dublin or record foreign investment into the uk, can result in 2 people having different OPINIONS. Neither you nor I can BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY claim and judge it to be EVIDENCE.

The only thing that will judge fairly, whether it was EVIDENCE for either side of the argument is time.

[quoonbeatz]

But if you concede that these events , whether it's banks moving to Dublin or record foreign investment into the uk, can result in 2 people having different OPINIONS. Neither you nor I can BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY claim and judge it to be EVIDENCE.

you can.

cheers.

[RingoMcCartney]

you can.

cheers.

If 2 people are drawing opposing OPINIONS from a particular event taking place. Only time will tell as to who drew the correct conclusion and therefore has the right to point to that past event and say "that was EVIDENCE" for my opinion.

While events are still happening people will have different OPINIONS. We haven't left the EU yet. As I've been saying all along you cannot provide EVIDENCE from or for an event that has not happened yet. You can have an opinion.

And as Burnley Ace says in the above post, you can differing OPINIONS on the same event. Only time will tell who had the EVIDENCE and who's opinion was ultimately wrong.

[CombatClaret]

But if you concede that these events , whether it's banks moving to Dublin or record foreign investment into the uk, can result in 2 people having different OPINIONS. Neither you nor I can BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY claim and judge it to be EVIDENCE.

Once again
noun: evidence
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

So yes you can. Banks moving to Dublin, companies leaving UK, airlines going bankrupt are facts. I can add those facts together along with expert forecasts and opinions to my body of information and those combined create EVIDENCE to indicate that my belief 'Brexit is bad for the economy' is true.

Stop this stupid and deliberate distracting obsession with misusing the word evidence.

[Imploding Turtle]

Once again
noun: evidence
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

So yes you can. Banks moving to Dublin, companies leaving UK, airlines going bankrupt are facts. I can add those facts together along with expert forecasts and opinions to my body of information and those combined create EVIDENCE to indicate that my belief 'Brexit is bad for the economy' is true.

Stop this stupid and deliberate distracting obsession with misusing the word evidence.

It's part of the alt-right playbook. Controlling the conversation through distraction is vital to them.

https://youtu.be/CaPgDQkmqqM?list=PLJA_ ... nzkA_HMFtQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[randomclaret2]

With all these disastrous Brexit related horrors happening why is employment at record levels and unemployment lower than it has been for years ?

[Imploding Turtle]

With all these disastrous Brexit related horrors happening why is employment at record levels and unemployment lower than it has been for years ?

If employment is at record levels then how does that fit with the common Leaver argument "they're taking our jobs"?
Why aren't wages growing like crazy?
Why are employed people still relying on benefits to feed themselves and their family?

Unemployment figures used to be useful and fall in line with other metrics, but nowadays they're just manipulated all to **** and dont' fit at all with these other metrics. Income inequality is worse than ever. Wages have been stagnant. Workers aren't paid enough to not need benefits.

Policy decisions can affect how manipulated they are too. A good policy would be one that creates jobs through growth. But a bad policy would be one that creates jobs through things like keeping the minimum wage down as much as possible. Allows companies to post employ people without the guarantee of actual work. And of course an unemployed person can't reject these exploitative jobs because then they'll lose their benefits and starve.

Bot these options reduce unemployment figures, but i'm sure you see how one is good while the other manipulates the numbers. Not that these are the worst manipulations going on, they're just the ones that spring to mind.

[Paul Waine]

What an odd argument! Why wouldn’t you choose the date we voted to Leave the EU if you were trying to assess it’s economic impact? Not doing so would be like trying to assess the impact Sean Dyche has had on Burnley by looking at results since (say) 2010.

Hi martin, for UK, yes, brexit referendum day is a key date, but I don't think it's the key date for the other economies we might compare ourselves with - not even the 27 other member states in the EU27. No doubt there's been a lot of uncertainty - too much in my opinion - in the UK since Jun-2016. And, we all know uncertainty leads to caution with new investments and, therefore, slow down in GDP growth. But, other dates have more importance in other countries and that would always be the case, unless in Jun-2016 there had been a vote in all 28 EU member states to "close down" the EU.

Anyway, it's all theroretical and academic.

[martin_p]

Hi martin, for UK, yes, brexit referendum day is a key date, but I don't think it's the key date for the other economies we might compare ourselves with - not even the 27 other member states in the EU27. No doubt there's been a lot of uncertainty - too much in my opinion - in the UK since Jun-2016. And, we all know uncertainty leads to caution with new investments and, therefore, slow down in GDP growth. But, other dates have more importance in other countries and that would always be the case, unless in Jun-2016 there had been a vote in all 28 EU member states to "close down" the EU.

Anyway, it's all theroretical and academic.

It's a key date for the question being asked (so m uch so it's essentially part of the question!)

[CombatClaret]

Bye bye Honda and 3500 more jobs (+ many more in the supply chain)!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47282603" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A company who was vocal on the dangers of Brexit, especially a no-deal.
Global factors contribute but Brexit will be the straw that broke the UK automotive industry

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Bye bye Honda and 3500 more jobs (+ many more in the supply chain)!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47282603" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A company who was vocal on the dangers of Brexit, especially a no-deal.
Global factors contribute but Brexit will be the straw that broke the UK automotive industry

Ford and Nissan will be due to Diesel engine issues, but ford Transit production was moved to Turkey a few years ago, well before Brexit.

Honda haven't even made an offical announcement yet, so how about you hold on...

Peugeot purchased Vauxhall from the Americans last year and anyone inside the Industry can tell you it's been losing millions of ££'s.
Vauxhall dealerships have been told they're potentially going to be closed/merged to streamline the business.
That isn't Brexit related.

Mini hasn't gone anywhere and they're still going to make the electric model in Oxford.

Airbus - don't know enough to comment.

Bentley - owned by VW so wouldn't be surprised if it was moved, but can't see it happening.

[Rick_Muller]

Bye bye Honda and 3500 more jobs (+ many more in the supply chain)!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47282603" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A company who was vocal on the dangers of Brexit, especially a no-deal.
Global factors contribute but Brexit will be the straw that broke the UK automotive industry

Honda is no shock to me, got friends and family who work there - even got the heads up about this a while back from close friend in senior management there. A large part of Swindon's economy is reliant upon that Honda plant, it's not just the 3,500 jobs at the plant, it's the 20k+ (estimated) jobs in the surrounding community that are also at threat.

Nothing announced at the plant yet, so still not official.

[Jakubclaret]

Go on then, give me the experience.

Sorry late reply, i was on my dinner break earlier, experience is usually gained throughout the course of a lifetime & the older generation usually possess it, some have it in spades.

[SGr]

I think the really sad thing is someone saying “it’s not because of Brexit” will be more than enough for some people.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think the really sad thing is someone saying “it’s not because of Brexit” will be more than enough for some people.

Nothing bad is because of Brexit. WHEN. WILL. YOU. LEARN?

[SGr]

Nothing bad is because of Brexit. WHEN. WILL. YOU. LEARN?

We do hold all the cards, to be fair

[martin_p]

Sorry late reply, i was on my dinner break earlier, experience is usually gained throughout the course of a lifetime & the older generation usually possess it, some have it in spades.

I wasn't looking for a definition of the word, I was looking for specifics.

[CrosspoolClarets]

For me the Honda thing is a reason why Brexit is right, not wrong (though anybody who claims they are certain are deluded, it is a fast moving environment).

We seem to be moving into a world beyond supply chains. Countries need to be more independant. The growing number of FTAs means that these little supply chain hubs like we are won’t be needed. Japan can simply make over there and ship over here with no barriers, no tariffs. Sure as anything Brexit isn’t the reason behind this though it may have accelerated the thinking.

Globalisation and free trade is the enemy of Swindon Honda workers - many see it as a good thing, that’s the debate. Another thing I am sure about - if we had stayed in the EU these changes would still have occurred, Japan no longer needs to make this stuff in the EU. We face a crisis of what to do is these sectors. Politicians are neglecting the issue by not flagging it up sooner. The U.K. needs to produce its own stuff and become a net exporter, otherwise we will continue to fall victim to these bigger manufacturing countries who throw us a few crumbs to make x% of their products.

[AndyClaret]

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/ ... 8098732032" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;