Here's something to debate from the Independent today

"The economics is straightforward. When trade barriers between the UK and the EU go up, British producers will sell less to the EU and will sell more within the UK and to the rest of the world."

What I noticed about this is that the focus is on what British producers sell, not on what we buy, which includes a great deal of our food. The economics of the deal has to be about more than what our producers sell. And what some people are interested in is what they can sell to us after we leave the EU and they want to be able to sell us stuff that does not meet EU standards.

I also noticed that it doesn't take into account our making of parts of things which can then move freely into Europe to be finished. And so on.

There is so much that this apparently short and 'to the point' statement does not take account of, including security, policing, scientific research, EURATOM, working conditions, and so on.

I am thinking that in any case 'Economics' is not an exact science and never has been. And that any economic predictions must be based upon 'assumptions' so criticisms of various analyses on the basis that they do contain 'assumptions' and a bit unfair.

Moreover, the situation regarding the island of Ireland is not directly an economic one, though plainly the problems relating to the 'backstop' do have potential economic consequences as having another big outbreak of sectarian or nationalist violence will cost both the British and the Irish governments.