SINCE the EU referendum, Leavers have mocked Remainers by greeting every good news story with the jibe 'Despite Brexit'.
The UK's continued strong performance on job creation, inward investment and, to a lesser extent, growth have defied predictions of doom, although of course Brexit has yet to happen and there is no way to be certain how much better performance could have been.
Nevertheless, 'Despite Brexit' has provoked critical thinking on the UK's strengths and weakness and how they relate to the EU.
Two years since devolution collapsed there have been few cries of 'Despite Stormont' in Northern Ireland but there is plenty of food for thought on what its absence means.
The most obvious example is health reform, with civil servants starting to implement the 2016 Bengoa Report.
Stormont commissioned that report and all parties supported its recommendations. Now they are all objecting to every rationalisation.
Under devolution, Bengoa would have sat on the shelf, like the similar reports that preceded it.
Northern Ireland's parish pump politicians are simply incapable of downgrading a hospital, regardless of expert opinion on improving services and saving lives.
This was foreseen before Bengoa and caused so much despair there were half-serious suggestions of making the report's recommendations binding on the executive.
Binding reports have an unfortunate history in Northern Ireland.
The same approach was taken in the 1960s to resolve the row over where to site the new University of Ulster.
A panel of experts was brought in from England, Stormont agreed in advance to implement their decision, then much to everyone's surprise they decided on Coleraine.
That led directly to the formation of the SDLP and the Civil Rights Association.
However, times have changed: binding reports today would be commissioned by a power-sharing and hence blame-sharing executive.
They are something that should be considered for indigestible issues if Stormont ever reconvenes.
The collapse of devolution has been bad news overall for big infrastructure projects.
However, it has benefited vital waste and energy schemes that are vulnerable to tinfoil hat and Nimby objections.
It is clear that most politicians in Northern Ireland would literally rather let the lights go out than tell a handful of angry constituents to stop gurning about the value of their houses.
In fairness to our elected representatives, Nimbyism is a universal problem.
The UK government set up the independent National Infrastructure Commission in 2015 to take long-term strategic planning out of political hands.
Its recommendations are not binding but it can hold government to account on their implementation.
A similar body in Northern Ireland could help depoliticise controversial projects and provide another layer of protection in planning appeals and judicial reviews.
'Despite Stormont' thinking should not be about getting awkward democracy out of the way.
The past two years have seen a renewed focus on local government via the 'supercouncils' and this will accelerate dramatically with the Belfast and Derry city deals.
Councillors from all parties are working together to seek new powers.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that councils are succeeding where Stormont has failed because they lack the vetoes of mandatory coalition, forcing all sides to cooperate.
Now that unionism has lost its majority, what is the purpose of Stormont's 'ugly scaffolding'? Perhaps it should be swept away.
Like the UK as a whole, Northern Ireland is still achieving record-breaking employment results and fairly solid growth.
It is a challenge to understand what this means, both in 'Despite Stormont' and 'Despite Brexit' terms.
One thing that might be said is that the private sector here has always been over-reliant on the public sector.
Requiring it to look elsewhere for opportunities has not been the end of the world.
Stormont's fall has created an odd kind of stability for business, in that policies have been frozen with no imminent prospect of change.
That raises the question of how much less means more in devolved government.
Stormont may have done very little but it always talked a great deal about intervening everywhere.
Falling silent, at least for a couple of years, could have had its economic advantages.
The thorniest 'Despite Stormont' question is whether the relative peace on the streets since 2016, when the last major flashpoint parade was resolved, has been helped or hindered by the absence of devolution.
Is Stormont a pressure valve, as intended in the Good Friday Agreement - or a pressure cooker, driving the rancour that finally brought it down?
That deserves a critical answer before putting it back up again.
newton@irishnews.com
