candide

And? Is it irrelevant to ALSO mention the Eurozone in order to assess the claim that the economy was thriving in 2018. Didn't I put a comparison with G7 in the same post? This is becoming ridiculous.

The only "indirect hate" I see comes from the parents who complained about this poem, and is against Biden.

So you first complained I made a relevant comparison with Eurozone, and now you complain I compare with G7. Both (eurozone and G7), are recognised by economists as relevant to assess the performance of the UK economy, including economists working for the house of commons https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/#:~:text=Compared to the pre-pandemic,UK GDP growth was 4.1%. Actually the graph I posted is even more interesting re. Bexit. It shows that UK was regularly among the highest GDP growth countries in G7 until the referendum (and often ranked first), and sank to the bottom after that. Invariant: Tory government Variant: Brexit Anyway, my initial point (before you introduced yourself in the discussion) was that despite a predicted 0.4% growth in 2023, UK will still be below pre-pandemic GDP level at the end of 2023. You may consider It's irrelevant about Brexit, others don't.

Are you really able to not distort what I wrote. I wrote "Eurozone or G7".

You didn't read the full post, abviously! The link and the charts are about G7. UK was ranked 6th in G7 in 2018. You know, the image at the bottom of my post, with the title "the UK in the G7 growth rate". Naughty naughty

If you don't reply to me, I don't need to keep on making the same point.

If we follow your reasoning, France and UK had similar GDP per Capita. So they had the same burden of a previous high GDP per capita, the same 'handicap', so to say. Now France is 1.8% higher than UK.

And? Are you calling a 1.6% or 1.7% GDP growth striving? The UK GDP growth in 2018 and 2019 was quite average, compared to Eurozone or G7. It was not in a high growth situation which may explain why it is now a laggard in catching-up.

Edited already in my post. UK ranked 6th in G7 in 2018. You may also notice the strong decline from 1st rank in 2016. https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-economic-growth-within-g7/

Ahem 2019 UK 1.6% Eurozone 1.58% 2018 UK 1.7% Eurozone 1.78% And here about G7. UK ranked 6th in 2018 https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-economic-growth-within-g7/

Good news! So at the end of 2023, UK GDP will only be 0.2% below pandemic level! ????

This will for sure generate trust among potential funders! ????

Changing target again? It does remain that UK GDP is still below pre-pandemic level. So even with 0.4% growth in 2023, it will still be below pre-pandemic level at the end of 2023. "Compared to the pre-pandemic level, UK GDP in Q1 2023 was 0.5% lower. This compares with Eurozone GDP being 2.5% higher than its pre-pandemic level, while US GDP was 5.3% higher. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/

Good to know it's over!

Could the "unnamed US attorney" be David Weiss (nominated by Trump), as he's in charge of this investigation since 2018?

And draft dodgers! ????

Have you read my post? My point is that when imports of fruits and vegetables from Morocco or Spain decrease (because of bad weather or whatever), It's easier and faster in the EU to substitute the missing quantities by production from other EU countries, thanks to the single market. That's why there are no empty shelves in EU supermarkets.

Not elected by a group (ex a profession), not even selected by a group. Selected inside a group by a selection committee which will be itself carefully selected.

What they have to gain is that, if they remain loyal to the yellow-green network, they can be appointed to other positions by their pals in agencies, in the bureaucracy or in companies controlled by the establishment. On top of it, I assume many of them believe they are right.

From what I understand, Morocco's agricultural exports to UK have strongly increased after Brexit so UK is more dependent on Morocco. In the EU, it's easier and faster to substitute the missing imports from Morocco by EU production, thanks to the single market.

However, as I mentioned in other posts, they need the approval of one third of Senate members in order to pass an amendment to the constitution. So they won't be able to change the selection system with the current Senate, which means the next Senate will be selected according to the Junta's constitution and will be stacked with pro-establishment Senators.

This subject has been discussed several times. It's not the government who will select the new Senators. The way to select them is written in the constitution. https://www.ect.go.th/ect_en/download/article/article_20210806135906.pdf 200 new Senators will be selected by selection committees, according to the process described in the Constitution. The composition of the selection committees is prescribed (ex. it includes the heads of agencies). It is not clear who will appoint the selection committees, probably the EC. So as usual, appointed people will appoint each other. Due to the political "colour" of the EC and the other agencies members, we can expect a dominantly pro-yellow establishment new Senate. The key issue is then how many pro-yellow establishment Senators they will be able to select. They will probably not be able to get a 100% pro-establishment Senate. It is important because any amendment to the constitution will require the approval of at least one third of the Senate.

Double post

As you mention, a middle of the road policy can only fail. There are only two viable options. One is to join the single market, and do like Norway or Switzerland. It won't provide more benefits than being inside the EU, but would at least avoid the current failure. The other viable option is an ultra-liberal and ultra-globalist disruptive policy as advocated by some economists. Lower taxes, lower custom tariffs, lower worker protections, lower social subsidies, etc... in order to stimulate business and attract investment. Thatcher policy on a larger scale, combined with extensive globalisation. It can be very successful from an economic point of view. But then there is the social consequences attached to it. And we can all guess how they would be. Is UK ready to pay that social price?

So UK won't benefit from an improved system either.