placeholder

I guess you can't blame the EU for plundering that particular treasure. The UK left itself wide open. On the other hand, if most of those financial types abandon London, maybe house and rental prices might decline to more reasonable levels?

This would show the Trump team in what markets the Biden campaign is making purchases and concentrating its efforts. In other words, Murdoch revealed a piece of Biden's strategy which he had no right to reveal.

So long as Croatia doesn't experience some sort of economic crisis peculiar to itself, the Euro won't make much difference to its economy. I don't think even 20 years ago the convenience of one currency was worth the potential damage it could cause. And did cause in the wake of the 2009 (2010?) financial crisis. Which it's clear you well recognize since you have noted that its problematic at the macro level. And now with digital wallets and payments, I think even the relatively weak justification of convenience no longer is valid.

And another childish comment.

Maybe because the US is heading backwards?

More evasion.

Do you understand that this is the Obamacare Medicaid program. The one for which that the Federal govt pays 90% of the cost? That one that 10 republican states including Texas and Florida still refuse to implement?

Does the EU finance military purchases? The Finns are net contributors to the EU. Finland’s per-capita net payments to EU nearly doubled last year to €105 As one of the bloc's wealthier member states, Finland has been a net payer into the EU since 2001. https://yle.fi/a/3-11033686

Well, it looks like the European Court of Justice will still be adjudicating and the Tories are going to accept it.

Anyway, just because the FInns built it, that doesn't make it a good idea. If conditions in Russia grow desperate enough, and no other exits are available, I'd guess that fence won't do much good.

If you are a French person, I'm not surprised that you are pleased with the Euro. France gets the benefits and disregards the rules France routinely has a budget deficit more than the 3% allowed by the EU Euro treaties. How France gets away with breaking EU rules on its budget deficit every year. "The European Commission then writes to the French finance minister to express its concern and ask for corrections. The finance minister replies by apologizing profusely, swearing that he or she agrees wholeheartedly with Brussels, but that this year - this year only - France will have to break the rules because of some exceptional circumstances, whatever they are. Then it’s on to the next year, for a routine repeat." https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-france-gets-away-with-breaking-eu-rules-on-its-budget-deficit-every-year-2019-10-25

If you're referring to this comment from RayC', "Bit narrow-minded and self-defeating don't you think? I quite often have a glance at 'The Mail' and 'The Express'. Doing so, almost invariably confirms that my initial thoughts were correct!" which you only partially and misleadingly quoted, I don't know how the word "vague" applies.

Thanks for the correction.

Anyway, as pointed out above, it's not true. There was no promise made.

There was no agreement not to expand to the Russian borders: Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Most chips are made on a substrate of polysilicon https://www.statista.com/statistics/1334952/solar-polysilicon-manufacturing-capacity-share-by-country-or-region/#:~:text=In 2021%2C China accounted for,worldwide%2C at around 79.4 percent.

Apparently, according to your way of thinking, since nobody knows everything, then nothing can be ruled out. And therefore, all claims, no matter how unsupported, are equally valid. That looks like nonsense to me.

You might try emulating his respect for evidence and his willingness to provide it.

I'm going to go out in a limb here and say instant creation of a polysilicon manufacturing plant can't be done. I'll even go out in a further then and say it can't be done in a few months. And the reason I say that is I provided strong evidence to back me. Whereas in this case, you've got nothing.

How about "They who lose least, lose best."

And if I asked you to look up the meaning of narcissism, I suspect the result will be just another instance that further establishes that law's validity. I do think it's likelya valid case of narcissism could be laid against someone who prefers not only not to know, but engages in abusive language against those sources. You'll note that RayC, whose comments on these pages are clearly rational, engages in no such abuse of sources that he disagrees with. And he can disagree with them on an intelligent basis since he actually reads them.

Because what you claim goes against the judgments of creddible sources I have found. Now if you could produce some credible sources that back up what you claim that would be a different matter. So please share with us links to these sources so we can know that you are not,after all, bloviating. Perhaps you have failed to recall the the rule in this form about providing links to credible sources to back up your claims? If you can't provide those links, then it's always open to you to say nothing at all.

What's more, given RayC's general political stance, would you expect him to mostly agree with what conservative media say? And you will note that Ray c wrote "almost invariably," not invariably.

As you apparently failed to appreciate, this statement was made in response to someone who posted denigratory comments about certain news sources and stated quite openly that he didn't look at them at all. Yet you seem to have no problem at all with their statement which was far more extreme and gratuitously nasty.

And I don't understand why you included that explanation from the BBC about the limitation on the committee's powers. Do you believe that the committee investigating Hunter Biden has prosecutorial powers? I've got news for you: no house or senate committee has the power to indict anyone or sentence anyone on criminal charges.