placeholder

And why is it relevant that Australia is happy with the deal? This thread is about the UK, not Australia. And as I pointed out, the former negotiator of the deal before he got sacked by Truss, says the deal is a bad one for the UK.

False again. Did you actually read the story you linked to? Here's what they wrote: “If we are right,” they added, “this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.” Given that the laptop surfaced at the last minute just before the elections, and that Giuliani refused to share data that could establish its veracity, it was a very reasonable inference. When a reputable journalistic source gets evidence like this, they doublecheck and triple check it to make sure of its veracity. The Post did no such thing. The experienced reporter they assigned to write the story up refused the assignment precisely because he had integrity. Does the phrase "investigative reporting" mean anything to you? As for Bobulinski, we've already seen the value of his "evidence."

I've already quoted to you what OSCE repots said. The gist of them was that while war crimes were committed by both sides, the vast majority were committed by the rebels and their Russian backers. As you may also recall, I cited the fact that, according to UN reports, Russians don't allow inspections of their POW camps whereas the Ukrainians offer completely open access. Does that tell you anything? Last time you greeted that datum with silence.

Yes, Alex8912 was definitely serious when he made that post. No one could possibly doubt that.

As America is learning the hard way, there's a fluid out there that is even more crucial to civilization than petroleum.

As the prosecution noted, the Trump Organization continued to pay Weisselberg his full salary and bonuses even after he pleaded guilty. What's more, no one in the organization publicly said a word against him. Rather he was praised.

Well, if you impose restrictions on imports from elsewhere, of course that will distort the natural course of trade.

I don't understand why you linked to the fox business article. There's nothing in there to support your claims. Maybe because you assumed that Fox would always come to Trump's rescue? First off, this wasn't a trial of Trump or any other people. It was a trial of his organization. And that organization was found guilty on all 17 counts! 17 counts. That's a lot of guilt. And as for the notion that this represents a win for Trump is patently ridiculous. It's a powerful piece of evidence against Trump in upcoming trials. He ran a criminal enterprise. And it will be devastating for his business. His brand is further tarnished. Insurance companies and banks are going to be very reluctant to do business with a criminal enterprise. Here's the fallout the Trump Org. conviction could wreak The verdict should spell trouble for Trump's businesses and weaken his position in other legal battles. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/12/09/trump-organization-conviction-legal-00073141

And has been noted time and time again om this forum, the commissions found that most of those atrocities were committed by Russia's allies and the Russians. What's more, it's been noted time and time again that the Russian denied that they were subject to the Minsk agreements since they had no soldiers in the Donbas.

Well, can you blame them for being so upset. After all, there's a sinister organization blood drinking deep state conspirators who are seeking to impose worldwide socialism as part of the New World Order. And all that stands between them and decent MAGA supporting is Donald Trump.

A quote from the advisory re this forum: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." Please share that source or sources with us.

You mean when I build an addition to my house, I get to call it new? Or if I completely refurbish it, it's now a new house? Calling something "new" that isn't new is what rational people would call lying or fraud. The new "new" is a no-no.

More nonsense. All you can do is provide empty negation. So, in terms of economics, how would you characterize the effects of the elimination of tariffs between members and the institution of the free movement of labor? You know, economic integration How doesn't that emulate a unified economy comparable to the United States or China?

That's a rather misleading headline. The UK has no trade deal with India. As for Australia... Australia free trade deal a failure for UK, says George Eustice Mr Eustice told the Commons that now he is on the backbenches he "no longer has to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed". Overall the UK "gave away far too much for far too little in return", he told MPs. This includes giving Australia or New Zealand full access to the UK market to sell beef and sheep, while Australia still bans the import of British beef, he added. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63627801 And even if this were not the case, economists know that there is a universally occurring characteristic of trade which they call "gravity". The closer countries are geographically the more likely that they are to trade with each other. You can't get much farther from the UK than Australia.

Nonsense. For the purposes of trade and commerce they are the same. The reason that European states created the EU was to be able to emulate the United States where trade and commerce were unaffected by internal borders. What they were after, as far as trade and commerce go, was a United States of Europe. So the EU absulotely does belong with the USA and China when referring to trade and commerce. If the issue was fiscal policy or social benefits, that would be a different matter.

I preferred if you stick to the issues, rather than pester me with your fake solicitude.

I was listing the EU as one of three. The EU is not a country. So I needed to find a word that would accurately encompass them all.

Do I really have to point out to you why the situations are not analogous?

.

I don't wonder at all why someone would try to make this personal when they're losing the fact-based argument..

Right. And who is abandoning the EU? Every time a right wing party makes noises in that direction it has to back down because it's a very unpopular idea.

And since you provide no answer as to how it could be done, I'm guessing that you don't have a rational answer either.

Right. You think that they are armed only with light sabers? One thing we know about fanatics in possession of actual weapons, is that they pose no threat. None at all. Nope. Nothing.

Yes, the EU is collapsing. And Jesus is coming any day now.

And how can the UK punish the EU without suffering retribution? You thinking of a 2nd D-day? This time by the Chunnel?