nauseus

Good because you're on it but unfortunately I can still see your post of twisted words, to fit your own biased, condescending and erroneous narrative.

I did not introduce increases into this discussion. You are misquoting me. Ignore list.

You haven't offered an explanation to anything. You are going on my ignore list. Bye.

I can't understand your rubbish so don't expect an answer.

Elaborate or just talk another riddle? Which side is now tanking the markets? What bills are already spent? All gobbledygook.

Never mind.

I didn't mention "tax rate like on the wealthy", whatever that means.

Powell is concerned with interest rates, not taxation. Do you want to change the system?

I don't agree that the economy is particularly strong. Of course high inflation over an extended period is unacceptable. I don't think anyone has this miracle cure.

Could you possibly reword that and perhaps add some specifics?

Yes yer honour.

Looks like your pal Joe90 is the financial terrorist.

There is a danger that slowing the economy could trigger a recession, unemployment and, so, lower incomes. It may be too late to stop that happening already.

And if I ruled the world.....every day would be the first day of spring.

No need to be so gritty. Yes, I know about the theory. I'm just repeating what Powell has been saying since the rate hikes started - maybe you should question his economic nous instead? You know, like when he was talking about this "transitory inflation" about 20 months ago. And Yellen too. Funny people.

Your verdict - not mine.

The Fed line is that they have been raising interest rates to slow inflation and try to get it back to their preferred 2%. Don't be so absurd.

He got Brexit done. Yes he was lying. But I think he knew that the only way we could actually leave with some kind of agreement out was to get that dogs dinner through the house. It had been 4 years already and everyone was pissed off. That said, May was as deceptive as any of them. "Brexit means Brexit" for her means if I say that I get to be PM - maybe as long as 3 years - whoopee for me!

Oh he got Brexit done. The trouble is that most of the dinner in the oven was the regurgitated Chequers Stew - designed by May-Robbins, bespoke caterers to the EU.

I can't believe that!

I think we paid enough already.

The examples you give apply to non EU third countries doing whatever deals they could with the EU. The UK was a member throughout the negotiations and was certainly treated differently.

Being in a dominant position does not have to mean "better negotiators" but in this case the UK started so badly and carried on in similar fashion, so I would agree. It was up to the government of the day to define what Brexit meant and how to deal with it.

There is no clear vision or advance warning of what leaving is or what it might be because there is no detail in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (or Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). From Article 50, it all sounds so simple, until a member tries to quit. The only thing clear is that all procedures concerning leaving are set and dominated by the EU, that is plainly obvious now. The leaving state has little influence, as it remains within the EU until a WA is reached. Because the EU has evolved into a cross-national political and economic web, then no deal at all would be disastrous, especially for peoples. But it's not a reasonable way to end a partnership and those words "good faith" were rarely applied. But hey! Who'd have thought it?!!

Laying the blame does not help. Does it?