egg

You stole my next point!! Sovereignty has become conflated with something very unpleasant.

How has sovereignty (or autonomy) helped us as a country? The issue is that we have the pain, but are we more or less likely to grow alone or as part of a collective? Given how our economy has shrunk (I assume you accept the Stanford paper) post vote/Brexit, and is barely treading water (and we're actually a bit fucked - on that you and I agree), how realistic is it that we'll feel a gain over the wider EU states? I just don't see it.

Have people not worked out that Ossie is enjoying the sport.

It hasn't been debunked. The Stanford paper is excellent, and as up to date as anything I've seen. The authors are all credible. One extract: "Figure 1 shows UK GDP compared to that of other countries since the Brexit referendum. Our analysis focuses on GDP per capita. This helps to account for any differences in population growth trends across countries. It illustrates that UK GDP was growing at a similar rate to other comparable countries in the period prior to the Brexit referendum, regardless of how those other countries are weighted together. Since the vote for Brexit in 2016 Q2, UK GDP has grown by less than other comparable countries. That is estimated to be the case across all of our different metrics for weighting other countries together, and it places the UK close to the bottom of the distribution we draw around the unweighted average, at around the 10th percentile. Depending on which comparator metric is used, UK GDP per capita is estimated to have grown by between 6% and 10% less than other similar countries between the Brexit referendum and the year to 2025 Q1, and it only rose by 4% in absolute terms. The smallest implied impact is from GDP/air distance weighting the comparator countries, which places a heavy weight on large, nearby Northern European countries that experienced relatively slow growth post 2016. In part, this could have been due to Brexit spillovers. The largest estimated impacts are from the synthetic control and unweighted estimates, as theseplace more weight on faster growing countries, in particular the US for the synthetic control. Taking the simple average across our five weighting approaches, UK GDP is estimated to have been 8% lower than other similar countries over the year to 2025 Q1. We use this average as our central estimate of the effect of Brexit from macroeconomic data". I'd like to see the contra evidence.

To be fair, that's not what he meant. He was referring to Iran being allowed to bomb LA or San Diego if left to their own devices. Not they could, but say it often enough, people will / do believe it.

It was 6-8% https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/economic-impact-brexit Follow the link in the link to the full paper. Page 34 is your friend if you just want the conclusion.

Lesson

It's getting closer. "Trump says Iran responsible for Flydubai attack Trump says he thinks Iran is responsible for the September 30 incident involving a Flydubai plane. The US president contradicted an earlier statement made by Vice President JD Vance, who said there was so far no evidence connecting Tehran to the attack".

Yep, and Europe are weaker without us. The suggestion that the EU is outperforming us I'm guessing, is based just on current growth, which is only a wee bit above ours...but ignores that their post pandemic growth exceeds ours, their debt burden is lower, they have much lower interest rates, their government borrowing is lower, they have frictionless trade, etc, etc. Nuts if anything thinks we're doing better.

Blue passport? Queueing at airports? Reduced GDP?

Gotcha. So esentially we're talking about tax tourists going on tour.

Quite. People are conflating the individuals and any trading entities. Entirely different things.

I think it's a given that they've anticipated a lengthy ban and have looked at alternatives. That's an entirely different issue to people seriously talking about Howe or Frank though.

Isn't he's one of the others with a new name?

Yep. Massive potential. I like Hall and Scott, they've added something different. Bellingham is just on another level, Gordon is brilliant, Saka is back to his best, and Rogers I really like. There's also great players who weren't involved. The return fixture against Spain is the one that matters.

It isn't. It's a different point. You seem like another poster (or login) who answers a question with an unrelated answer, or a question. Farmers question remains unanswered.

That's a different point. He asked "which left-wingers have wanted continued Muslim immigration to the UK?" I'd like to know the answer to.

Is there really a discussion about Howe or Frank joining us?! People need to acknowledge who and where we are.

People are worried, don't confuse that with "genuine anxiety". Regardless, the simple point remains. If you believe a claim about information to be bullshit, treat it accordingly and move on. I don't know whether MB has or hasn't heard anything, but he's merely said that we should hear something. Hardly ground breaking, or anything to get upset or anxious about. Re that last part. Most people have the common sense to appreciate that a source cannot be identified, or even hinted at, for reasons that should be obvious. If a forum user feels that they have a right to drill down to "assess the credibility of a source" that's a bit daft given it's bloody obvious that they won't get that information.

And that is the bottom line. The constant posts from people getting wound up about it are tragic and funny in equal measure.

Surely the action of killing a politician, and then plotting to kill another from the same party (understandably the facts and evidence around that haven't been disclosed), is a sign of political motivation.

I think it's Turkish crying for help to sort out his musical taste.

Law of averages mate. It'd be a bit odd if amongst the thousands of forum users there weren't some people who have some relevant information, or relevant knowledge of the process we're in.

On a forum this size, there will be and is, some people who know what's what.

Incorrect. Appeals focus on whether the original panel/court/tribunal got it wrong, not new evidence.