shurlock

Les, my old mucker, I hope your incontinence pads are stronger than your powers of comprehension The article doesn't state the Brexit will CAUSE the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 by 2050; rather it attributes future superior performance to factors unrelated to Brexit, namely the UK's demographic advantages and flexible labour and product markets. The UK would also benefit from these as a member of the EU. Indeed it is possible that the UK might perform even better than the forecast in these circumstances. After all the aforementioned advantages that the UK enjoys are partly built on EU membership -for instance the demographic tailwinds provided by immigration and freedom of movement. Rather the article suggests Brexit poses downside risks: that flexible labour markets and favourable demographics won't be blessings if the UK can't establish new trade and investment relationships to offset probable weaker trade links with the EU -and that of course is an entirely self-inflicted challenge.

Yep. The poster who cries wolf about being stalked begins a thread obsessing about other posters. How does that work ALWAYS_SFC also seems to have x-ray specs as he frequently responds to my posts. #ignoremeansignore

Were you #bigtits in Itchen North pal?

I thought Clasie filled in for Romeu and Hojbjerg was further forward?

Does Romeu play in a one or a three? Sometime it feels like the latter given how conservative Clasie, Davis, JWP etc are. Likewise it would be wrong to say that Wanyama and Schneiderlin were rigid DMs. Schneiderlin would often get quite forward.

Nonsense. Romeu is more than a bouncer: he's silky in possession and tight spaces - he's much more cultured than Wanyama. Where he suffers in comparison to Wanyama is in his mobility and athleticism. Wanayama is far more able to boss a midfield by himself than Romeu. The biggest problem is that Clasie has disappointed and he was primarily brought in to replace Morgan.

Agree I'd like to see him in positions where he can impact the game -and that's more central. The problem is we don't play a no.10 in Puel's system, though it's expected that the front three will interchange and the positions Jrod and Boufal occupied yesterday are relatively tucked in with the fullbacks providing the genuine width. Note we didn't play a no.10 in Koeman's 4-2-3-1 either. However, that was more out of choice than due to the system as we tended to play Davis in the middle of the three behind Pelle to give us more shape and discipline.

For all those who say he played in the no.10 position against Swansea, he didn't. He played largely on the left with licence to roam inside.

[video=youtube_share;IsBdCskFv4A]http://youtu.be/IsBdCskFv4A

Was excellent against Swansea; was largely poor today. Was picking up the ball in far too deep positions.

Did Wham's second goal take a deflection? I couldn't see it clearly from the Itchen North. If so, that was two lucky deflections and a defensive gift. On the whole Wham were very average. The timing of their goals made a difference - first in equalising so quickly and then getting a second on the stroke of half time. We really needed to hold onto our lead and grow into the game as our confidence is so fragile. Game was lost in midfield. Romeu urgently needs help. Stephens lack of pace was exposed several times, especially for the foul that led to their second. Gabbi put in a promising shift, though I was half expecting him to start on the left and Jrod down the middle where's he looked brighter in recent weeks. Gabbi linked up nicely and showed clever movement, though he reinforces our slightly ornate style under Puel. Bertrand put some absolutely brilliant balls into the box that screamed out for a bit more power and aggression at the end of them.

Don't feed the troll.

Absolutely disgusting that no Muslim leaders came out and condemned this massacre.

Exactly

Except the no-mark sociologists that GM aka Trident cites.

Edit

Trident - even by your ignorant standards, this is pathetic. Export growth is a dubious proxy for the benefits of trade liberalisation: export growth may be fast but only because it is starting from a low base. If it was a yardstick, Liechtenstein would be the UK's most important partner with whom trade grew nearly 40% between 2005 and 2014. The figures also appear to exclude services - the UK's main source of comparative advantage, another red flag. Taken together they say nothing about the volume of trade in both goods and services which is far more consequential for income levels and living standards. Even if export growth was the right metric (it isnt), comparing two periods is dubious without proper controls: there maybe other factors -independent of trade liberalisation that are driving results -for instance differences in economic growth rates or changes in sector mix. Thus the period 1950-1973 was seen as a golden period of European capitalism versus other time periods as countries had plenty scope for 'catchup' through postwar reconstruction, technology transfer and the shift of labour out of agriculture. These one-off benefits boosted economic growth -and thus trade; however they were not directly the result of trade liberalisation. Unless you can separate these effects and establish a proper counterfactual, statements about the impact of different trade relationships over time are going to be deeply flawed. Estimates of the impact of trade liberalisation also have to take into account other benefits such as FDI and productivity gains through increased competition. Of course benefits should be assessed alongside costs such as 'membership fee’ to EU required in terms of the net budgetary contribution and net costs of regulation. No ad hominem attack required (after all it is a kipper tactic on here). I'm just embarrassed that you felt you were making a contribution -and felt that including someone's bio strengthened your case. Bless you, little kipper

Koeman was likely a stronger presence, so was more of a check and balance on Reed.

Kippers aren't known for realism or hardheaded practicalities; but most would admit that there are pressures on the UK to conclude new deals with non-EU countries to replace the lost trade from leaving the single market. After all, whatever the UK agrees with the EU is unlikely to be as friendly as the benefits it currently enjoys as a member of the single market.

How many kippers will still be around by the time this takes effect? Les? https://www.ft.com/content/c6a46fce-e948-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

No. I see it more like watching and scouting an opposition football team.

Spectacularly missing the point as usual Baldrick. I'm not citing Fox News for the accuracy of its reporting or the impartiality of its analysis (say the way you cited Al Jazeera). It's dog****. However if you want to understand what makes the Trump base click and how it views the world, then it's a very useful resource. Indeed, if Trump's tweets are anything to go by, he spends his evenings watching and taking his cues from Fox News. By the way, it's unforeseen

I cant work out if you live in a glass house or a bedsit.

Just over a week in and I see Trump is quite happy to lash out at close allies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?client=safari Guess the Aussie PM didn't take too kindly to being asked if he wanted to spit or swallow. Worth pointing out May was slaughtered on Fox News last night by Lou Dobbs of all people for daring to criticise Trump's executive order on refugees in yesterday's PMQs.