candide

The moron found a way to make Republicans angry, exactly at the time he needs them most.....

Actually there was a tacit agreement between the Kurds and the Syrian government to avoid fighting each other, and sometimes they de facto cooperate. So it would not be surprising that they would start to collaborate more officially.

He got a corrupt prosecutor (who was not investigating his son) fired. He did it to get her with the IMF and the EU. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/imf-warns-ukraine-halt-40bn-bailout-corruption-christine-lagarde https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

What is "dubious" and "inaccurate"? - Trump pressuring a foreign country to get dirt on his political opponent: confirmed by Trump himself (call memo, speech on TV) - the role played by Giuliani: confirmed, includind by Giuliani himself - secret crypted computer: confirmed - link with withholding aid: not fully confirmed but directly evoked by Taylor. So what exactly is dubious and inaccurate in his statement?

No. It's the percentage that matters. Each EU country may lose 2.3% (on average) while UK may lose 8%. Let's take a simple example: let's assume that the natural GDP growth is around 2%. The maximum risk for EU countries would be around 0% growth, while for the UK it would be around -6%. Thatwould be a deep recession for UK. Of course the export loss will never be 100%. If we further assume that 50% will be lost, it's still a recession for UK with -2% ( and +1 for EU).

Sorry I had no time to cross check figures as I am travelling. I will do it later. I can already answer on two points - quoting percentage is relevant. If you lose 8% of your revenues it's worse than if you lose 2.3% of your revenues. - your calculation applying my percentages seems to gives a lower export figure for UK and a higher figure for the EU than the actual export values

Wrong. In the case of Nixon, the first resolution was voted 3 months after the House judiciary committee started its investigation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon Clinton's case is a bit different, as there had been already an extensive official investigation before the vote, so there was no need to investigate more.

My initial point was that, due to export figures, the impact of no deal on UK's GDP would be nearly 4 times the level of the impact on the EU. If my figures need to be corrected, it would rather show an impact higher than 4 times.

I may have not remembered the exact figures or they were not up to date. The 18.8 trillion figure is about EU 28 but even by retracting UK's GDP. So according to your remark, the % of GDP should be higher than 8% for the UK and lower than 2.3% for the EU. Actually it would show a worse situation for the UK than my previous comparison.

You are so obsessed by conspiracy theories that you did not notice that the documents referenced are research papers. They are analyses or opinions by specialists, they are not stating the official rules.

The treaty with Ukraine does not apply because the conditions set in the articles of the treaty are not met. In particular it would have required an official request by the central authority (the AG) and following a precise procedure. "Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request. Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General.Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information required in each request." https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

It seems the key point is not your nationality, it's rather that you seem to believe Trump's propaganda made of false equivalences (among other) without checking anything. For example: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/23/trump-falsely-says-obama-started-family-separation/1540733001/

It's a standard investigation technique when one interviews several people on the same issue: don't let them know what the others said.

I saw them. They seem to be congruent. However, it's a complex issue. The high share of B and NL probably reflects the fact that lots of goods actually transit there. Moreover, exports and imports include parts that are included in products that are then exported to whatever destination inside or outside the EU. So a product exported by UK to France or the USA, may be significantly composed of German parts, and a product exported by Germany to UK may include British parts, etc...

I found this one https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Goods-Imports-and-Exports-of-EU-27-with-the-UK-GDP_fig1_315698704