You did not, once again, I asked you if thought the proposal favoured the UK to which waffled about on and on and on about the proposal being favourable. This is different.
No, it wasn't. Your initial post implied that the deal favoured the UK hence why I asked.
Hmm, in fairness you've said that this deal is favourable to the UK because everyone thought that the UK would get a worse deal and then said that everyone is complaining because the deal is not good enough. And you described the UK as a pissy little island in the north sea which only has any relevance on the world stage due to its EU membership. And described Canada as considerably more important than the UK to the EU.
So it is quite clear that what you would describe as a fact is not the same as what the rest of world would. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point and provide some actual facts or evidence.
Where's your evidence to support these assertions that the UK is receiving more favourable treatment than more important nations?
Prior to joining the then EEC the UK's GDP was approximately 40% greater than Canada's, I've not heard of any sort of mass extinction of Canadians so I think it is fair to say that the UK's population, thus potential market, was, as it is today, larger than Canada's and I am pretty sure that the UK and Canada were geographically in the same places as they are today prior to the UK joining the EEC.
What evidence to have to support all of this?
- - - Updated - - -
In fairness this seems to result of stress testing the UK economy models and is the very worst case scenario which is pretty much the same as the figures recently released by the BofE which Carney is going to great lengths to explain that they are not predictions of what will happen.
I think it was a mistake to paint these figures as prediction of what will happen if leave won the referendum, which I don't doubt was driven by the government, and I think by taking this approach it has become more difficult to educate the public (us) to the potential impact from Brexit.
- - - Updated - - -
Zero hour contracts are still jobs, however you could have just read the link provided and you would have seen that your statement is wrong; "Not only is employment up, but most of the growth has been in full-time jobs. The number of people in part-time jobs and in self-employment is now falling gently and more than offset by the rise in full-time work, reducing concerns that people are underemployed."