UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
The CAP has not been reformed successfully, you're confusing task with goal
Wow, if you think wasting 66b is a sign of good governance, you're lost pal
The CAP is controlled by the lobbyists, and backed by the big growing countries, always has been. It's got nothing to do with protecting biodiversity and all to do with profit
https://www.politico.eu/article/copa-cogeca-farmering-lobby-europe/
Lol, those are the ones that got caught. Man, you are naive as hell
Why do you think there are over 25k lobbyists in Brussels? For the beer and chips?
You've added that qualifier not me, depends how you define success doesn't it. My point was that things can and do change.
Heh, you know, I knew you were going to come back with this so I already have my answer to it.
Yes 66bn certainly does sound like a lot of money to waste, over a period of 8 years and between 28 countries.
Makes me wonder why you are not so bothered about the 200bn that this country has spent on this Brexit project, all on it's own in the same time frame.
Oh right... so now you're pointing to the corruption that you can't prove exists?
Let me ask you this, what do you make of the blatant clear corruption in this country? specifically all of the pork barrel money related to Brexit like the Tees port scandal for example?
I'd like to think you'll be just as scathing, but somehow it seems like any cost associated with Brexit is worth it for some reason, even though you can't even tell me specifically what that reason is, much less prove it's a valid one. I wish I could say this was the first conversation I've had with somebody with Brexititus related Brexit blindness but when you get down to it, you're all remarkably similar.
Lol, you are like most remain voters I encounter, you like the idea of the EU, but don't actually know anything about it. Of the 3 current federations, which one would you like the EU to become? Russia? China? USA?
Ok. Let's do some simple maths re wasted money
66b wasted plus 66b opportunity cost plus 66b to redo the work that was meant to have been done. That's 198b... And that assumes biodiversity hasn't got worse, which it has, so it will cost more. Why do you defend failure?
And no, the UK hasn't spent 200b on brexit. You are demonstrating stunning levels of economic illiteracy now.
When I present you evidence of EU incompetence and corruption, you claim this as evidence of competence and purity. 😂
How about UVL and her disappearing texts?
https://www.politico.eu/article/new-york-times-sue-european-union-ursula-von-der-leyen-pfizer-texts/
And no, I won't defend yet another power structure, I'm not a nationalist, I think all politicians have the opportunity to be corrupt, I don't think that them being in Westminster or Brussels makes a blind bit of difference. You just prefer corruption with a nice accent and better coffee 😂.
Yet again I go to read your link to see what you are talking about and yet again it's not what you say.
Okay so the NYT wants to read the texts, how does that show evidence of 'corruption'?
I mean, maybe we will see them and something will be uncovered, but as of right now you have nothing. If she's corrupt then I hope they throw the book at her. You've not provided any evidence for your claim though. Again.
She has a habit of doing deals over texts that mysteriously disappear
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/corruption-scandal-hangs-over-eu-president-ursula-von-der-leyen-33871
Oh yeah, Turkish state media site that doesn't even load and talks about Breitbart's opinion, cracking source. Yeah, that I won't accept, give me a reputable source.
You are literally googling for any old shit to support your nonsensical position.
Find your own sources
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-scandal-hanging-over-ursula-von-der-leyen/
And kindly fuck off now, you're boring
Firstly, no need for insults.
I'm debating you in good faith, and I am smashing you to bits quite frankly and it's not even difficult, it's easy. Respond with better arguments and stop lying to yourself and you may be less upset.
Secondly, again that story is not what you said it is. It's allegations and it's not even EU related it's from back when she was German defence minister.
Now I already told you, I don't agree with corruption, I'd throw the book at her if there's any truth to it and it were down to me.
Any institution over time will have examples of corruption, from the top right down to local councils and the church raffle. It's a very human problem that occurs everywhere. The important thing is how you deal with it, and as far as I can see the first case they dealt with it very well (arrests and prosecutions) and in the second case that's clearly something for the German government to do something about.
Then I look at the UK, these idiots you voted to give all the power too, day after day there are stories and evidence about corruption on absolutely incredible scale, literally billions stolen, 200 billion at least wasted on this pile of shit....
Lol, smashing. You haven't got a clue pal.
There you go again, defending failure
I didn't vote for those idiots, moron.
Of course 'I have a clue', as far as I'm concerned I've demolished you and you've got nothing. That's why you've resorted to insults.
You're defending Brexit (badly), the very definition of defending failure.
That's you that is
Well done, did you learn about that decades old internet trivia yesterday or something?
I've not claimed to have any specialist knowledge, I've just researched the things you said and found them incorrect.
I'm not going to continue this thread with you though because you won't accept simple facts backed up by reputable sources. You think everybody is wrong if it doesn't fit with your pre decided narrative and you'll lash out to defend your fragile ego. Maybe you should talk to somebody.
Morning guys, can we cool things off a little?
Debate is fine, but when it's getting dragged into personal insults, and cry-laugh emojis as punctuation like some facebook-aunt, is it really a functional debate any more?
It's only Tuesday!
You are right, I apologise for any insulting I did. I would prefer to debate civilly.
🤡
undefined> Lol, you are like most remain voters I encounter, you like the idea of the EU, but don’t actually know anything about it. Of the 3 current federations, which one would you like the EU to become? Russia? China? USA?
Mate one of the first posts you made on this contained 2 factually incorrect statements and none of your links have backed up your claims.
If me pointing this out makes me a typical remain voter, well I suppose that shows just how much more informed we are than you typically Brexit blind types.
Oh well in that case, £200 bn lost, plus 200bn to re do all that work when we do eventually join and then another eleventy billion for things I made up just like you.
OBR says otherwise.
You've already demonstrated you're willing to make incorrect statements (charitable) and unsupported claims, bit rich to be saying anything about others literacy.
I never said that though.
I said
' I think those are both fantastic examples of accountability' which is an entirely different statment
Do you always make up these straw men to knock down,do you think putting words in your debate opponents mouth is a god way to argue? You are simply incapable of responding to the actual point that's been stated or something?
You voted for fucking Brexit mate, and you're defending it. If you aren't a nationalist, you're in bed getting fleas off them.
Honestly, you 'lexiters' are more deluded than the most red faced sun reading UKIPers.
https://www.farminguk.com/news/world-s-largest-vertical-farm-set-to-open-in-norfolk_61380.html
Your Google fu sucks as does your critical thinking skills
Again, the UK has not spent 200b, source?
Yes, I did vote for it. Very happy with it. Guess it just sucks to be you
Sure, the OBR says 4% GDP loss per year.
3.1 trillion per year GDP, let's make it 5% just to make it easy
150 billion per year, x 2+ years, it's well over 200bn.
Bloomberg also agrees
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-31/brexit-is-costing-the-uk-100-billion-a-year-in-lost-output
So, you going to accept this fact then? or is it going to be fingers in ears?
What is this supposed to prove?
I'm saying, they have 2 of the largest companies in the world you've pointed to a company with 34 employees and 2 farms (1 in construction) In farm in Germany has 422 employees (source linkedin for both) so it's 10 times as big a company as the one you linked.
Haha, yeah I can tell, you won't accept reality, you can't accept you've made a huge mistake, you can't handle the truth!
Like I said, you're all remarkably gullible, I mean similar.
Lol, the OBR said 4% of GDP per CAPITA OVER 15 YEARS
LOL, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT 😂😂😂😂
Mate, firstly.
Calm down.
Secondly, you're wrong, it is GDP not GDP per capita and it is at least 200bn.
These are facts, accept the facts.
LOL
Fuck off and learn something before you give it large pal.
Productivity, as in GDP per capita. Not GDP.
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions
No it's GDP, you are simply wrong, confidently wrong I will grant you, but wrong.
Tell me genius, what's the measure for long term productivity growth the OBR uses here?
https://obr.uk/box/productivity-growth-long-term/
Oh right, look at that, it's GDP.
I mean, are you saying Bloomberg is also wrong?
Again, resorting to insults just shows up your immaturity and the fact that you've lost this debate.
You don't understand your own link, 🤡
Fucking hell,
GDP is one thing
GDP per capita is a measure of productivity and living standards
Once you've worked that out, tell me what the loss of productivity that the OBR is forecasting is down to.
Hint, it's comparative advantage. When you've learned what that is, let me know.
Yeah I know what the difference is, I've just shown you that the OBR is referring to GDP when they walk about 'long term productivity growth' and nothing you have posted there contradicts that.
Seems to be a pattern here, you say something incorrect, I point it out, and you throw insults.
Lol, no they're not. Productivity is not GDP...
And the 4% is over 15 years and is a result of loss of comparative advantage.
If you have to compound an effect over 15 years to get 4%, the effect is fuck all.
So why do Bloomberg put it at 100bn based on that 4% figure?
Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn't it?
Let me ask you, what do you think it's cost the UK per year in billion pounds?
But that's what the forecast says. 4% of productivity lost over the long term of 15 years due to loss of comparative advantage
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis
But the forecast is for the cost, no benefit is included.
The loss of comparative advantage is replaced, I'd argue, with competitive advantage which has a much stronger effect. The UK is no longer bound by the anti science regulations on genetic engineering and the new overly restrictive proposed regulations on AI
GDP per capita is a ratio of GDP / population, so if you do more with fewer people, by using automation, robots and AI, your GDP per capita will grow...
The 4% figure over 15 years is a difference of 0.29% to 0.27% productivity growth. Government policy has at least that 0.02% effect
I predict a Starmer govt will be able to introduce policy that will offset the productivity loss just by investing in renewable energy, let alone any research universities' innovations.