UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
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.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article/38/1/112/6514751?guestAccessKey=238c3951-7d28-40d7-9285-1eb7d44e76a9&login=false
Thank you very much, I've read it, but it doesn't support what you claim and it's actually quite a lightweight document.
Your claim was that Brexit was a gift in the agri tech on account of the disruption and increased costs of farming associated with Brexit.
This is the only part which strikes me as relevant to this claim
Lot of 'may', 'could' heavy lifting going on there. Certainly doesn't refute my point that all of this is/was entirely possible in the EU, and in fact the biggest vert farm companies are in the EU, not in the UK.
Sorry mate, I gave this argument every chance to prove a Brexit benefit, this one is still very much 'not proven' for me, unless you have something better?
Opportunities obviously have to be couched in possibilities. Or do you really expect 40 years of bad subsidy to be undone in 3 years?
Vertical farming is just one aspect of CEA, and before covid and brexit the UK didn't need vertical farms. Now we do. Necessity is the mother of invention.
There are plenty of other areas that the UK can regulate based on science rather than feels now.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2321556-uk-to-relax-law-on-gene-edited-food-in-post-brexit-change-from-eu/
And other than agriculture, AI
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/ai-in-the-eu-and-uk-two-approaches-to-regulation-and-international-leadership/
I mean, you said it was a gift, and now you're back tracking on that quite rapidly.
Sure, but I don't see how they've made it necessary in the EU and have 2 of the biggest vert farm companies, and somehow we couldn't?
Right, but you've seen the shitshow we get from Westminster right? What makes you think policy will be any better, if anything our government seems to consistently make worse decisions than the EU does in my view.
On AI, that's just another lot of maybes, and so far I can't see any tangible benefit you can point to in that article.
Further, the EU changes and modifies it's legislation all the time as well, so any future 'benefit' over being in the EU could just as easily be undone at a future date and then whatever advantage we had will be gone.
I don't think any of this is anywhere near justifying or mitigating the enormous damage that has been done to this country, it would be nice if there was at least something but I don't see it.
It's a gift to the companies I work with. The problems caused by brexit, covid and climate change are opportunities.
Border problems? Customs tech is a multi billion sized market opportunity.
Food supply chain problems? Agtech opportunities
Labour problems? Automation, robotics, AI opportunities
If all you see is problems, you'll never make anything out of anything
I voted for lexit, as did the majority of trade unions, including people like Mick Lynch, it would be absurd to expect a right wing government to deliver lexit...
The benefits of leaving the EU will take years to realise. It hasn't even got started yet.
Well I sort of see what you mean, my company does payment systems and I personally earned a nice tidy bonus for my work on the NI border project.
I really don't see though, how the government paying me that money to do that thing that didn't need to be done before is really a benefit.
Most of these opportunities you describe would have been just as availablein the EU, maybe even more so due to how much easier R + D collaboration was in the EU.
It sounds to me like you've kind of got the blinders on with this, vote for it by any chance?
There wasn't a vote for that, you voted to let the Tories decide for you.
Oh yeah, I agree there :)
That's the economic cost for a political decision.
I don't see why people think centralising power, which is the result of ever more political union, is a benefit.
I'd like to see more decentralised government. A fediverse version if you like. Representative democracy is so last century.
Same reason you centralise anything, economies of scale. For instance, all this agri business regulation, if the UK just used the EU rules, then the UK can trade with the EU (and their other partners) no problem and the UK doesn't have to pay a load of it's own people to do the exact same work.
There you go massive specific and relevant benefit that anybody can understand. It is interesting you cannot really do the same the other way.
Well I am loving feddit.uk so far, it's smashing. The right tool for the right job is an adage as true as anything in my experience and decentralised systems are great in some places and fucking useless in others. As far as democracy goes, most people simply don't have the time to gather all the knowledge you would need to actually govern effectively and make good decisions.
I mean could it be any worse than when we let these useless aristocrat pricks from Eton and Oxbridge who know nothing run riot? Might be less corrupt like, there is that.
But if the centralised management is flawed, as the EU's is because of the CAP and vetoes, it causes massive problems, and then the fixes are sub optimal, which compounds the issue
Exhibit A
https://www.arc2020.eu/cap-billions-spent-on-biodiversity-with-little-impact-auditors/
And I'm not sure why you think someone in Brussels is any less likely to be corrupt
Exhibit B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_the_European_Parliament
The CAP has been reformed more than once and we were big players, most of the regulation UK gov wanted they got.
Vetos have been a problem wrt to foreign policy you are right, and there are talks about moving that to QMV as well. I don't think vetos apply to CAP though, I believe that's all QMV and has been since Lisbon.
As far as your examples, I think those are both fantastic examples of accountability on the part of the EU, in the first case they've commissioned a proper audit of the spending and the effectiveness of that spending, and now know what to address to make future spending more effective. wish our government did shit like that.
In the second case, all those people were investigated and arrested and are in court now, further they were voted out of their positions too, again something I wish our government would do.
You are doing a great job of making me even more sure I am right about this than I was before tbh with you.
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.
long-run productivity is GDP mate. Unless you have something which actually says otherwise? Even assuming it is GDP per capita, so what?
Yes it is included, there isn't any.
Uh-hu.. back to maybe and could then...
Mate, I work in IT, have done for 25 years. There is no EU regulation preventing productivity increasing thanks to automation, what a load of nonsense.
Also, we don't have fewer people do we, we have more people.
Show me a source from somebody credible that says that exactly.
I have a credible source says it's costing 100bn a year.
Here’s another one
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-damage-uk-economy-covid-b2308178.html
Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP) will be 4 per cent smaller than if the country had stayed in the EU, the head of the government’s fiscal watchdog confirmed on Sunday.
Pretty clear that if you ask me, from a national newspaper.
I predict it could all have been done in the EU, and research and development would have been easier and cheaper to collaborate on to boot.
Not maybes or coulds. Overly restrictive regs, because all EU law is civil law, not common as in the UK. I doubt you'll ever admit you don't know what you're talking about though
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779611/eu-ai-act-open-letter-artificial-intelligence-regulation-renault-siemens
What's the long range population forecast for the UK genius?
Yes it is maybes or could, that AI act is still not law and you have no idea what regulation the UK gov may or may not introduce. Further, I don't believe anything in that act will prevent AI development anyway, which regulation is it exactly you think is going to be 'overly restrictive', they all sound very reasonable to me and I'm a technical person who works in IT, unlike you.
So you ever going to answer my question then?
What figure do you put on the cost per year, if you disagree with the OBR's 100bn per year?
I know how UK common law is written and how civil regs are, I'm not even going to begin arguing unless you demonstrate that you know the difference
And the cost? UK govt has actually spent around £8b on brexit preparations
The investment delay will be recouped
UK was 2nd in Europe on GDP per capita in 2016 and is still 2nd in Europe in 2022 so it's negligible.
And what is your source for that 8bn?
Is that all the costs, I asked how much per year?
The measure is against where we would have been had we remained in the EU though.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/brexit-spending-government-preparations
It's impossible to prove where the UK would have been, a 100 year pandemic makes the brexit effect just noise. The synthetic counter factual models are smart but stupid.
You do realise that your 4% forecast is also a could and maybe yeah?
Here are the actual facts on GDP per capita. Maybe you understand pictures more easily than words
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=GB-XC-FR-DE-ES-IT&start=2016
So I asked you, how much is Brexit costing per year, and you've given me what was spent to prepare for Brexit. Can you see how these are not the same thing?
I am getting a little tired of your constant dishonesty, I'm trying to be charitable with you, but I don't really see how it's possible to misunderstand such a simple question if you are as smart as you claim to be.
Well of course because it's predicated on a model of where we would have been had we not left the EU. It's extrapolation in that sense, but it's more than you have isn't it?
Still not relevant to anything though, because as I said the measure is against where we would have been had we stayed in, not how well we still stack up in some rankings.
It's clearly relevant to our nearest economic peers...it's actual data, in the measure that the OBR forecast, and not educated guesses.
I'm tired of your dullness, goodbye
Well it was certainly interesting to engage, I'll know exactly what to watch out for with you on your future posts.
Have a lovely evening :)
🤦♂️