It's still nonsense. (I note you've dropped the numbers from 40% to 33%. Keep going.)Hi Amber,
Just to be helpful, this is a extract from fact checker regarding method of calculating poverty. The 14m roughly equates to the Governments own figures. The child poverty rates from the U.N. were 2021 projections on the basis that current increases continue. Whatever measure you take 14m out of 65m is still pretty bloody poor. The U.K. also has the biggest gap between top earners and low earners in the EU.
The definition used by a number of international organisations (such as the UN and the World Bank) is that you cannot afford the basic needs of life—food, clothing, shelter and so on.
A new way of measuring poverty
One of the most comprehensive measures of poverty on offer at the moment is produced by the Social Metrics Commission (SMC). The SMC is an independent group of experts who have been working to improve the way we understand and measure poverty in the UK, and last autumn published their first estimates.
They found that in 2016/17:
- An estimated 14.2 million people in a family in poverty in the UK
- 8.4 million are working-age adults, 4.5 million are children, and 1.4 million are of pension age
- Around 22% of the public are in poverty, and nearly 33% of children
- 58% of those in poverty are in “persistent poverty” (people who would also have fallen below the poverty line in at least two of the last three years). This is as of 2015/16
- Working-age people in poverty are increasingly likely to be in working families
- Most poverty rates aren’t all that different to what they were at the start of the 2000s. The most marked reduction has been in pensioner poverty, it is almost half as common as it was back in 2000, while rates for working-age adults are now slightly higher
- Poverty rates fell in the years after 2010, as the UK recovered from the financial crisis, but are now showing clear signs of rising again
Lol, attack isn't the best form of defence when you've shot the last round. You have categorically stated thatSeriously, what the fuck are you on about?
“Significantly diminished” was the specific phrase you quoted in the first place.
You literally said it’s an opinion, I’m pointing out how it obviously isn’t.
Now, anything else you want to totally embarrass yourself with?
We export £134bn to the EU, we export £171bn to all other countries through the EU’s negotiated agreements, that they do by the way on our behalf and for our benefit.
We’re at the very least going to get rid of the former to begin with and will likely lose a lot of the latter as we won’t have trade agreements in place.
I actually agree with you that the short to medium term financial consequences of brexit will be negative. The problem is that like so many remain people, you take this and exaggerate it for effect with examples like this plane/parachute silliness and discredit what is otherwise a good argument. It always puzzles me how Mr Osbornes dire predictions were apparently offset by 'mitigating measures', but such measures are apparently not available in the event of brexit.
I found this quite interesting.No, according to Ban nothing is slightly wrong, it all finishes on 1 Nov.
Everything.
To everywhere.
Remainers are always right, they have been right all along, have they not?
One of us is going to look a right dipstick in a few months, get your bets on now.
Lol, attack isn't the best form of defence when you've shot the last round. You have categorically stated that
this country won't be exporting after 31 Oct, the 'Significantly diminished, or diminished significantly' aside
is straw clutching, you said the latter, plus whether it's one or the other is irrelevant, as they are one and the same,
and is a row back from the original no trade assertion.
So, let's test the above mid November is all I'm saying, no exports to the EU, and losing a lot to the rest of the world.
Not diminished, significantly or otherwise, getting rid you say, or have you changed your mind?
I found this quite interesting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ements-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal
These agreements constitute around 11% of the UK’s trade
As a neutral bystander on this one (and usually on your side actually), I have to say the way you worded it was misleading at best, and frankly just wrong.I’m trying not to break CoC but you’re misunderstanding basic sentences now.
I said “on November 1st, we won’t be exporting to the EU”. I then said “we’ll look to strike smaller deals but these will in no way be close to Single Market membership”.
Poverty is defined, by taking 60% of median income, I know plenty of people, in work who earn less than that,Hi Amber,
Just to be helpful, this is a extract from fact checker regarding method of calculating poverty. The 14m roughly equates to the Governments own figures. The child poverty rates from the U.N. were 2021 projections on the basis that current increases continue. Whatever measure you take 14m out of 65m is still pretty bloody poor. The U.K. also has the biggest gap between top earners and low earners in the EU.
The definition used by a number of international organisations (such as the UN and the World Bank) is that you cannot afford the basic needs of life—food, clothing, shelter and so on.
A new way of measuring poverty
One of the most comprehensive measures of poverty on offer at the moment is produced by the Social Metrics Commission (SMC). The SMC is an independent group of experts who have been working to improve the way we understand and measure poverty in the UK, and last autumn published their first estimates.
They found that in 2016/17:
- An estimated 14.2 million people in a family in poverty in the UK
- 8.4 million are working-age adults, 4.5 million are children, and 1.4 million are of pension age
- Around 22% of the public are in poverty, and nearly 33% of children
- 58% of those in poverty are in “persistent poverty” (people who would also have fallen below the poverty line in at least two of the last three years). This is as of 2015/16
- Working-age people in poverty are increasingly likely to be in working families
- Most poverty rates aren’t all that different to what they were at the start of the 2000s. The most marked reduction has been in pensioner poverty, it is almost half as common as it was back in 2000, while rates for working-age adults are now slightly higher
- Poverty rates fell in the years after 2010, as the UK recovered from the financial crisis, but are now showing clear signs of rising again
Thanks.Ok it’s very simple. You put up trade barriers to goods and services then trade will be reduced. US and China have put up trade barriers and guess what? Trade has been reduced, US consumers have been ‘taxed’ via their own self imposed tariffs and the US Govt is subsiding US farmers to the tune of billions of dollars.
We are interconnected with the EU economy via supply lines for food and parts. Put up barriers and these supply lines will be disrupted leading to problems and shortages. The general public are concerned but not worried because we have an unshakable faith that somehow it will either be ‘sorted out - details tba’ or if it isn’t that supermarket shelves will still be full because they always are. The Govts big worry is once that ‘unshakeable faith’ disappears they are going to get the blame big time. The Govt will also know that this country lost its shit when KFC ran out of chicken because KFC tinkered with the supply lines. Lesson is that you don’t mess with supply lines unless you have to and on 31st October we don’t have to.
As the clock ticks down the Govt will be fighting on many fronts. The EU, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, the major cities in England, CBI, industry and farming lobbies and Parliament. The French control the chokepoint of Dover. And your gamble, should you choose to accept it, is to pitch the U.K. out of the EU via an executive elected by a privileged few and with no mandate to do so via a public vote. Good luck.
Down from around 65% I believe.These agreements constitute around 11% of the UK’s trade
As a neutral bystander on this one (and usually on your side actually), I have to say the way you worded it was misleading at best, and frankly just wrong.
We will be exporting to the EU on November 1st, come what may. The question is to what level, and with what difficulty. But to suggest all our exports will cease is just wrong, and although that's maybe not what you meant, nevertheless it is what the words mean.
Down from around 65% I believe.
So the reality of the situation is that roughly 50%-55% of our current trade that is tariff free and frictionless will now have additional controls and that includes a much bigger percentage in terms of components for manufacturing supply chains.
The impact will be enormous and long term.
The GFA is flawed, though.I take issue with this...i do not see how the EU are weaponising this. Brexit contravenes the GFA, an historic agreement negotiated and agreed by the UK with Ireland. Brexit is not being dictated by the threat of terrorism, Brexit is ignoring (trying to ignore) the terms of the GFA. You want to proceed with Brexit without considering or working with the GFA.
It proceeded Brexit, was agreed and ratified by the UK....it cant be set aside.
I just dont see how the EU and particular Varadkar as you keep mentioning, are weaponising and threatening the return of terrorism.
The GFA is flawed, though.
Let's say, for argument, that the result of the referendum had been 75%-25% in favour of leaving. Would you still say that the UK couldn't leave because of the GFA? That would be repressing a significant number of a nation's people. If in the future Ireland vote to leave and we're still in, how would that pan out? It might sound implausible but you never know what might happen if there's another global crash and Trump seems to be helping things on their way there. Experts have already said the Euro is extremely vulnerable to global issues.
Brexit might be ignoring parts of the GFA, but hiding behind the GFA is ignoring other significant issues as well.
I would pick “Norway for now”We can leave and uphold the GFA, it’s called Common Market 2.0 or the Backstop. Take your pick.
I actually agree with you that the short to medium term financial consequences of brexit will be negative. The problem is that like so many remain people, you take this and exaggerate it for effect with examples like this plane/parachute silliness and discredit what is otherwise a good argument. It always puzzles me how Mr Osbornes dire predictions were apparently offset by 'mitigating measures', but such measures are apparently not available in the event of brexit.
Well I'm not going over old ground on those, but obviously there is dispute over whether these actually class as leaving the EU or not. In any case, and I've been off this thread for a while, I am assuming the discussion about the GFA is in regards to a no-deal scenario.We can leave and uphold the GFA, it’s called Common Market 2.0 or the Backstop. Take your pick.
I would pick “Norway for now”
Well I'm not going over old ground on those, but obviously there is dispute over whether these actually class as leaving the EU or not. In any case, and I've been off this thread for a while, I am assuming the discussion about the GFA is in regards to a no-deal scenario.
And funnily enough, a ridiculous comparison which is only peddled by delusional lefties.Poverty is defined, by taking 60% of median income, I know plenty of people, in work who earn less than that,
and they don't describe themselves as poverty stricken. You are quoting relative poverty, as Chippy said, put
whatever figure you want on it, but millions of people in this country earn far less than the average £27,000,
members of my family do. The streets aren't filled with trouser clutching starveling children, it's a ridiculous
comparison that infers the UK is akin to Somalia.