Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

2016: Nigel Farage, "The worst case scenario economically, is better. than where we are today" 2020: Boris Johnson, "Prosper nightly remains an extremely good description of life after January 1st" 2025: Bloomberg, "Brexit Hit to UK Economy Double Official estimate" National Bureau of Economic Research Study: ⬇️ GDP down...

159,098 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Nigel Farage claim: "Large scale migration into Britain where 50% of those who come will never work and live off the British state will make this country substantially poorer" Reality: According to Department for Work and Pensions and Home Office statistics (up to 2023), the majority of migrants of working age are employed, with employment rates for non-UK nationals often comparable to or higher than UK nationals (e.g., 75-80% for EU migrants vs. 76% for UK-born workers in 2022) The claim hinges on 50% of migrants being permanently unemployed and reliant on benefits. Evidence suggests this is unlikely For instance, a 2014 UCL study found that non-EEA migrants contributed more in taxes than they consumed in public services, while EEA migrants had an even stronger positive fiscal impact Migrants are often ineligible for many benefits (e.g., Universal Credit or public housing) until they meet residency or employment criteria, reducing the likelihood of mass dependency The UK faces an aging population, with a dependency ratio (non-working to working-age population) projected to rise. Migrants, who are often younger and of working age, can help balance this by contributing to the workforce and tax base The OBR (2023) projects that net migration of 200,000-300,000 annually helps sustain pension and healthcare systems The UK’s points-based immigration system (introduced post-Brexit) prioritizes skilled workers, reducing the likelihood of large-scale, non-working migration If 50% of migrants never work and rely on the state, it could indeed strain public finances and potentially make Britain poorer, especially in the short term, by increasing welfare costs and pressure on services However, this scenario is not supported by current evidence, as most migrants contribute economically through work and taxes. The overall impact depends on migration scale, composition (skilled vs. unskilled), and integration policies Historically, migration has been a net positive for the UK economy when managed effectively

Farrukh

48,527 views • 10 months ago

Brexit was meant to be a win. Instead, it turned into one of the biggest economic disasters in modern history. 1,800,000 jobs vanished. Trade with Europe collapsed. London's financial empire crumbled. Brexit didn’t free Britain. It broke it. But why? June 2016: 52% of UK voters chose to leave the European Union. The promise was simple: more control, more money, more independence. Politicians painted a picture of Britain freed from Brussels bureaucracy. By 2023, the numbers were devastating. 1,800,000 jobs lost directly because of Brexit. But this was just the beginning... January 1, 2021: The UK officially left the EU Single Market. Overnight, businesses faced: - New tariffs - Border checks - Regulatory red tape - Massive delays Trade that used to flow freely across Europe suddenly hit walls everywhere. London's financial sector took the biggest hit. For decades, London was THE gateway to European markets. Global banks used it as their European headquarters. Then Brexit changed the rules completely. Banks couldn't serve EU clients from London anymore. So they moved. Goldman Sachs relocated hundreds of jobs to Europe. Paris and Frankfurt started winning the business that London used to own. The UK's most valuable industry was bleeding out in real-time. By 2023, the UK economy was £140 billion smaller than if it had stayed in the Single Market. And the projections for the future were even worse: By 2035, economists project: - 3 million fewer jobs - 32% less investment - 5% lower exports - 16% lower imports - £311 billion smaller economy All compared to staying in the EU. Brexit fundamentally changed Britain's economic trajectory.... What do you think? Was it meant to fail from the beginning?

Zyan

21,219 views • 8 months ago

Donald Trump just claimed again that the US donated 350 Billion dollars to Ukraine. You are being lied to by your sitting President on the United States of America. Let’s break this down with the facts rather than these random numbers Donnie is trying to sell you after finishing his nap. Independent tracking by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimated that between January 24, 2022 and June 30, 2025, U.S committed aid to Ukraine amounted to about $134 billion, not $350 billion….it gets better. Already a $166 Billion dollar difference than what Trump claims. Please understand committed and allocated isn’t the same as what has actually been delivered. 56% ($74.9 billion USD) of all funds “allocated not supplied” were for weapons. HOWEVER the $74.9 of weapons (Allocated and not necessarily all provided) were independently evaluated and subsequently massively overvalued by the US Government. The True cost of lethal aid was predicted to cost around $18.3 billion even by United States weapons pricing. One reason: when equipment is drawn from existing U.S. inventories “drawdown”, the official accounting often uses replacement-cost valuations, rather than the original (or depreciated) cost. To put it plainly, if you give Ukraine one air defense system, you account for the cost of a brand new air defense system to take its place not for the cost of the 45 year old system that was handed over. Many of the weapons provided to Ukraine was soon to be destroyed by the US forces or decommissioned. ALSO it’s important to take note as we all know the American arms industry massively overvalues the cost of all system due to its industry. America prices its systems at anything from 30-100% higher than the cost of European equivalents with the same capabilities. The true value of these weapons could have been anything from $5.49 billion-$18.3 Billion. Even with a significantly lower number of this, Independent analysts suggested that a large share perhaps 60% or more of the nominal military-aid dollar amount may effectively stay within U.S. defense industry…..60%! Out of aid provided $54 Billions dollars was Financial aid consisting of grants, loans, budget support. Of the US $54.0 billion in U.S. financial-aid allocations for that period, about US $19.3 billion was provided as loans, while roughly US $29.7 billion was given as grants. 🚨🚨That means approximately 39–40% of the U.S. financial aid during that time was structured as loans or other repayable/concessional financing.🚨🚨 The US $3.4 Billion in Humanitarian aid. Here is another kicker. After everything I have just said. According to United states press briefings: the U.S. had only delivered around 83% of promised ammunition, about 67% of pledged air-defence systems, and roughly 60% of committed bombs, artillery rounds, other munitions. $5.49 billion-$18.3 Billion $29.7 billion $3.4 Billion That $350 Billion is looking more like it was 38.59- 51.4 billion to me Donnie. And it’s a funny number that. An estimated $30–60 billion dollars was spent by Americans allies fighting alongside the US after 9/11. This included Ukraine. We never once complained about this loss or the lives we lost. Absolutely shameful.

Bricktop_NAFO

106,500 views • 8 months ago