正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

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...

implausibleblog's profile picture

Farrukh

125,765 subscribers

159,098 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治财经
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Left: Fasial Islam, "The budget hole the Treasury are trying to bridge with tax rises is £40 billion a year." Right: "Brexit costs the government £40 billion a year in lost tax revenue" A remarkable coincidence that the budget hole Labour have found equates to the loss in tax revenues from trade with the EU caused by Brexit If Labour joined the EU Single Market, this problem goes away But because Labour will keep the UK out of the EU Single Market, we either have tax rises or fewer services The only third option is for Labour to borrow to invest, which wouldn't be a bad idea. But any reduction in public services is squarely down to Brexit In 2016, Boris Johnson and the Brexiters blamed the EU for a lack of public services in the UK. How ironic that now without the EU Single Market we either raise taxes, or borrow further, to fund public services What a shambles
0:13

Left: Fasial Islam, "The budget hole the Treasury are trying to bridge with tax rises is £40 billion a year." Right: "Brexit costs the government £40 billion a year in lost tax revenue" A remarkable coincidence that the budget hole Labour have found equates to the loss in tax revenues from trade with the EU caused by Brexit If Labour joined the EU Single Market, this problem goes away But because Labour will keep the UK out of the EU Single Market, we either have tax rises or fewer services The only third option is for Labour to borrow to invest, which wouldn't be a bad idea. But any reduction in public services is squarely down to Brexit In 2016, Boris Johnson and the Brexiters blamed the EU for a lack of public services in the UK. How ironic that now without the EU Single Market we either raise taxes, or borrow further, to fund public services What a shambles

Farrukh

96,509 次观看 • 1 年前

2016: Nigel Farage, "The worst case scenario (of Brexit) is better off than where we are today" 2024: Nigel Farage laughs when Liz Saville-Roberts points out that so far Brexit has cost the UK over £140 billion How many lives have been ruined, businesses lost, opportunities diminished, because of divisive populism? Brexit was and will continue to be a disaster. Our next step should be returning to the EU Single Market and Customs Union, before fully rejoining the EU as an equal member, shaping the future of Europe
0:15

2016: Nigel Farage, "The worst case scenario (of Brexit) is better off than where we are today" 2024: Nigel Farage laughs when Liz Saville-Roberts points out that so far Brexit has cost the UK over £140 billion How many lives have been ruined, businesses lost, opportunities diminished, because of divisive populism? Brexit was and will continue to be a disaster. Our next step should be returning to the EU Single Market and Customs Union, before fully rejoining the EU as an equal member, shaping the future of Europe

Farrukh

1,131,400 次观看 • 2 年前

Stephen Flynn, "When Nigel Farage tells you all that migrants are making you poorer and they're the problem, don't believe him" "Do you want to know the biggest problem facing the UK ecnomy right now? His pet project of Brexit. £40 billion of taxes lost every year because we left the EU" Brexit has made us so poor that neither Labour nor the Conservatives can afford to pay for public services
0:17

Stephen Flynn, "When Nigel Farage tells you all that migrants are making you poorer and they're the problem, don't believe him" "Do you want to know the biggest problem facing the UK ecnomy right now? His pet project of Brexit. £40 billion of taxes lost every year because we left the EU" Brexit has made us so poor that neither Labour nor the Conservatives can afford to pay for public services

Farrukh

1,421,511 次观看 • 2 年前

Sian Berry, "We can't ignore the disaster of Brexit" Jacob Rees Mogg, "Brexit was wonderful" Sian Berry, "I know you're going to say that but the facts do speak for themselves" Jacob Rees Mogg, "Free trade deal with Australia, with New Zealand, with the United States, it's freed up our economy hugely" Sian Berry, "Versus the enormous market on our doorstep, the EU" Jacob Rees Mogg, "We still trade with the EU, we have a deal with them" £0.8 billion - New Zealand deal £2.3 billion - Australia deal £3.4 billion - US deal ----- £6.5 billion - in Brexit deals £140 billion - lost in trade with the EU every year Ress Mogg celebrating £6.5 billion, while costing the UK economy £140 billion a year Brexit is a disaster Shame on Labour for continuing the disaster with their nonsensical 'make Brexit work'
0:18

Sian Berry, "We can't ignore the disaster of Brexit" Jacob Rees Mogg, "Brexit was wonderful" Sian Berry, "I know you're going to say that but the facts do speak for themselves" Jacob Rees Mogg, "Free trade deal with Australia, with New Zealand, with the United States, it's freed up our economy hugely" Sian Berry, "Versus the enormous market on our doorstep, the EU" Jacob Rees Mogg, "We still trade with the EU, we have a deal with them" £0.8 billion - New Zealand deal £2.3 billion - Australia deal £3.4 billion - US deal ----- £6.5 billion - in Brexit deals £140 billion - lost in trade with the EU every year Ress Mogg celebrating £6.5 billion, while costing the UK economy £140 billion a year Brexit is a disaster Shame on Labour for continuing the disaster with their nonsensical 'make Brexit work'

Farrukh

350,620 次观看 • 11 个月前

10 years ago, after narrowly winning the referendum, Boris Johnson confessed, "We didn't have a plan for what to do next" "We didn't think it was our job to have a plan" 10 years later, Brexit continues to be a disaster How much more damage to our economy, may many more billions lost, how many more public services underfunded, till the UK get's a political leader who is honest with the public about the damage caused by Brexit and takes the UK back into the EU?
0:19

10 years ago, after narrowly winning the referendum, Boris Johnson confessed, "We didn't have a plan for what to do next" "We didn't think it was our job to have a plan" 10 years later, Brexit continues to be a disaster How much more damage to our economy, may many more billions lost, how many more public services underfunded, till the UK get's a political leader who is honest with the public about the damage caused by Brexit and takes the UK back into the EU?

Farrukh

66,289 次观看 • 1 个月前

Kemi Badenoch, "Discuss discuss discuss, chat chat chat, he has no plans what-so-ever" "No plans what-so-ever for building on the special relationship" "He needs to realise that we in this country rely on our single biggest trade partner" In 2023, the UK exported £356 billion of goods to the EU In 2023, the UK exported £191.5 billion of goods to the US Surely the EU is our biggest trade partner, which is why erecting barriers with the EU with Brexit is a scandal
0:17

Kemi Badenoch, "Discuss discuss discuss, chat chat chat, he has no plans what-so-ever" "No plans what-so-ever for building on the special relationship" "He needs to realise that we in this country rely on our single biggest trade partner" In 2023, the UK exported £356 billion of goods to the EU In 2023, the UK exported £191.5 billion of goods to the US Surely the EU is our biggest trade partner, which is why erecting barriers with the EU with Brexit is a scandal

Farrukh

193,602 次观看 • 1 年前

Angela Eagle, "We will get out of hotels, with a sustainable solution, by the end of this parliament" In 2016 there were 1,500 hotel rooms allocated to asylum seekers By 2025 end of June, there were 32,059 asylum seekers in hotel rooms Brexit saw an end to the UK's ability to return asylum seekers to the first country they arrived at within the EU International law lets an asylum seeker seek asylum anywhere, but the EU had a system which said e.g. if an asylum seeker enters first into Italy then comes to the UK, the UK can legally return them directly to Italy Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage then sold to us Brexit under the banner of take back control, but what it did was take us outside the EU and remove our right to return an asylum seeker to the first EU country they arrived in Brexit literally made it more difficult for us to do what the populist far right who keep saying return them to the first safe country they reached, want us to do
0:12

Angela Eagle, "We will get out of hotels, with a sustainable solution, by the end of this parliament" In 2016 there were 1,500 hotel rooms allocated to asylum seekers By 2025 end of June, there were 32,059 asylum seekers in hotel rooms Brexit saw an end to the UK's ability to return asylum seekers to the first country they arrived at within the EU International law lets an asylum seeker seek asylum anywhere, but the EU had a system which said e.g. if an asylum seeker enters first into Italy then comes to the UK, the UK can legally return them directly to Italy Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage then sold to us Brexit under the banner of take back control, but what it did was take us outside the EU and remove our right to return an asylum seeker to the first EU country they arrived in Brexit literally made it more difficult for us to do what the populist far right who keep saying return them to the first safe country they reached, want us to do

Farrukh

173,255 次观看 • 11 个月前

Left: Rachel Reeves, "A £22 billion black hole in the public finances" Right: Steve Bray asking the question that so far no journalist has asked, "What about that £40 billion black hole of Brexit" 4th July - Tory wipe Out 👏 It's perfectly possible to be thankful that we finally have a competent adult as Chancellor, as well as keep making the point that if we want to supercharge growth in the UK, the best way to do that is to rejoin the EU Single Market It's inevitable, the question is how many years of lost trade and tax revenue before we do so
0:15

Left: Rachel Reeves, "A £22 billion black hole in the public finances" Right: Steve Bray asking the question that so far no journalist has asked, "What about that £40 billion black hole of Brexit" 4th July - Tory wipe Out 👏 It's perfectly possible to be thankful that we finally have a competent adult as Chancellor, as well as keep making the point that if we want to supercharge growth in the UK, the best way to do that is to rejoin the EU Single Market It's inevitable, the question is how many years of lost trade and tax revenue before we do so

Farrukh

584,542 次观看 • 2 年前

If you watch the debate between Sunak and Starmer tonight, remember what David Cameron said in 2016, "There is no expert that is saying we would make a saving from leaving the EU" "The only black hole will be in our public finances, because we'd have a smaller economy, and we'd have lower tax receipts. So we'd either have to cut spending or increase taxes to make up for the fact" The IFS say that both the Conservatives and Labour have an £18 billion black hole in our public finances in their manifestos Brexit has failed, and is damaging our economy, making us poorer. The easiest way to plug that hole is to rejoin the EU Single Market, increase our tax receipts; and we'll also have money to invest in our NHS and other public services
0:19

If you watch the debate between Sunak and Starmer tonight, remember what David Cameron said in 2016, "There is no expert that is saying we would make a saving from leaving the EU" "The only black hole will be in our public finances, because we'd have a smaller economy, and we'd have lower tax receipts. So we'd either have to cut spending or increase taxes to make up for the fact" The IFS say that both the Conservatives and Labour have an £18 billion black hole in our public finances in their manifestos Brexit has failed, and is damaging our economy, making us poorer. The easiest way to plug that hole is to rejoin the EU Single Market, increase our tax receipts; and we'll also have money to invest in our NHS and other public services

Farrukh

878,100 次观看 • 2 年前

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
0:13

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 次观看 • 11 个月前

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?
0:10

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 次观看 • 8 个月前

2025: Nigel Farage, "We've never ever ever suggested anything other than the NHS should be free" 2012: Nigel Farage, "We need to think about healthcare very very differently. We're going to have to move to an insurance based system of healthcare" And don't forget, in 2016 Farage who told us that the worst case scenario of Brexit would be better off than when we were in the EU - we are of course much worse off today Feel free to vote for Farage and Reform if you believe he/they have a track record you can be proud of 👍
0:13

2025: Nigel Farage, "We've never ever ever suggested anything other than the NHS should be free" 2012: Nigel Farage, "We need to think about healthcare very very differently. We're going to have to move to an insurance based system of healthcare" And don't forget, in 2016 Farage who told us that the worst case scenario of Brexit would be better off than when we were in the EU - we are of course much worse off today Feel free to vote for Farage and Reform if you believe he/they have a track record you can be proud of 👍

Farrukh

213,220 次观看 • 1 年前

Apple has just launched a fresh legal fight against a secret UK government order that demands access to encrypted iCloud backups. Here is the part most people missed. Rather than build the backdoor the UK asked for, Apple switched off its strongest encryption, called Advanced Data Protection, for British users. So people in the UK no longer have the option where not even Apple can see their data. Not because of a hack, but because their government demanded a key. The whole case is secret by law. Neither side is even allowed to confirm the order exists. Apple has said only that it has never built a backdoor into anything, and it never will.
0:13

Apple has just launched a fresh legal fight against a secret UK government order that demands access to encrypted iCloud backups. Here is the part most people missed. Rather than build the backdoor the UK asked for, Apple switched off its strongest encryption, called Advanced Data Protection, for British users. So people in the UK no longer have the option where not even Apple can see their data. Not because of a hack, but because their government demanded a key. The whole case is secret by law. Neither side is even allowed to confirm the order exists. Apple has said only that it has never built a backdoor into anything, and it never will.

Anonymous

56,850 次观看 • 12 天前

‼️🇫🇷🇬🇧 A French push to exclude the United Kingdom from a major European Union defense fund has backfired, ultimately costing Paris access to cheap loans for joint Franco-British weapons projects. France had requested €16.2 billion from the €150 billion "Safe" rearmament fund, but the European Commission approved only €15.1 billion. This shortfall occurred because the UK-linked projects failed to meet the strict eligibility criteria that France itself had previously championed. Commenting on the situation, a senior EU diplomat noted that the episode highlights the critical need to balance political ambition with practical realities. This outcome underscores the self-defeating nature of rigid protectionism within European defense procurement, demonstrating how geopolitical exclusion can directly harm the strategic and financial interests of those enforcing it. By prioritizing the exclusion of a post-Brexit UK, France inadvertently penalized its own defense sector, highlighting that effective European rearmament will require more pragmatic, cross-border cooperation rather than politically driven bureaucratic barriers.
0:16

‼️🇫🇷🇬🇧 A French push to exclude the United Kingdom from a major European Union defense fund has backfired, ultimately costing Paris access to cheap loans for joint Franco-British weapons projects. France had requested €16.2 billion from the €150 billion "Safe" rearmament fund, but the European Commission approved only €15.1 billion. This shortfall occurred because the UK-linked projects failed to meet the strict eligibility criteria that France itself had previously championed. Commenting on the situation, a senior EU diplomat noted that the episode highlights the critical need to balance political ambition with practical realities. This outcome underscores the self-defeating nature of rigid protectionism within European defense procurement, demonstrating how geopolitical exclusion can directly harm the strategic and financial interests of those enforcing it. By prioritizing the exclusion of a post-Brexit UK, France inadvertently penalized its own defense sector, highlighting that effective European rearmament will require more pragmatic, cross-border cooperation rather than politically driven bureaucratic barriers.

Visioner

39,149 次观看 • 1 个月前

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.
0:14

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 次观看 • 8 个月前

Reform UK’s Neil Stevens (Neil Stevens - Reform UK Devon County Councillor) seems to be putting words in former Reform UK councillors mouths, and it’s a legal issue. If Reform UK were consistent, they would expel Neil for this. Dryden Road in Exeter was closed to motorists permanently in 2022, to try to reduce traffic and create a safer cycling route. On his YouTube podcast, Stevens stated that Councillors Ed Hill and Angi Nash “will always support” reopening Dryden Road. Neither of the two councillors he spoke for were present on his podcast or had authorised him to speak for them. Both have since issued statements. It’s important to note that Reform UK expelled Ed Hill earlier this year on the grounds that he had “used other councillors’ names without permission.” Will Reform expel Neil Stevens? There is a legal issue here - predetermination. A councillor openly saying on camera that another “will always support” a specific outcome means they cannot lawfully take part in a decision on it in the council chamber. And that’s what Neil Stevens has done with two councillors.
0:13

Reform UK’s Neil Stevens (Neil Stevens - Reform UK Devon County Councillor) seems to be putting words in former Reform UK councillors mouths, and it’s a legal issue. If Reform UK were consistent, they would expel Neil for this. Dryden Road in Exeter was closed to motorists permanently in 2022, to try to reduce traffic and create a safer cycling route. On his YouTube podcast, Stevens stated that Councillors Ed Hill and Angi Nash “will always support” reopening Dryden Road. Neither of the two councillors he spoke for were present on his podcast or had authorised him to speak for them. Both have since issued statements. It’s important to note that Reform UK expelled Ed Hill earlier this year on the grounds that he had “used other councillors’ names without permission.” Will Reform expel Neil Stevens? There is a legal issue here - predetermination. A councillor openly saying on camera that another “will always support” a specific outcome means they cannot lawfully take part in a decision on it in the council chamber. And that’s what Neil Stevens has done with two councillors.

Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧

14,117 次观看 • 9 个月前