Eh? That question makes no sense. I'm merely embarrassed that these people are given a platform to spout their guff.
We'll reduce our carbon footprint with a good 'ole trade deal with Donald I suppose. I'm all for eating as ethically and as environmentally friendly as possible but if as she says 'we've never had it so good' it's a choice people aren't making. Could British producers really keep up with demand? would people accept a reduction in the variety of Apple's available to them? We are hideously wasteful when it comes to food in this country as well. I really hope she doesn't think Yorkshire tea is grown in Yorkshire.
Add up the other imports you cherry picking ****y monkey. There is not the capacity in the U.K. currently to meet the UK’s food demands I would love it if the U.K. could get back to what this twat believes but it is not true unless a radical cultural approach . We have come to expect what we are now ... sorry but I have no belief we will turn anything ... we are not Germany we do not have the skill set or desire to change the U.K. Yes of course I would support anything U.K. if there was substance to it but it would evolve breaking down what the majority of Anglo Saxons have grown to become If you believe this then good on you but it’s fluff imo .
A huge number of apple and pear orchards have been destroyed since the 1960's because we insisted on importing Golden Delicious from France after a huge marketing campaign, and later Pink Perfection from Australia (chemically treated and covered in wax). Far from variety in supermarkets, the choice was incredibly limited and dull. We need to start planting again - there are some brilliant old English varieties out there. And the public need to acclimatise to the fact that if a carrot isn't straight or an apple has slight blemishes, it's still edible. Indeed, I'd far rather have a blemished apple that hasn't had carcinogenic insecticide sprayed over it at regular intervals Agree about the country being hideously wasteful. This is a case of education, and dropping "best before" labels
Brexit: Parliament can't stop no deal, says minister please log in to view this image Image copyright PA Image caption Matt Hancock says he has changed his mind because "the facts have changed" Parliament can no longer block a no-deal Brexit, the health secretary has said. During his bid for the Tory leadership, Matt Hancock said no deal was "not an available choice" to the next PM, as MPs "will never allow it to happen". He told the BBC he had now changed his mind because they had a chance to block it in a series of votes last month, but failed to muster the numbers. Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would do all it could to stop no deal. But Downing Street insisted the UK would be leaving on 31 October "whatever the circumstances", whether a deal had been agreed with the EU or not. "Politicians cannot choose which votes to respect. They promised to respect the referendum result and we must do," No 10 said. Asked whether Mr Johnson would respect the outcome of votes in Parliament - including a vote of no confidence in his government - the spokesman refused to be drawn, calling it a "hypothetical" question. 'Facts change' MPs have repeatedly rejected the agreement Theresa May reached with Brussels, but have so far failed to coalesce around an alternative. In a no-deal scenario, the UK would immediately leave the EU with no agreement about the "divorce" process, overnight exiting the single market and customs union - arrangements designed to help facilitate trade. Opponents say it would damage the economy and lead to border posts between Northern Ireland and the Republic - but other politicians argue any disruption could be quickly overcome. No-deal Brexit: What you need to know Extra £2.1bn for no-deal Brexit planning 10 ways a no-deal Brexit could affect you On 12 June, the Commons rejected a motion tabled by Jeremy Corbyn, which would have allowed MPs to take control of the parliamentary timetable in the autumn to stop no deal going through. Mr Hancock told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was that vote which prompted him to change his mind. "I thought that would go through and in fact, the government won by 11," he said. "I now don't think it can (stop no-deal). I thought that it could and the votes went differently to what I anticipated. When the facts change, sometimes even as a politician you have to change your mind." Mr Hancock's comments echo a warning reportedly made by the prime minister's senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, that MPs have left it too late to stop no deal. 'Untested' But Dominic Grieve, one of the most prominent pro-European Conservative MPs, told the BBC Mr Cummings was a "master of misinformation", and there were a number of options still left for MPs wanting to block no deal. They include bringing down the government, via a vote of no confidence, and setting up a new government in its place, he said. If Mr Johnson loses a vote of no confidence and it becomes clear that another potential prime minister could command the confidence of the Commons, the convention is that he would be obliged to resign. However, Catherine Haddon, from the Institute for Government think tank, said this was "untested territory", adding: "He could say: 'No, I'm staying as prime minister and we're having a general election.'" The date of an election is set by royal proclamation on the advice of the prime minister, so he could choose a date after 31 October and press on with Brexit in the meantime. Speaking on a visit to Whaley Bridge to see efforts being made to shore up a damaged dam, Mr Corbyn said Labour would "do everything to stop no deal, including a no confidence vote at the appropriate, very early, time to do it". He said Mr Johnson appeared to be "trying to slip no deal through, slip past Parliament and slip past the British people", and that was "not acceptable".
"Boris Johnson and his millionaire friends" Milne off camera "Jez, you're a millionaire, I'm a millionaire, all our friends are millionaires, Andrew lives in a ****ing castle, for Stalin's sake!" "OK, I'll redo it and post it few days later, nobody will notice." please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
Where do you get this bullsh1t Kiwi?? Ireland's current government debt is 215 billion euros or 64% of GDP. It was 112% debt to GDP in 2012. The UK's government debt is 1.78 trillion Pounds or 85% of GDP.
I have no idea who makes these numbers up fingie Yes, Ireland has the highest debt per capita of any country in the euro zone. We owe €42,800 per head, more than second-placed Belgium (€40,048) and far more than either Italy (€37,849); Greece (€30,417) or Spain (€25,081). And when you look outside of the euro zone, we’re not too hot either, just lagging the US (€54,000 ) and Japan (€83,000).
Here's ours New Zealand: Evolution of debt Date Debt Debt (%GDP) Debt Per Capita 2017 63,350 31.61% 13,078$ 2016 62,060 33.53% 13,074$ 2015 60,282 34.37% 12,972$ 2014 68,388 34.25% 15,014$ 2013 64,700 34.60% 14,455$ 2012 62,499 35.72% 14,121$ 2011 57,994 34.69% 13,183$ 2010 43,100 29.69% 9,854$ 2009 29,653 24.32% 6,845$ 2008 25,709 18.98% 6,007$ 2007 21,992 16.30%
Yes Kiwi, I wouldn't dispute those figures. Ireland also has one of the highest GDP's in the eurozone so our ability to repay what we owe is greater. The ability to pay is how the debt to GDP ratio is worked out. Our debt to GDP ratio is 64% currently while the UK's is almost 86% or 1.78 trillion Pounds. That failed to get a mention in your post. I wonder why????
Stop wondering You asked about the Irish figures That's what I looked up Found it on the phone whilst watching TV
