[Politics] Brexit

Lincoln Imp said:

Fair enough, although I'm not sure I understand the Spurs analogy. The way in which political parties are financed is a big old subject: there are arguments that there should be more taxpayer funding but this isn't the time to think about that. In the meantime, the money has to come from somewhere and many would say it is better that it comes from small donations from people in the street than vast cheques from unions and billionaires. That's my view anyway; I guess you disagree.

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

Well , the money was withdrawn as a direct result of Brexit and no replacement fund was forthcoming from the UK government. Make of that what you will. Maybe the Tory government will replace funding after Brexit. Maybe they won't. And there's the rub. Nobody knows and the Tories haven't clarified where they stand on the matter.

Click to expand...

cheshunt seagull said:

If the government could show that they recognise the funding gaps that will be created at a regional level then I might be re-assured but there is no evidence that they have actually given this any thought. There really is no reason why Johnson should not be aware of this situation as the GLA had an entire team allocating ERDF funds across London projects and he was more than happy to bask in the photo ops and glory when these projects were successful.

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

But ultimately it shouldn't be a Brussels quango who decides where yours and mine tax payers money is spent within the UK, that's down to a credible and accountable UK body that agrees a suitable criteria for application, it doesn't follow that this money is irreversibly withdrawn or that the EU has a better understanding on how to do it.

Although it seems reasonable to copy models of other countries that might be successful at dealing in such matters, you wouldn't expect another non EU country say Norway to distribute our tax money to areas within the UK even when they seem more successful than any other EU countries at dealing with wealth inequality, so for sake of argument why have you chosen to espouse the EU's virtues at doing it and not Norway.

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

They seem to say it will, I suspect at times it might be channelled differently, perhaps where government bodies feel it could be used more wisely, surely any government will be made accountable and the electorate can ultimately decide if any funding is appropriate in their view, seems reasonable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37060430

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/further-certainty-on-eu-funding-for-hundreds-of-british-projects

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

The Spurs analogy was a bit daft in that a few Spurs fans that I know seem to be so blinkered that it doesn't matter what happens they believe they are the best team.

I think the bigger point is that I find it astonishing that anyone would align themselves to a political party and then pay for the privilege to do so, which for many seems quite an extreme political position and perhaps shows why you are so vehemently pro something or anti something even when something doesn't support that view.

Personally I have all my politicians and political parties on notice, they deserve nothing more.

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

You could say a London based organisation should not be in charge of grants for business in the Nort East more rationally. The EU has the full picture and can see what relative strengths and weaknesses a particular area has by comparison to other areas.
I recall British advice to commonwealth countries with the right climate, seeking a cash crop, was the same, grow sugar cane, they all did and the price crashed, leaving those states unable to repay the loans they took from British banks to get setup.

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the UK itself is less able to identify areas of need within the UK than the EU, it is just anti Tory sentiment, for you it would be quite acceptable for the EU to run and appropriate funds for the NHS, education and defence on our behalf.

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

I did not say they were better at identifying the areas of need, but better at giving appropriate funds for appropriate projects, in those areas of need.

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

That Spurs fan analogy of yours seems to fit Brexiteers to me. No matter what economic damage it does, Britain will be better off.

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

That was more in respect of [MENTION=12947]Lincoln Imp[/MENTION] alignment and payment to a political party, which absolutely offers a clearer insight to his political mindset compared to say a poster that might not fully accept a set of forecast 15 years into the future of just 0.5% annual diiferentials, in fact you are doing it again citing economic damage where none currently exists.

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

I think if you compare us with our nearest economic similar in the EU, France, you can see economic damage in the form of stunted growth.

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

That was more in respect of [MENTION=12947]Lincoln Imp[/MENTION] alignment and payment to a political party, which absolutely offers a clearer insight to his political mindset compared to say a poster that might not fully accept a set of forecast 15 years into the future of just 0.5% annual diiferentials, in fact you are doing it again citing economic damage where none currently exists.

Click to expand...

DIFFBROOK said:

Exactly. I cannot for the life of me, see how opting out of Customs Union with a trading block on our doorstep can be seen as an intelligent thing to do?

Click to expand...

Ernest said:

Interesting how the updated impact reports say the areas that will be hardest hit financially by leaving the EU are the areas who most voted for leaving such as the North East. I wonder who the swivel eyed LOONS will blame then

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

Well , the money was withdrawn as a direct result of Brexit and no replacement fund was forthcoming from the UK government. Make of that what you will. Maybe the Tory government will replace funding after Brexit. Maybe they won't. And there's the rub. Nobody knows and the Tories haven't clarified where they stand on the matter.

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

because it restricts the ability to expand into other, higher growing markets? lets be rational for a minute, accept that there may be a cost to the trade with the rest of EU, can you not at least see that the potential upside is there in trade with rest of world? if you've saturated trade in one market where there's little growth, doesnt it make sense to look elsewhere for new markets where there is higher growth? if it wasnt for the protectionism and narrow insular views on the continent they'd be doing the same, open up to free trade.

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

So they are better and should be encouraged to giving our money on their terms to those areas of the UK which we have identified as areas of need, it's clearly anti Tory claptrap just cherry picking a political model from somewhere else to supersede our own elected government of which you don't agree.

Click to expand...

DIFFBROOK said:

But having extra costs with EU trade, will mean trade with the EU will reduce (from what you call saturated point - which actually I do not agree with - we should be exporting much more to the EU...not just services). If our trade with EU reduces, we will have to work even harder to overcome this with free trade deals with China. India, USA......whose current President has already withdrawn from deals because he thinks they are unfair....no guessing on the type of one way deal he will want with us. These deals take some time to do, so with Hard Brexit, we will rely on WO tariffs for quite some time. That will be quite some drag on our economy during that period. After that, lets hope these other deals with the rest of the world more than make up for the damage caused.

Click to expand...