0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: wilts rover on January 12, 2024, 09:46:21 pmQuote from: drfchound on January 11, 2024, 08:13:25 pmWhat about remainers who say the same thing wilts.Is that more acceptable.What about them hound? Do you think that is more acceptable?Shall we see if you have ever criticised Remainers for saying anything? And Brexiteers for the same thing? For balance.Wilts, I never thought you would get like Syd and answer a question with a question.However, do what you have to do.
Quote from: drfchound on January 11, 2024, 08:13:25 pmWhat about remainers who say the same thing wilts.Is that more acceptable.What about them hound? Do you think that is more acceptable?Shall we see if you have ever criticised Remainers for saying anything? And Brexiteers for the same thing? For balance.
What about remainers who say the same thing wilts.Is that more acceptable.
Quote from: drfchound on January 12, 2024, 09:49:56 pmQuote from: wilts rover on January 12, 2024, 09:46:21 pmQuote from: drfchound on January 11, 2024, 08:13:25 pmWhat about remainers who say the same thing wilts.Is that more acceptable.What about them hound? Do you think that is more acceptable?Shall we see if you have ever criticised Remainers for saying anything? And Brexiteers for the same thing? For balance.Wilts, I never thought you would get like Syd and answer a question with a question.However, do what you have to do.I was just following your lead hound.
Continuing on a theme ........Central government spend per head on Public TransportGreater Manchester: ₤33West Yorkshire: ₤34 West Midlands: ₤30South Yorkshire: ₤4.50https://www.facebook.com/MayorRos/
You are so intuitive.
Yapping away at my heels.
Quote from: Iberian Red on January 13, 2024, 08:24:28 pm Yapping away at my heels. Go away, you are boring everyone.Stop spoiling threads for people.
The EU's impact on wealth distribution through tax/public spending in the UK was minimal. Anybody who voted Remain in 2016 thinking different was hopelessly misguided.This was through no fault of the EU itself. It's certainly true the organization had a policy of distributing wealth from richer to poorer areas.The EU simply didn't have the financial clout to make a significant difference in this area.Total EU public expenditure in the UK in 2014-5 (taken as the last full year before the Brexit campaign but any year would do) was £4.3bn of which £3.1bn was farming subsidies. Leaving just £1.2bn on capital/social projects. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819f7ce5274a2e87dbea12/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdfCompare this to the £734.4bn spent by the UK central Government alone (excl Local Government) in the same year.Of the £1.2bn EU non-agricultural spend roughly £82m was spent in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Or £15.50 per person.www.academia.edu/36638033/UK_regions_and_European_structural_and_investment_funds.For comparison the Sheffield Supertram renewal mentioned above is expected to cost c. £600m alone.It's a fallacy that the EU significantly funded major infrastructure projects in Doncaster or any other part of the UK. It made relatively small (but not unwelcome) contributions to such projects.Because that was all it could afford to do.
Branton.How much did the EU put into South Yorkshire under Objective One funding?How much were they going to put in when we had, under this Govt, sunk again to levels where we were eligible for similar funding?Get those figures and we can have a sensible discussion, rather than picking a year when that didn't apply and aggregating across the whole country.
Interesting Branton, you make some good points but your comment imho is missing some necessary conclusions so that it addresses the thrust of the topic. Two questions come to mind.Is Britain at this point in time in a better financial position due to Brexit?Is South Yorkshire at this point in time in a better financial Position due to Brexit?
Quote from: Branton Red on January 13, 2024, 09:31:37 pmThe EU's impact on wealth distribution through tax/public spending in the UK was minimal. Anybody who voted Remain in 2016 thinking different was hopelessly misguided.This was through no fault of the EU itself. It's certainly true the organization had a policy of distributing wealth from richer to poorer areas.The EU simply didn't have the financial clout to make a significant difference in this area.Total EU public expenditure in the UK in 2014-5 (taken as the last full year before the Brexit campaign but any year would do) was £4.3bn of which £3.1bn was farming subsidies. Leaving just £1.2bn on capital/social projects. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819f7ce5274a2e87dbea12/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdfCompare this to the £734.4bn spent by the UK central Government alone (excl Local Government) in the same year.Of the £1.2bn EU non-agricultural spend roughly £82m was spent in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Or £15.50 per person.www.academia.edu/36638033/UK_regions_and_European_structural_and_investment_funds.For comparison the Sheffield Supertram renewal mentioned above is expected to cost c. £600m alone.It's a fallacy that the EU significantly funded major infrastructure projects in Doncaster or any other part of the UK. It made relatively small (but not unwelcome) contributions to such projects.Because that was all it could afford to do.Branton.How much did the EU put into South Yorkshire under Objective One funding?How much were they going to put in when we had, under this Govt, sunk again to levels where we were eligible for similar funding?Get those figures and we can have a sensible discussion, rather than picking a year when that didn't apply and aggregating across the whole country.
Branton.1) Yes I know Objective 1 status ended for SY 17 years ago. I also know you chose to pluck a figure from 10 years ago. Do you have the judge's say on where the cut off is?2) I also know that, for reasons best know to yourself, you referred to total UK funding from the EU, when I was talking specifically about SY funding. 3) You are factually wrong about the reason O1 status ended for SY in 2007. It was nothing to do with EU average GDP being diluted by poorer accession states. After 7 years of O1 status, SY's GDP had risen to above 75% of the average of the EU15 states. We would have lost O1 status even if the accession states hadn't joined. Why is an indication of just how successful O1 status was for SY.4) You ask what evidence I have that we were going back to O1 status. (Note: I didn't say that, because O1 as such no longer exists.) Of course, there's no official word on this from the EU, because we'd signalled our intention to leave the EU when the new funding decisions kicked in from 2021. Analysis by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions is the only one I'm aware of that has looked at the likely EU income for UK regions from 2021, had we not left. It concluded that SY was likely to fall below the level of 75% of EU average GDP, and was therefore likely to be eligible for the highest investment levels from the EU Cohesion Fund (effectively O1 status) from 2021-2027.
From The Star:PoliticsGovernment confirms £570 million to renew Sheffield’s beloved Supertram services beyond 2024Government has finally confirmed a £570 million package to renew Supertram services in South Yorkshire beyond 2024.
If I'd thought there was any prospect whatsoever of a Tory Govt replacing that money with the money we saved from Leaving (sic) I'd be less angry about this.
By the looks of the demonstrations by Farmers in Germany, Holland, and France there will be a few British farmers glad we have left the old boys club. According to France 24 news this morning an average of 125 French farmers a year over the last few years have committed suicide. Well done the EU, and no wonder they are having massive demonstrations on their hands, is this the start of the house of cards falling down big time?