Brexit is the best thing that ever happened to Britain

[wilts rover]

What 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.

[drfchound]

What 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.

Nice one. 

[SydneyRover]

Continuing on a theme ........

Central government spend per head on Public Transport

Greater Manchester: ₤33

West Yorkshire: ₤34   

West Midlands: ₤30

South Yorkshire: ₤4.50

https://www.facebook.com/MayorRos/

[Sprotyrover]

Continuing on a theme ........

Central government spend per head on Public Transport

Greater Manchester: ₤33

West Yorkshire: ₤34   

West Midlands: ₤30

South Yorkshire: ₤4.50

https://www.facebook.com/MayorRos/

Some good examples there Syd, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabim are clearly better scroungers
 than Oliviver Coppout !

[Sprotyrover]

Our North is clearly your South Syd, get some Co Enzyme Q10 tabs taken

[drfchound]

Continuing on a theme ........

Central government spend per head on Public Transport

Greater Manchester: ₤33

West Yorkshire: ₤34   

West Midlands: ₤30

South Yorkshire: ₤4.50

https://www.facebook.com/MayorRos/

The same Ros Jones who has agreed to give several millions of pounds of Doncaster tax payers money to support the failing Sheffield Supertram system, despite saying in 2018 that this wouldn’t happen.

[Iberian Red]

There's another thread on this that you started.

[drfchound]

You are so intuitive.

[Iberian Red]

You are so intuitive.

You are stalking me. Weird!!

[Iberian Red]

 


 

Yapping away at my heels.
 

[drfchound]

 

Yapping away at my heels.
 

Go away, you are boring everyone.
Stop spoiling threads for people. 

[Iberian Red]

 

Yapping away at my heels.
 

Go away, you are boring everyone.
Stop spoiling threads for people. 

Can you not see the hypocrisy of what you say and write.

Don't be so patronising and speak for everyone apart from your  little gang.

You haven't exactly set the forum alight with interesting threads or posts have you? No,you've had numerous posters say how petty you are,or have refused to answer/blocked you
 Does that not tell you something?

It really should.

[Branton Red]

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.pdf

Compare 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.

[Sprotyrover]

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.pdf

Compare 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.

And if any of our ‘wet lettuce liberal lefty ‘ members think we that had we remained, we would have been even getting a meagre proportion of those measly
handouts they are severely deluded!

[SydneyRover]

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.pdf

Compare 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.

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.pdf

Compare 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 Red]

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.

South Yorkshire lost Objective One funding in 2006. 17 years ago! At the end of that particular funding period.

It was no longer considered to be one of the poorest regions in the EU due to accession around that time of much of Eastern Europe.

Unless you can show compelling evidence (and good luck!), as opposed to baseless conjecture, that SY is likely to fall back into the Objective One program your point is irrelevant.

Or you could engage with the factual and relevant data in my prior post and have a have a sensible discussion.

[Branton Red]

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?

Sydney - Thanks. I was replying to a specific point on EU wealth distribution through tax/spend.

Overall I believe that the impact of Brexit has been incredibly mild economically as I've explained with data previously www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=288804.0.

This ties into my expectations back in 2016.

I don't have any reason to believe that this would be any different in South Yorkshire.

With respect, knowing you're a keen Europhile, I remain baffled as to what the ongoing fuss over the decision is about.

[Sprotyrover]

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.pdf

Compare 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.

I think you are delusional Billy, living in the past even, back in 2001, I had to attend a meeting at the Ivanho Centre in Conaby the local Labour Council had secured some funding, and I sat there listening to them spouting off about how Conisborough ward was one of the most deprived Wards in the UK, I sat there pissing myself laughing as I had an intimate knowledge of the Ward which included all those posh areas south of Sheffield Road and the Area around the Castle, I even recall how the council had built those shitty flats near the Castle to promote poverty, unfortunately all that creative accounting used by Labour just doesn’t ring true,anymore! you can see what the Ward is all about on Google.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Branton Red]

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.

Billy

1) I picked out 2014-5. But this was the 1st year of the EU's 7 year funding round and so the analysis applies pretty much equally right up to 2020 when we left the EU - I can't get any more recent than that.

2) No I also quite clearly and specifically stated how much non-agricultural monies would be received by the Yorkshire and the Humber region (c. £82m) - SY is not treated as a separate region under the EU's funding formula - SY obviously would have got a share of this c. £82m per annum every 7 years up to 2020

3) Please can you provide a link to the report you reference including an indication of how much financially this could have meant for SY. You need to put some meat on the bones of your argument. Ta.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Certainly Branton.
https://cpmr.org/wpdm-package/uk-allocation-for-cohesion-policy-for-post2020/?wpdmdl=20524&ind=1550570009760


They could only estimate the figures of course, but they reckoned SY would have been in for >€700m over 7 years. ( >€500 per person, with a population of about 1.4m.) (Note. I had incorrectly said the figure was much higher previously, because I'd read a media report that quoted this as €700m per year. That's ridiculously high with hindsight - something like 2-3% of the entire GDP of SY.)

If this was correct, it would have been similar in magnitude to the O1 funding we got in 2000-06, which subsidised the Frenchgate Centre, the airport, the rail port, the AMRC in Catcliffe and (to quote a review by the LSE) "a vast number of development projects".

And before you compare this funding to the cost of Supertram (which will be amortized over the thick end of half a century anyway), remember the point of much of the O1 money is to act as leverage for private sector investment. Projects which could tap into O1 funds were much more likely to attract private sector interest. Which is why it was so successful back in the early 00s.

All academic now anyway. SY took their lead from Farage and Rees Mogg and Johnson and told the taxpayers of Stockholm and Milan that we weren't interested.

[Branton Red]

Thanks for that Billy. Interesting. (On a side note the graph on page 5 should be a source of great national shame).

So instead of SY taking a share of c. £82m from the Yorkshire and Humber pot in 2014-2020 per year. (£16 per person per year)

In 2021-2027 South Yorkshire would potentially have received c. £86m per year alone. (£64 per person per year).

So a quadrupling of funding in effect for South Yorkshire.

Of course that would have been beneficial and I'm certainly wasn't critiquing the EU's policy on wealth distribution in this area - just their financial clout.

However in capital expenditure terms it's still not massive (I won't mention the cost of Supertram alone again - but the point still stands) - though not something to dismiss as lightly as the £16 per head received in 2014-20.

(Most capital spend is amortised over the long term - that's just an accounting treatment and largely irrelevant to the impact on economic growth. What's important is the benefit of the project on increased commerce and the impact of the cash paid to builders etc producing the product then swishing around the economy promoting spend and further growth).

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

Yep, the increase would have been about 4 fold. That's pretty much what the mark up was when SY went into O1 in 2000, so that confirms your numbers.

Whether it's massive or not really depends on how effectively it would have been used I guess. I don't know how much investment goes into SY per year, but I'd have thought that €100m of free money chucked into the mix would inevitably mean the difference between many projects being viable or not. So the way to see that funding, I'd have thought, is not the amount in isolation, but what it leverages.

And it's then what that leads to. I'll confess, I have an interest here. When I set up my micro SME, we very nearly went under in the first 18 months. The difference was a £25k project that came from O1 funding. We never looked back after that, and have provided about 200 person years of employment to the region since. That project gave us a leg up when we needed it.

The LSE report I mentioned earlier reckoned that by 2006, unemployment in SY was about 0.5% lower than it would have been without O1 funds. That's maybe 4000 SY people in work who wouldn't have been otherwise. Not an order of magnitude thing, but it was aimed at nudging us onto A different trajectory.

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. As it is, what I see is the people of SY being duped by people who had a very different idea of what was meant when they said it was just "our" money coming back.

Thanks for the comments on amortization. I'm out of my depth on the technicalities there. What I meant, I think was that it's unfair to compare one year's EU incoming money with an investment that will be spread over 50 years. But as I say, I'm not really knowledgeable enough to flesh that out.

[drfchound]

From The Star:

Politics
Government confirms £570 million to renew Sheffield’s beloved Supertram services beyond 2024
Government has finally confirmed a £570 million package to renew Supertram services in South Yorkshire beyond 2024.

[tyke1962]

From The Star:

Politics
Government confirms £570 million to renew Sheffield’s beloved Supertram services beyond 2024
Government has finally confirmed a £570 million package to renew Supertram services in South Yorkshire beyond 2024.

Again with the South Yorkshire , as I remember in the early 90's Clive Betts and his council of swindlers promised that in exchange for our funding we'd see Supertram come to our town and other areas outside Sheffield .

We are still waiting of course .

[Branton Red]

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.

Billy

I think the part of your response above allied with the relatively limited scale of capital funding the EU could provide (regardless of their commendable wealth distribution policy) is key to my thoughts on this. Again I'm not undermining the benefit of the funding the EU provided to SY (inc your company) just pointing out it's limitations of scale.

Brexit was a long term decision. Having a Tory Government is short term (we won't have one by the end of this year). Having a Government as incompetent as this one is also short term (hopefully!).

There is far more scope within the UK Government capital expenditure budget to gain the significant public spend that poorer areas such as SY really need through democratic pressure and process. And also without the UK overall paying out money in terms of net expenditure to the EU - which for me was not value for money given my personal thoughts on the economic/political benefit/cost of being in the EU - which of course, I accept, differs to yours (and others on here). Hence why we'll never see eye to eye on threads like this.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

I fully respect that position.

The concern I have is not your position or my position.

It's the fact that discussions like this were never had back in 2016.

[selby]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

Go on. I'll bite

Why do you want the EU to collapse? You're like a dog with two dicks every time there is anything that hints at this is.

Who do you think would benefit if the EU wasn't here?