Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: bobjimwilly on October 31, 2019, 01:11:35 pm
-
Only just come across this website; interesting to see how EU money has been spent in our area, region and right across the country:
https://www.myeu.uk
Can Brexiteers look in the mirror and convince themselves this government, or any government, will spend the same amount of money on similar projects in the future if Brexit happens?
-
Depends on which Government. A Tory one will spend it in London, we will see very little.
Don't bite the hand that feeds.
-
Of course they won't. We've been awful in this country at funding projects outside the London magnet, and awful at funding R&D full stop. In any case, there is no way that we will replace this money even if we wanted to do so, because we will take a massive net hit to economic performance when we leave the EU. So there'll be a protracted period of belt-tightening.
And of course, it'll all be the fault of the Remainers...
-
Under 2 million from the eu in Doncaster unless I’ve misunderstood, not massive amounts and the money was given to the council so let’s hope they spent it properly, and not sure how beneficial some of the projects are to most people
-
Under 2 million from the eu in Doncaster unless I’ve misunderstood, not massive amounts and the money was given to the council so let’s hope they spent it properly, and not sure how beneficial some of the projects are to most people
They create a lot of jobs for starters.
-
2 million. Wow. Great stuff that.
-
It's more than £2million.
£45m a year for local farmers
£4m for research
£6m for young people
£13m for growth & jobs
https://www.myeu.uk/area/DN (https://www.myeu.uk/area/DN)
Looks like it's the whole DN post code but still a shit tonne.
-
"Here's £2m in free money"
"Not a right lot though, is it?"
f**k me Bpool, I thought it was the remainers who were the out of touch elite!
As DO points out, it's significantly more than £2m as well.
-
Isn’t the money our money anyway? The money that the EU spends is money that this and every government since we joined, sends to the EU each year. For them, the EU, to decide where it’s going to be spent
So well done to each and every government for sending the money to the EU to be spent here
-
You've totally misunderstood Bpool.
-
Isn’t the money our money anyway? The money that the EU spends is money that this and every government since we joined, sends to the EU each year. For them, the EU, to decide where it’s going to be spent
So well done to each and every government for sending the money to the EU to be spent here
They use it in areas and for projects the countries governments wouldn't tend to spend it on.
-
Glos..
Depends what you mean by "our" money.
Yes, the UK puts in more than it gets back. But Yorkshire and the Humber region gets back a lot more than it puts in.
Because the EU invests heavily in economically disadvantaged areas. LikeY&H.
If we weren't leaving, we'd be about to receive a more than €3bn injection into our economy from the EU. But we won't now, because folk in Doncaster apparently don't want that.
Now, the question to ask yourself is, when we stop paying into the EU, do you reckon a Tory Govt will pour money into Y&H to make up that difference. Cos they sure as f**k didn't in the 80s and 90s.
-
Glos.
To follow up,what gets me about your post is the lack of understanding of the situation of places like South Yorks that it betrays. And it's something we hear regularly from Leave supporters.
They hammer on about how "our" money is mopped up by the EU. And yes, the country pays in more than it gets back. Because the UK as a country is richer than the EU average.
But South Yorks doesn't make a net contribution to the EU. Because South Yorkshire is one of the poorest areas in the EU.
Read that again
South Yorks is one of the poorest areas in the EU.
And it is one of the poorest areas because it was hammered by the Tories in the 80s, and hammered again by the Tories' Austerity since 2010.
And a driving force of the EU is to take money from richer areas (like London, and Milan, and Barcelona, and Amsterdam, and Paris) and invest it in poorer areas (like Sicily, and Bulgaria, and Greece, and Andalusia, and South Yorkshire).
And we've been guided by London spivs into giving that up.
Utter, f**king stupidity
-
Was it one of the poorest areas when the tories didn’t hammer it I presume labour made it thriving? Back to the point which I’m not missing the eu gave 2 Doncaster under 2 million for projects that most probably will not benefit much from, which point am I missing
-
Bpool.
It did far better in the 2000s. Partly due to the generally better economy that Labour ran. Partly due to the huge amounts of money that the EU poured in through the Objective One programme.
-
Thank you for the reply on that bst
-
No problem Bpool.
South Yorkshire moved out of the group of poorest areas in the EU in the early 2000s, under Labour.
It's just recently dropped back into the group of poorest areas, after 9 years of Tory rule.
Draw your own conclusions....
-
So it is UK money that is spent in the UK as the EU sees fit, then we get a lot of political diatribe which says a lot but not a lot trying to say how good it is of the EU to spend our, UK, money in Yorkshire and Humberside that may or may not, cos we don’t know, that the government wouldn’t spend here, whilst saying I don’t really understand
-
Anybody?
-
Wubble.??
-
Get Blackpool to explain it.
-
Get Blackpool to explain it.
That would be fun. :lol:
-
If you want to convince us a ration analysis of uk government funding in Doncaster vs tax return and the same for the eu please. Doncaster you will find also receives more in uk money than paid in. The eu money is not that significant is it? It would be better spent given to local areas to decide how it is used directly.
-
45 million for farmers wow. What do they spend that on?
-
BFYP.
Yes. I know that Donny gets more from national Govt than it pays in.
That's not the point.
The point is, do you expect a Tory Govt to make up the additional amount that Donny and the rest of Yorkshire is going to lose after we leave the EU?
Table 1 here doesn't give much encouragement, does it?
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04033
-
What does table 1 tell us? An interesting point is overlay the areas with highest spend per person with the political party typically favoured there...
Equally, I think its valid that government will be judged on what they do. The Tories have held power for 9 years now, people have a valid choice to remove them.
-
BFYP.
It tells us that Yorkshire and the Humber gets significantly less per head spent on it by Govt than the national average, and that the proportion is going steadily down under the Tories. I see that and I find it stretches credibility to breaking point and beyond to even imagine that the Tories will cover the several billion Euros that Yorkshire and the Humber were due to get from the EU in the 2020s, and which we've now chucked away.
Regarding your comment on other regions, are you SERIOUSLY saying that London gets more spent on it per head than anywhere else in England, by a Tory Govt because it predominantly votes Labour? Really?
-
Get Blackpool to explain it.
why don’t you explain it? How have you benefited from eu money?
-
The problem is with the eu money that is reinvested it hardly benefits the locals, many of the projects in Blackpool are for immigrants that have moved to Blackpool it’s not benefiting the people that already live there
Let's for the time being not take this as dog whistling and get you to provide some proof bp
-
What proof would you like Sydney?
-
:facepalm:
-
I'd have thought some evidence of how much EU funding has gone to immigrants in Blackpool would be a start.
You could kick off by looking at that website that DO posted and seeing what EU grants have been used for in Blackpool.
-
BFYP.
It tells us that Yorkshire and the Humber gets significantly less per head spent on it by Govt than the national average, and that the proportion is going steadily down under the Tories. I see that and I find it stretches credibility to breaking point and beyond to even imagine that the Tories will cover the several billion Euros that Yorkshire and the Humber were due to get from the EU in the 2020s, and which we've now chucked away.
Regarding your comment on other regions, are you SERIOUSLY saying that London gets more spent on it per head than anywhere else in England, by a Tory Govt because it predominantly votes Labour? Really?
No, I'm saying that happens despite the politics....
Are you thus saying the tory policy of the towns fund is a bad idea or a lie?
-
I suppose where forecasts/promises are concerned you have to look at past promises/performance and the ability of the budget to sustain the said expenditure bfyp and looking forward or back I can't see anything but a big fat liar blocking the view.
''The giant hole in government finances is more proof that austerity has failed
Miatta Fahnbulleh
A decade of disastrous policy has left the Treasury far worse off than expected. The next government must invest to rebuild
In a break with recent tradition, the Treasury has refused to publish the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn check of the economy and public finances. The planned budget has been cancelled too. But the Resolution Foundation crunched the numbers and has now reached this stark figure. The government’s fiscal rules, in effect, have been shot to pieces: rules that have been a centrepiece of successive budgets that have driven cuts in public spending for nearly a decade.''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/31/government-finances-austerity-failed-decade-treasury
-
Get Blackpool to explain it.
why don’t you explain it? How have you benefited from eu money?
I live in Doncaster bpool. When I walk around the town I see genuine improvements to the infrastructure, eg around the Civic quarter that was all funded by EU money.
I seriously doubt we'd have been given those grants by a Tory government.
And, but for you Turkeys voting for Christmas, we'd have received a lot more.
-
It's not just EU funding that is improving the town, though.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/lifestyle/homes-gardens/doncaster-smartens-up-its-act-as-investors-watch-with-interest-1-9017424
-
No of course it's not "just" EU funding. For crying out loud, the world isn't binary.
EU structural funding is designed to tip the balance. To make it attractive for private sector investment in projects they wouldn't otherwise see as viable.
Did you actually read the article you posted.
It specifically mentions the civic centre (EU funding) the airport (EU funding) and the racecourse (EU funding).
How many of those do you think would be what they are now without that funding?
-
BFYP
The towns fund eh?
£3.6bn over a decade for the entire country?
Grand.
That's equivalent to less than 0.02% of GDP. That's what provincial towns mean to this lot.
Meanwhile, the EU structural funding that Y&H was going to get before we gave the rods to the EU was €3.3bn just for Y&H over 7 years. Almost as much as the entire towns fund, over a shorter time, for a region with just 8% of the UK population.
You see my point?
-
No of course it's not "just" EU funding. For crying out loud, the world isn't binary.
EU structural funding is designed to tip the balance. To make it attractive for private sector investment in projects they wouldn't otherwise see as viable.
Did you actually read the article you posted.
It specifically mentions the civic centre (EU funding) the airport (EU funding) and the racecourse (EU funding).
How many of those do you think would be what they are now without that funding?
I've never denied that thanks to EU funding Doncaster is now becoming an attractive proposition for investors. Now that it is standing on its own two feet more though I suspect it would have dropped down the table of financual need and would have received reduced funding from the EU in future, had we remained in it.
-
Wrong BB. And that's indicative of the bubble that some folk seem to be living in.
Doncaster isn't doing well. The whole South Yorkshire region (not Yorkshire and the Humber as I said before - my mistake) has slipped into the club if poorest areas in the EU over the past ten years since the Great Recession.
As a result, if we'd stayed in the EU, we'd have been eligible for €500 per person per year in EU regional support funds over the next 7 years.
That's about £3bn for South Yorkshire from EU tax payers. And we've given them the finger and told them we don't want it. Because we've taken back control...
-
Here's a map showing how badly we are doing in South Yorks. The dark red regions have a GDP per capita below 75% of the EU average.
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/e/ea/GDP_per_inhabitant%2C_2017_%28EU-28_%3D_100%2C_index_based_on_GDP_in_purchasing_power_standards_%28PPS%29_in_relation_to_the_EU-28_average%2C_by_NUTS_2_regions%29_RYB19.png)
This is what gets me when folk trot out that line about us subsidising slackers and scroungers in the EU.
WE, in SY are not subsidising any f**ker. We ARE one of the basket cases. We weren't ten years ago, but we are now, after a decade of Tory Austerity. And the tax payers of Munich and Stockholm and Rotterdam and Warsaw were about to give us a leg up.
But we've told them to f**k off. Because the very people who have f**ked our economy have convinced you that we could take back control of "our" (sic) money.
You've been used lads. And you'll be chucked aside like a Mansfield scab when you've served your purpose.
-
Ah right, so Doncaster is NOT becoming an attractive proposition for investors.
Righto!
-
BB.
You gave an opinion which is simply factually wrong, evidence is presented to explain how and why you are wrong, and you ignore that and make a smart arse response.
It is a fact that Doncaster is doing far, far worse economically than the EU average. It is a fact that the EU was prepared to pump in enormous amounts of cash to help us rectify that. It is a fact that people like you have decided you don't want that cash.
You said you assumed that, because we were doing so well, we'd get less EU money in future. That is wrong. Spectacularly wrong. The EU was just about to massively increase the amount they gave us, to the tune of nearly two grand a year for every household.
Which bit of that are you having trouble processing?
-
No BST. You're wrong. Read my post again and then apologise.
-
I read it
You said. "Now that it is standing on its own two feet more though I suspect it would have dropped down the table of financual need and would have received reduced funding from the EU in future, had we remained in it.".
That is wrong on every point. As I have explained.
-
Thanks to EU funding Doncaster is now becoming an attractive proposition for investors.
It is now standing on its own two feet more.
My suspicion that the town would have dropped down the table of financial need in future is my opinion, and you have no divine right to say I'm wrong.
Which point is wrong?
https://wearedoncaster.co.uk/news/doncaster-is-geared-up-for-growth/
-
Thanks to EU funding Doncaster is now becoming an attractive proposition for investors.
It is now standing on its own two feet more.
My suspicion that the town would have dropped down the table of financial need in future is my opinion, and you have no divine right to say I'm wrong.
Which point is wrong?
https://wearedoncaster.co.uk/news/doncaster-is-geared-up-for-growth/
You were the one who kept telling everyone that you don't want to listen to that nobody can predict the future. It doesn't seem to stop you from trying, does it?
-
There you go again, wiggling your way through yet another accusation. I've NEVER objected to anyone having an opinion regarding how the future will pan out. I even run a competition that requires just that! What I do object to is someone who claims to be an expert at it. Some are better than others at it, yes, but no one is an expert at correctly predicting the future. What is more objectionable is someone who tells another that their view of future events is wrong, especially when it is regarding something that had never happened before.
-
BB
The EU funding that we have chucked away in Doncaster would have been guaranteed for 7 years. £13k per household over that time. Guaranteed.
And it would have unquestionably brought in significantly more in private investment.
That's gone. That's a fact. I assume you accept that fact?
In the longer term future, yes of course that funding may have gone. If the local economy had improved, as it did hugely in the late 90s and 00s when we were last receiving that sort of EU support, then yes, that funding would have reduced. The entire point of that funding is that it is designed to pull regions out of under performance. And the funding would have been guaranteed until 2027, so you are looking a long way down the line for a hypothetical negative.
But the hypothetical negative doesn't exist anyway. Because, by definition, if we were to have lost that funding way off into the future, it would be because we we had become significantly stronger economically. It's win-win.
But as Glyn says, you ignore future predictions when they don't suit you. What you're now doing is ignoring guaranteed facts and hypothesising about what may or may not have happened at the end of the next decade. When either outcome would have been positive for Doncaster.
A strange approach. Almost as if you prefer to argue than to deal with facts.
-
BST.
1) Is Doncaster becoming an attractive proposition for investors, thanks to EU funding?
2) Is it now standing on its own two feet more?
3) When I said that my suspicion that the town would have dropped down the table of financial need in future, did I mention over what time period?
4) Who is guaranteeing these 'facts' that I'm ignoring?
5) Don't you feel ever so slightly embarrassed having to back up Glyn Wigley's bullshit?
-
1) No. Our local economy has stagnated for a decade. A decade in we haven't had very high EU funding.
2) No. It was doing 10-15 years ago but it has stood still since, while other places have surged ahead.
3) That comment is not worth addressing. See previous post.
4) The EU has announced its funding for economically struggling areas which has been set out for the next 7 years. What would you expect them to have done in the absence of Brexit? Pull it just to spite us?
5) Grow up.
-
There you go again, wiggling your way through yet another accusation. I've NEVER objected to anyone having an opinion regarding how the future will pan out. I even run a competition that requires just that! What I do object to is someone who claims to be an expert at it. Some are better than others at it, yes, but no one is an expert at correctly predicting the future. What is more objectionable is someone who tells another that their view of future events is wrong, especially when it is regarding something that had never happened before.
I've never claimed to be an expert at predicting the future. Just International Customs Law.
-
I dont get it. The way I see it. Give me £100 and I will give you £20 back and tell you how to spend it. Is that the jist of it?
-
"if we were to have lost that funding way off into the future, it would be because we we had become significantly stronger economically."
That is what my point was when I said 'because Doncaster was becoming an attractive proposition to investors, thanks to EU funding, i suspect that the town would drop down the table of financial need in future.'
Why was it wrong?
-
I hope it does continue to be an attractive proposition but it would have been a lot more attractive with the future EU grants that have now gone pop.
-
There you go again, wiggling your way through yet another accusation. I've NEVER objected to anyone having an opinion regarding how the future will pan out. I even run a competition that requires just that! What I do object to is someone who claims to be an expert at it. Some are better than others at it, yes, but no one is an expert at correctly predicting the future. What is more objectionable is someone who tells another that their view of future events is wrong, especially when it is regarding something that had never happened before.
I've never claimed to be an expert at predicting the future. Just International Customs Law.
And how does that qualify you to falsely accuse me of telling everyone I don't want to listen their predictions?
-
I hope it does continue to be an attractive proposition but it would have been a lot more attractive with the future EU grants that have now gone pop.
But Tommy, BST says Doncaster isn't an attractive proposition and it isn't on the up.
-
"if we were to have lost that funding way off into the future, it would be because we we had become significantly stronger economically."
That is what my point was when I said 'because Doncaster was becoming an attractive proposition to investors, thanks to EU funding, i suspect that the town would drop down the table of financial need in future.'
Why was it wrong?
Then you need to improve your English.
Doncaster is not "becoming an attractive proposition due to EU funding". That phrase is present tense. But we don't get very high EU funding at present.
-
I dont get it. The way I see it. Give me £100 and I will give you £20 back and tell you how to spend it. Is that the jist of it?
Keith.
No, that's entirely wrong if you're looking at South Yorkshire.
In the UK, we pay on average about £150 per head to the EU. I don't have the figures for what people from Donny pay, but I can guarantee you it would be a hell of a lot less than that, because our economy is one of the worst in the UK and on average we pay much less tax (from which our EU contribution is made) than the UK average.
Had we stayed in, we'd be in line for about £450 per head from EU structural and cohesion funds through most of the next decade.
So how does that sound? I give you £100 and you give me the thick end of £500. Every year. For 7 years.
-
"if we were to have lost that funding way off into the future, it would be because we we had become significantly stronger economically."
That is what my point was when I said 'because Doncaster was becoming an attractive proposition to investors, thanks to EU funding, i suspect that the town would drop down the table of financial need in future.'
Why was it wrong?
Then you need to improve your English.
Doncaster is not "becoming an attractive proposition due to EU funding". That phrase is present tense. But we don't get very high EU funding at present.
thanks to EU funding Doncaster is now becoming an attractive proposition for investors. (post 38)
Is Doncaster becoming an attractive proposition for investors, thanks to EU funding? (post 49)
Scraping the bottom of the Barrel there BST, even by your standards.
-
BST I'd say don't waste your time but you do. Well done, you've more patience than me!
I live in Cornwall another of those red regions and 2nd poorest in Europe.
Return trips to Donny seem like visits to London used to when I lived up there.
Yet. And yet it's the same down here re brexit.?!? I can't begin to fathom it as it really will be "lights out" here in a no deal scenario .
There is a feeling out there that myself and half the country just doesn't get? (I think their all on spice!!) this will really take 30yrs to resolve.
Reminds me very much of the divisions during the strike! (and that still rumbles on in areas /within families)
Just wish the w**kers had thrown Cameron a bone as a concession and ensured a remain vote! This is an EU and tory made disaster
-
BB
Your comment in post 38 was factually wrong. We've established that. Doncaster currently doesn't get very high EU funding. And it's not becoming more attractive. It has gone backwards economically at a rate of knots over the last decade, as we dropped out of Objective One status and the Tories' Austerity hammered us. (1)
But alright. I accept your cloying need to be proven right. Let's say we WERE becoming more attractive to investors due to EU funding. Use that logic to think how much more attractive we would have become with hugely increased EU funding over the next 7 years.
(1) And everything you've said all through this tedious exchange, including your "suspicion" that we would lose EU funding has been set in the present tense. Except when it was pointed out that we would have been getting much higher EU funding through to the late 2020s. Then you insisted that you reserved the right to have your "suspicion" proved right at an indeterminate future date of your choice.
-
Hang on a minute. Where did I say Doncaster currently gets very high EU funding? In fact, where did I say Doncaster currently gets ANY EU funding?
Also, where did I say we'd be better off outside the EU?
Apology?
-
you haven't actually said anything worth repeating bbb
-
Why does every exchange end up down the rabbit hole of your wounded pride BB?
You said we are doing well because of EU funding. We're not doing well and we don't get much EU funding.
You said you had a suspicion that we would have lost EU funding because (present tense) "thanks to EU funding Doncaster is now becoming an attractive proposition for investors". It's not becoming an attractive proposition because it's not getting enough EU funding to make a major difference. And it wasn't about to lose what EU funding it gets. The funding was about to go up very significantly. Because the local economy has tanked over the past decade and our own Govt has done the square root of f**k all to help us out.
Those are the key substantive points. I get that your ego has been bruised because you've called this one spectacularly wrong. And I get that you're doing that thing of ignoring the substantive points and latching onto a secondary or tertiary point and insist that you've been unfairly treated because of that. It's a powerful debating tactic, but it bores me shitless to be honest.
-
Anyone who goes along with BST's feeble attempts at confrontation on this thread deserves him.
-
Ah right, so Doncaster is NOT becoming an attractive proposition for investors.
Righto!
Investors are buying property blind in northern towns. That part of the article could have been written about anywhere where houses are sold for a pittance.
-
BST, If anything has come out of this thread it is that you have shown yourself in your true colours.
Forget the apology, I don't want one. Now, go and have a group hug with your little clique. You're not worth the time.
-
Not looking for confrontation BB. Just trying to discuss things from a basis of established facts.
And I know. Triumph of hope over experience and all that. But it matters.
-
Ah right, so Doncaster is NOT becoming an attractive proposition for investors.
Righto!
Investors are buying property blind in northern towns. That part of the article could have been written about anywhere where houses are sold for a pittance.
Correct. But apparently Doncaster isn't becoming an attractive proposition.
-
I do apologise for comments in the last couple of posts though. Should not have made them.
-
Ah right, so Doncaster is NOT becoming an attractive proposition for investors.
Righto!
Investors are buying property blind in northern towns. That part of the article could have been written about anywhere where houses are sold for a pittance.
Correct. But apparently Doncaster isn't becoming an attractive proposition.
One last effort.
You DO realise that those two articles you posted are adverts don't you? Local businesses selling Doncaster to investors.
Which is fine. I'd expect them to do that. But I wouldn't take them as telling the full story.
On the other side, I've presented you with a fact. An objective fact. That the economy of SY has gone downhill badly relative to the rest of the EU over the past decade. And as a result of that,we would have been getting massive support from the EU to rectify that.
You've never once engaged with that fact.
THAT is why I get narky. Because you just look the other way every time an awkward fact is set out.
I shouldn't. And I apologise for doing so. But it comes from the frustration of seeing us make this horrifically bad mistake, and the people who support that being totally unwilling to address what it means. Time after time. Fact after fact.
-
Bat+ball+home
-
Bat+ball+home
No don't Sydney. Please stay.
-
Ah right, so Doncaster is NOT becoming an attractive proposition for investors.
Righto!
Investors are buying property blind in northern towns. That part of the article could have been written about anywhere where houses are sold for a pittance.
Correct. But apparently Doncaster isn't becoming an attractive proposition.
One last effort.
You DO realise that those two articles you posted are adverts don't you? Local businesses selling Doncaster to investors.
Which is fine. I'd expect them to do that. But I wouldn't take them as telling the full story.
On the other side, I've presented you with a fact. An objective fact. That the economy of SY has gone downhill badly relative to the rest of the EU over the past decade. And as a result of that,we would have been getting massive support from the EU to rectify that.
You've never once engaged with that fact.
THAT is why I get narky. Because you just look the other way every time an awkward fact is set out.
I shouldn't. And I apologise for doing so. But it comes from the frustration of seeing us make this horrifically bad mistake, and the people who support that being totally unwilling to address what it means. Time after time. Fact after fact.
I really don’t know why you continue this BST.
You deserve a medal for endurance but how and why do you continue this pointless dialogue with Bentley Bullet?
Do you have kids? If so, you will have encountered the concept of disagreeing in order to amuse oneself?