MyEU.uk

[SydneyRover]

 

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

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?

[SydneyRover]

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

[tommy toes]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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...

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.



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.

[Bentley Bullet]

Ah right, so Doncaster is NOT becoming an attractive proposition for investors.

Righto!

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

No BST. You're wrong. Read my post again and then apologise.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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/

[Glyn_Wigley]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[keith79]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

"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?

[tommy toes]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

"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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

"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.