[Politics] Brexit

[portslade seagull]

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

Corbyn !!!

 

[vegster]

Still gong well then?

Country in Chaos, no leadership and on the road to ruin.

Good stuff

PM refuses to rule out the selling off of NHS to appease our US overlords.

Yes, noticed this in PMQ 's today, no response to the question of ruling out wholesale NHS sell offs.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

What would be even worse would be to extrapolate the depressing GDP growth figures in terms of the likely impact on public finances - and then (to take one example) NHS waiting lists. Oh sorry, I forgot - all this gets bundled up in 'project fear' and rubbished. And anyway the NHS is getting back all that dosh, isn't it - Boris told us so it must be true.

 

[Ernest]

Yes, noticed this in PMQ 's today, no response to the question of ruling out wholesale NHS sell offs.

To be fair May doesn't give a response to anything, just that scared rabbit caught in the headlights look

 

[Mental Lental]

This is all going well isn't it?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42977967

I like how the pro-Brexit retort to this is either "bah pooh pooh those figures are rubbish!" (Jacob Rees-Mogg), or "the report fails to take into account the amazing deal we're going to negotiate that's gonna be so awesome we're gonna be better off with this deal than if we stayed in the single market."

I can't really decide which retort is more Looney Tunes to be honest.

 

[vegster]

This is all going well isn't it?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42977967

I like how the pro-Brexit retort to this is either "bah pooh pooh those figures are rubbish!" (Jacob Rees-Mogg), or "the report fails to take into account the amazing deal we're going to negotiate that's gonna be so awesome we're gonna be better off with this deal than if we stayed in the single market."

I can't really decide which retort is more Looney Tunes to be honest.

Well well well, now there's a surprise. There is going to be an awful lot of very angry people who thought voting leave would improve their lot. We've F@@@@D up big time yet the brexiteers can't admit it.

 

[The Clamp]

Perhaps he is dismissing it as inappropriate funding to someone that either doesn't necessarily need or deserves it as much as someone else, seems a good example why bringing back the decision on whom and what to use tax payers money on.

Okay. But to me it is a pretty clear cut example of how funding to areas that need it is no longer available. It was funding for, in my opinion, a deserving business that was part of a well thought out plan to regenerate an area. If a promising business in an area affected by loss of industry is deemed as undeserving then I am at a loss to think what would deserve funding?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Nissan and the other Japanese car makers are in today to meet Mrs May. Unless she pulls something off (and I don't mean one of their decision-makers!) it is looking very grim. I know that we are not allowed to brand Brexiteers as thick - so I'll substitute it with 'ill-informed' - but how anyone in the Sunderland Nissan plant (or to be honest anywhere in Sunderland) could have voted to Leave really defeats me - unless they were seeking redundancy.

 

[BigGully]

Okay. But to me it is a pretty clear cut example of how funding to areas that need it is no longer available. It was funding for, in my opinion, a deserving business that was part of a well thought out plan to regenerate an area. If a promising business in an area affected by loss of industry is deemed as undeserving then I am at a loss to think what would deserve funding?

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.

 

[The Clamp]

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.

Ah, well now you're getting down to opinion. My opinion is that the EU has proven that it can identify areas that need funding and step in to offer that funding where our government has failed to do so.
I seriously doubt they were just giving money to anyone who asked and I imagine a comprehensive application process was in place.
I have to say though to try and argue that the EU taking funds and distributing them to an area in need of regeneration is a bad thing reall is scraping the bottom of the barrel in defence of Brexit. As is arguing that we can trust our government to help areas such as Middlesborough because they don't seem to have in the past.

 

[BigGully]

My opinion is that the EU has proven that it can identify areas that need funding and step in to offer that funding where our government has failed to do so.

How do you evaluate that then and what examples (not just of funding taking place) but where funding has taken place where otherwise it wouldn't if the UK had control of its distribution ?

 

[BigGully]

Nissan and the other Japanese car makers are in today to meet Mrs May. Unless she pulls something off (and I don't mean one of their decision-makers!) it is looking very grim. I know that we are not allowed to brand Brexiteers as thick - so I'll substitute it with 'ill-informed' - but how anyone in the Sunderland Nissan plant (or to be honest anywhere in Sunderland) could have voted to Leave really defeats me - unless they were seeking redundancy.

Good lets bounce this post at a later date and we can see who was wrong and then laugh at those thickos, it seems a favourite past time of yours.

It requires a little more accountability and less vagueness, so you will need to put some numbers on the redundancies and what you mean by 'looking grim'.

For us Brexiteers it seems you cite a daily economic disaster which then doesnt happen and you move onto another scenario with similar vigour as if you got the last one right.

So numbers and 'your grim scenario' please and we can come back later, please no 'get out of jail card' where the government intervened, that's what governments do and business will always try to negotiate favourable terms.

I like this when we talk figures, we can then actually see if you are any good at this stuff .................

 

[The Clamp]

How do you evaluate that then and what examples (not just of funding taking place) but where funding has taken place where otherwise it wouldn't if the UK had control of its distribution ?

The one I have already given for a start.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Good lets bounce this post at a later date and we can see who was wrong and then laugh at those thickos, it seems a favourite past time of yours.

It requires a little more accountability and less vagueness, so you will need to put some numbers on the redundancies and what you mean by 'looking grim'.

For us Brexiteers it seems you cite a daily economic disaster which then doesnt happen and you move onto another scenario with similar vigour as if you got the last one right.

So numbers and 'your grim scenario' please and we can come back later, please no 'get out of jail card' where the government intervened, that's what governments do and business will always try to negotiate favourable terms.

I like this when we talk figures, we can then actually see if you are any good at this stuff .................

I'm flattered you take such close interest in my posts. Can I say that I'd be delighted to be proved wrong (if you really were monitoring my posts you'd know that I've said this in the past). Seriously though, even if I am wrong, why would anyone in Teesside take the risk? I suspect the only way that Nissan and the like could be persuaded not to do something drastic is through some kind of 'sweet-heart' deal with our government. In which case it would be interesting to see how much funding gets diverted from the over-stretched public finances - hardly a success?
But sure you are spot-on: let's see how the bigger picture unfolds and look at the out-turn metrics. Nobody wants to see British jobs lost.

 

[Titanic]

Jezza's total lack of clarity and leadership seems to be reaping its inevitable rewards:

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (+1)
LAB: 39% (-3)
LDEM: 8% (+2)

via @YouGov, Feb 2018
Chgs. w/ 29 Jan

Amazing given the state the Tories are reported to be in.

 

[BigGully]

I'm flattered you take such close interest in my posts. Can I say that I'd be delighted to be proved wrong (if you really were monitoring my posts you'd know that I've said this in the past). Seriously though, even if I am wrong, why would anyone in Teesside take the risk? I suspect the only way that Nissan and the like could be persuaded not to do something drastic is through some kind of 'sweet-heart' deal with our government. In which case it would be interesting to see how much funding gets diverted from the over-stretched public finances - hardly a success?
But sure you are spot-on: let's see how the bigger picture unfolds and look at the out-turn metrics. Nobody wants to see British jobs lost.

I don't particularly monitor your posts, I guess its the nature of this board and thread to sometimes challenge and be challenged.

You were the one that posted a scenario that suggested that it was 'pretty grim' for a big part of our car industry in the north east, including redundancies, perhaps it is but many of us have become a little punch drunk at the incessant predicted economic disasters that as yet haven't really materialised.

As with the many economic indicators I thought it would be handy to hold your prediction to account and see if you were correct or not.

 

[BigGully]

The one I have already given for a start.

I thought you said it was the EU that had withdrawn it not the UK, why would the UK demand the current EU inward budget to be withdrawn and how does that show that the UK wouldn't replace it anyway after Brexit, I am not sure it would be entirely legal for the EU to withdraw this money whilst we are still a fully net contributor EU member ?

 

[cheshunt seagull]

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.

It isn't a quango that makes these decisions, as I understand it the European Parliament will determine areas of priority for funding which will then be allocated on a formula via the European Regional Development and European Social Funds. This would mean that the North East and North Wales for example will be targetted as they meet the indicators for economic performance, deprivation etc. The strategy for distribution and priority is usually on a longer term basis and based on clear performance indicators to assess its impact. This makes it effective in long-term planning at a local level as the goalposts don't keep changing and the funding is guaranteed over a period providing indicator targets are met. You could reasonably argue that there is no reason why UK governments couldn't deliver funding on this basis but the reality is that they don't and that distribution of funding to regions is based on short-term party political considerations (DUP?) . I don't see the EU funding with totally rose tinted specs as the paperwork is horrendous and there is some inflexibility but compared with many UK government initiatives they are more successful and many regions rely on them.

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.

 

[The Clamp]

I thought you said it was the EU that had withdrawn it not the UK, why would the UK demand the current EU inward budget to be withdrawn and how does that show that the UK wouldn't replace it anyway after Brexit, I am not sure it would be entirely legal for the EU to withdraw this money whilst we are still a fully net contributor EU member ?

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.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I'm out, why would anyone pay for the privilege to align themselves to a political party, it's like debating with a Tottenham fan who thinks they are better then the four teams above them, the points and the lack of trophies are irrelevant to them.

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.