[Politics] Brexit

[BigGully]

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.

The Spurs analogy was a bit daft in that a few Spurs fans that I know seem to be so blinkered that it doesn't matter what happens they believe they are the best team.

I think the bigger point is that I find it astonishing that anyone would align themselves to a political party and then pay for the privilege to do so, which for many seems quite an extreme political position and perhaps shows why you are so vehemently pro something or anti something even when something doesn't support that view.

Personally I have all my politicians and political parties on notice, they deserve nothing more.

 

[BigGully]

Well , the money was withdrawn as a direct result of Brexit and no replacement fund was forthcoming from the UK government.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.

They seem to say it will, I suspect at times it might be channelled differently, perhaps where government bodies feel it could be used more wisely, surely any government will be made accountable and the electorate can ultimately decide if any funding is appropriate in their view, seems reasonable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37060430

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/further-certainty-on-eu-funding-for-hundreds-of-british-projects

 

[BigGully]

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.

In that case depending what you personal view might be then vote them in or out, if you disagree on a major funding issue with the UK's democratically elected government it isnt for you to look around the world and demand we must somehow adopt and deploy the EU's, Japan's or the USA's model, its for the UK to decide what is appropriate, that's what Brexit means.

If you are currently anti Tory you cannot just foist upon us a political version from another global region just so it mirrors your own.

 

[Baldseagull]

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.

You could say a London based organisation should not be in charge of grants for business in the Nort East more rationally. The EU has the full picture and can see what relative strengths and weaknesses a particular area has by comparison to other areas.
I recall British advice to commonwealth countries with the right climate, seeking a cash crop, was the same, grow sugar cane, they all did and the price crashed, leaving those states unable to repay the loans they took from British banks to get setup.

 

[The Clamp]

They seem to say it will, I suspect at times it might be channelled differently, perhaps where government bodies feel it could be used more wisely, surely any government will be made accountable and the electorate can ultimately decide if any funding is appropriate in their view, seems reasonable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37060430

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/further-certainty-on-eu-funding-for-hundreds-of-british-projects

Fair enough. I will watch with interest and one raised eyebrow!

 

[Baldseagull]

The Spurs analogy was a bit daft in that a few Spurs fans that I know seem to be so blinkered that it doesn't matter what happens they believe they are the best team.

I think the bigger point is that I find it astonishing that anyone would align themselves to a political party and then pay for the privilege to do so, which for many seems quite an extreme political position and perhaps shows why you are so vehemently pro something or anti something even when something doesn't support that view.

Personally I have all my politicians and political parties on notice, they deserve nothing more.

That Spurs fan analogy of yours seems to fit Brexiteers to me. No matter what economic damage it does, Britain will be better off.

 

[BigGully]

You could say a London based organisation should not be in charge of grants for business in the Nort East more rationally. The EU has the full picture and can see what relative strengths and weaknesses a particular area has by comparison to other areas.
I recall British advice to commonwealth countries with the right climate, seeking a cash crop, was the same, grow sugar cane, they all did and the price crashed, leaving those states unable to repay the loans they took from British banks to get setup.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the UK itself is less able to identify areas of need within the UK than the EU, it is just anti Tory sentiment, for you it would be quite acceptable for the EU to run and appropriate funds for the NHS, education and defence on our behalf.

 

[Baldseagull]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the UK itself is less able to identify areas of need within the UK than the EU, it is just anti Tory sentiment, for you it would be quite acceptable for the EU to run and appropriate funds for the NHS, education and defence on our behalf.

I did not say they were better at identifying the areas of need, but better at giving appropriate funds for appropriate projects, in those areas of need.

 

[BigGully]

I did not say they were better at identifying the areas of need, but better at giving appropriate funds for appropriate projects, in those areas of need.

So they are better and should be encouraged to giving our money on their terms to those areas of the UK which we have identified as areas of need, it's clearly anti Tory claptrap just cherry picking a political model from somewhere else to supersede our own elected government of which you don't agree.

 

[BigGully]

That Spurs fan analogy of yours seems to fit Brexiteers to me. No matter what economic damage it does, Britain will be better off.

That was more in respect of [MENTION=12947]Lincoln Imp[/MENTION] alignment and payment to a political party, which absolutely offers a clearer insight to his political mindset compared to say a poster that might not fully accept a set of forecast 15 years into the future of just 0.5% annual diiferentials, in fact you are doing it again citing economic damage where none currently exists.

 

[Titanic]

Bank of England upgrades growth forecast for 2018 to 1.8%

Official figures last month showed that the economy grew 0.5% in the last three months of 2017, which was faster than economists had been expecting.

Unemployment remains low at 4.3% and inflation edged lower in December to 3%.

#despiteBrExit

 

[Baldseagull]

That was more in respect of [MENTION=12947]Lincoln Imp[/MENTION] alignment and payment to a political party, which absolutely offers a clearer insight to his political mindset compared to say a poster that might not fully accept a set of forecast 15 years into the future of just 0.5% annual diiferentials, in fact you are doing it again citing economic damage where none currently exists.

I think if you compare us with our nearest economic similar in the EU, France, you can see economic damage in the form of stunted growth.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

I think if you compare us with our nearest economic similar in the EU, France, you can see economic damage in the form of stunted growth.

Exactly. I cannot for the life of me, see how opting out of Customs Union with a trading block on our doorstep can be seen as an intelligent thing to do? May will talk about the prospect of frictionless trade, but unless the EU wants it - and they have the political capital of keeping the EU institution together, it is not gonna happen. They will not let us pick and choose.

The alternative is to look to strike deals with USA and Americas First pledge - its the word First that gives that game away.

To go for what now looks like Hard Brexit,and of WTO tariffs and the inevitable extra costs that will mean to the British economy means that the lunatics of Ree-Smog have taken over the Govt.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

That was more in respect of [MENTION=12947]Lincoln Imp[/MENTION] alignment and payment to a political party, which absolutely offers a clearer insight to his political mindset compared to say a poster that might not fully accept a set of forecast 15 years into the future of just 0.5% annual diiferentials, in fact you are doing it again citing economic damage where none currently exists.

Here we go again. Just for the record, I do not blindly accept all the policies of the party I give a little money to, any more than I necessarily agree with absolutely everything that GOSH, the Sussex Wildlife Trust or for that matter the Brighton & Hove Albion Collectors' & Historians' Society does. Likewise, when I made my piddling contributions to the Albion's survival 15 years ago it didn't mean I 100% backed its transfer policy or the building of the new away end at Withdean.

It is simply that I believe that on balance one party's policies are better for the country than those of others and am prepared to put some money towards its survival. This is known as "an opinion". If you feel that backing a particular party reveals a closed mindset and a willingness to accept everything the party does, says and predicts then I would humbly suggest that your opinion says more about your mindset than it does about mine. Have a nice day.

 

[beorhthelm]

Exactly. I cannot for the life of me, see how opting out of Customs Union with a trading block on our doorstep can be seen as an intelligent thing to do?

because it restricts the ability to expand into other, higher growing markets? lets be rational for a minute, accept that there may be a cost to the trade with the rest of EU, can you not at least see that the potential upside is there in trade with rest of world? if you've saturated trade in one market where there's little growth, doesnt it make sense to look elsewhere for new markets where there is higher growth? if it wasnt for the protectionism and narrow insular views on the continent they'd be doing the same, open up to free trade.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

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

commies like you
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

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.

STOP grizzling then
regards
DR

 

[DIFFBROOK]

because it restricts the ability to expand into other, higher growing markets? lets be rational for a minute, accept that there may be a cost to the trade with the rest of EU, can you not at least see that the potential upside is there in trade with rest of world? if you've saturated trade in one market where there's little growth, doesnt it make sense to look elsewhere for new markets where there is higher growth? if it wasnt for the protectionism and narrow insular views on the continent they'd be doing the same, open up to free trade.

But having extra costs with EU trade, will mean trade with the EU will reduce (from what you call saturated point - which actually I do not agree with - we should be exporting much more to the EU...not just services). If our trade with EU reduces, we will have to work even harder to overcome this with free trade deals with China. India, USA......whose current President has already withdrawn from deals because he thinks they are unfair....no guessing on the type of one way deal he will want with us. These deals take some time to do, so with Hard Brexit, we will rely on WO tariffs for quite some time. That will be quite some drag on our economy during that period. After that, lets hope these other deals with the rest of the world more than make up for the damage caused.

I can accept the arguments about control of immigration, and to a degree on sovereignty, but to argue that there will not be a cost to the British economy is delusional. It was after all, business who saw the massive benefits of the "Common Market" as to why we entered what was the EEC. There will be a cost to controlling immigration (which we need incidentally) , I guess it depends on whether people are willing to accept that cost.

 

[Baldseagull]

So they are better and should be encouraged to giving our money on their terms to those areas of the UK which we have identified as areas of need, it's clearly anti Tory claptrap just cherry picking a political model from somewhere else to supersede our own elected government of which you don't agree.

I wasn't making a party based criticism, though our system, where consensus is rarely sought and seems to be a dirty word, is part of the problem. The best solution is not one or the other, but collaboration between UK government agencies and the EU. All UK governments have been poor in making the most of the opportunities, outside of Financial Services. It is UK governments that have let down the regions.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

But having extra costs with EU trade, will mean trade with the EU will reduce (from what you call saturated point - which actually I do not agree with - we should be exporting much more to the EU...not just services). If our trade with EU reduces, we will have to work even harder to overcome this with free trade deals with China. India, USA......whose current President has already withdrawn from deals because he thinks they are unfair....no guessing on the type of one way deal he will want with us. These deals take some time to do, so with Hard Brexit, we will rely on WO tariffs for quite some time. That will be quite some drag on our economy during that period. After that, lets hope these other deals with the rest of the world more than make up for the damage caused.

True. And we should also bear in mind that the EU won't be standing still for the next few decades - it will be brokering deals with other countries round the world too.