UKC

Much has been said here about how the UK will lose out on EU subsidies post Brexit. Some will miss them more than most obvs...




http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37493956

In reply to Big Ger:

Ah yes - the bathwater. Now where did that baby go?

In reply to Big Ger:


Do you seriously believe these levels of subsidies to the rich will stop when we leave the EU? I never took you as being naive...

In reply to Ridge:


Well the reason I never said that "these levels of subsidies to the rich will stop when we leave the EU", was....oh, go on, have a guess...

In reply to Big Ger:


So the EU thing is completely irrelevant and you are just mudslinging. (In fact copying and pasting someone elses mudslinging)

In reply to MG:
No, try again.

The BBC was not "mudslinging" it was noting that the EU subsidies that the UK receives, roughly we get £1 back for every £2 we pay in*, may not entirely go to supporting farmers.

It also noted the way the system was open to abuse not only buy subsidising the wealthy, and "subsidy farming", but, as was noted by "Greenpeace chief scientist Doug Parr "The subsidy system is utterly broken. We need public money spent on farming to be offering demonstrable public benefits.""

But still, if you're happy for that utter waste of money to go un-examined, un-noted, and un-changed, just because it has a EU label on it, then you are welcome to that view.

If you like the wealthy getting free €€€€€ handouts then just say so.




*The UK paid €14 billion (£11.3 billion) into the 2014 EU budget, and received back €7 billion (£5.6 billion) in payments, mostly agriculture subsidies and regional development support.

In reply to Big Ger:

Just to balance out the OP
I've just rolled out £30M of R&D support to support competitiveness, business, product and production improvement in around 3000 small businesses as part of the EU's ERDF programmes. This covers Aero and Auto, Low Carbon etc.
As from the Chancellor's Autumn statement, there will be no further sign off from DCLG of any more programmes. Apocryphal, but verified stories of 'difficulty' for U.K. Partners joining Horizon 2020 research consortia, and no UK gov statements as to how they're going to match our current European Research Council funding.
At this moment, there's no lead at all regarding interim arrangements for R&D funding for the most prolific and successful Country (currently) in Europe.
The only relevant statement promising vital support is from our favourite unelectable trot at his party conference yesterday.
While I realise that the EU was only recycling our own money back into research, at least it did it. UK gov from both sides has focused funding into Russell Group and other concentrated centres of 'Excellence', which often miss the point. The EU funding was generally the only level playing field in town, which focused on the quality of science rather than where you're from.
Rant over.

In reply to Big Ger:

So it is the EU money you are complaining about. Make your mind up!

In reply to MG:

What are you talking about?

In reply to Big Ger:
The subsidies to the aristocracy aren't so much an EU problem as a symptom of the concentration of land ownership in the UK. Any kind of subsidy for agriculture is going to end up lining the pockets of the aristocracy and royalty when we allow the landed families to pass so much of the land down from generation to generation.

In reply to Ridge:


of course it will. After all when the EU proposed placing a cap on farming subsidies back in 2013 the UK was a firm supporter of, oh, blocking the cap.

In reply to Big Ger:

Imagine how much we could spend on the NHS!

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Although a fervent remain supporter, as a business who has recieved ERDF funding in the past I reckon if UK Gov get its act together they could spend the money far more effectively supporting those businesses. In all honesty most of it goes to feeding consultants when small businees owners would rather it when into more realistic projects ( which the ERDF will not allow it to do).

So whilst I understand your concerns, I suspect most of the small businesses could come up with a more focused approach on how that money is spent instead of pandering to the guidelines of the ERDF.

As I said at the start I voted In. Rant over.

In reply to KevinD:


These the ones you mean?

In reply to KevinD:
So this is basically an issue of the UKs own making, as noted by the ever popular George Monbiot:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-subsidies-blatan...

Scotland successfully lobbied for a minimum activity level to be introduced, but I believe defra have also chosen not to implement this.

In reply to snowmore:

Hmmm... George is good at weaseling is he not...


http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-621_en.htm

In reply to Big Ger:

Perhaps so, but I'm not sure how your post repudiates any of what he has said. Evidence given to the select committee certainly seems to agree with his assertion.

>Q178 Neil Parish: Given that Government is philosophically opposed to direct payments, why are you so against capping very large payments, for example at €500,000, or increasing degressivity above 5%? Playing devil’s advocate, why do some claimants need more than €500,000 of taxpayers’ support?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/745/131...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/745/745...

In reply to neilh:

Hopefully this will be true. When New Labour were in power, and Gordon Brown (iirc) was talking about the amount of funding available to businesses though, the reality was sometimes a little bit different. I remember a relative trying to get some funding, and each time the application was put in, the civil servant in Manchester would send it back with a question about something or other, essentially as a way of not agreeing to/delaying the funding - and taking a risk which might come back to them I think. In the end said relative's bank manager and another person involved in the process drove over to Manchester to meet up with who was in charge of agreeing the funding to ask them what they were playing at, only after which the funding was agreed. If this was happening for one company, how many others was it happening to who didn't have an irritated bank manager to go and ask what was going on? I can remember at the time there were two narratives in the media, with the Federation Of Small Businesses saying there wasn't the financial help available, while the government was saying there was.

In reply to Big Ger:

Solution, no food production subsidies unless your are selling overseas and need it to remain competitive.

New version of cap only funds long term environmentally beneficial projects.

Farmers sell food at a price that reflects its real cost of production and the UK population pays it.

In reply to Timmd:

That was probably access to finance which is a different scheme to ERDF support for businesses.It was at the time that banks were struggling to lend to businesses and so the govt/banks concoted a scheme to save face.To be fair it had nothing to do with the EU.

In reply to neilh:

Neil,
totally agree with previous shortcomings which is why I've tailored the programmes directly to the R&D requirements of individual companies. (assuming they're not maxed out on State Aid). The biggest problem is usually the shortcomings of the programme proposal rather than the EU.