UKC

What has the EU every done for us?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Lusk 10 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

6 projects in Greater Manchester at a total of £40,069,706.
Less than £1M/year since 1973.

13
pasbury 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Yes better off without aren't we - it'll be funded by the enormous increase in tax revenue after we leave won't it?

1
 summo 10 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

It's all very pretty but as net contributors, it's really just a map of what UK taxpayers have funded, after several civil servants in different departments & countries have been paid. It's only eu money in the sense that the eu is spending eu money from tax payers on their behalf. The eu doesn't make or generate money of its own. 

15
 mike123 10 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo&

A bit obvious but had to be said 

1
 The New NickB 10 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

That map is quite wrong, I know of multiple European funding programmes that are not shown on that map, just in my little area, hundreds of projects. Even now we are still able to bid for money from regional funds.

Post edited at 17:38
 Philip 10 Dec 2018
In reply to summo:

> It's all very pretty but as net contributors, it's really just a map of what UK taxpayers have funded, after several civil servants in different departments & countries have been paid. It's only eu money in the sense that the eu is spending eu money from tax payers on their behalf. The eu doesn't make or generate money of its own. 

Not true. EU funding of R&D leads to business growth, it's entirely possible that whilst we are a very contributor the impact on our GDP is positive and than the EU mechanism for spending that money is more effective than if we had remained outside the EEA.

The fact that very few people in industry want to leave would support my view that we are better off in.

5
Lusk 10 Dec 2018
In reply to pasbury:

It was just an observation. 
To put it into perspective, from Manc Council's Annual Report 2017/18:

"2017/18 was the first year of our three year budget strategy and we had to make
savings of nearly £17 million in this year. Since 2010 the Council’s spend on services
has reduced from £574 million to £408 million. However, our focus remains on our
vision of Manchester in 2025 as a top-flight world-class city full of opportunity with
improved quality of life for all. To make this happen we and many of our partners
have worked on a radical change in approach: the Our Manchester approach."

Looking at approx 0.2% of spend on services over that period.
That £40M include £32M that went to Trafford.

 The New NickB 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Lusk:

It’s an observation based on bogus information.

 Shani 10 Dec 2018
In reply to summo:

> It's all very pretty but as net contributors, it's really just a map of what UK taxpayers have funded, after several civil servants in different departments & countries have been paid. It's only eu money in the sense that the eu is spending eu money from tax payers on their behalf. The eu doesn't make or generate money of its own. 

Have you factored in the economic activity generated from many of Europes brightest, youngest and healthiest having freedom of movement to work in the UK? Have you factored in the benefits of FoM has had on research and scientific collaboration? Have you factored in secondary benefits (in areas such as hospitality and conferencing) from hosting the EU's Medicines Agency and the EU's Finance Agency? On paper, yes we are net contributors, but the return we get from being a successful member of that club is evidenced by the ongoing economic hit we've endured since voting to leave.

4
 Trangia 10 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

It that really what you should ask?

Shouldn't it be " Ask not what the EU does for you, but what you can do for the EU?" to  paraphrase a certain American President, JFK

Post edited at 17:53
2
OP krikoman 10 Dec 2018
In reply to summo:

> It's all very pretty but as net contributors, it's really just a map of what UK taxpayers have funded, after several civil servants in different departments & countries have been paid. It's only eu money in the sense that the eu is spending eu money from tax payers on their behalf. The eu doesn't make or generate money of its own. 


A bit like normal tax then, except it gets spent on actual "things" rather than propping up the banks, etc.

4
OP krikoman 10 Dec 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> That map is quite wrong, I know of multiple European funding programmes that are not shown on that map, just in my little area, hundreds of projects. Even now we are still able to bid for money from regional funds.


You should complain to someone.

4
 The New NickB 10 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

I’m not sure who has put that map together, but it doesn’t even show any spend in Scotland.

 richprideaux 10 Dec 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> I’m not sure who has put that map together, but it doesn’t even show any spend in Scotland.

Wales looks a bit unloved too, although they got the bias towards South Wales right...

 summo 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Shani:

> Have you factored in the economic activity generated from many of Europes brightest, youngest and healthiest having freedom of movement to work in the UK? Have you factored in the benefits of FoM has had on research and scientific collaboration? Have you factored in secondary benefits (in areas such as hospitality and conferencing) from hosting the EU's Medicines Agency and the EU's Finance Agency? On paper, yes we are net contributors, but the return we get from being a successful member of that club is evidenced by the ongoing economic hit we've endured since voting to leave.

But it is not possible for everyone to benefit, by every means, in every country. The money has to come from some where, someone is paying. 

The economies are hit globalky too, growth is down in the eu as well. Debt is climbing, the world is getting worried, investment is more cautious. Trump wants a trade war. The UK being in or out trade wise is rounding error globally. 

9
 Pekkie 10 Dec 2018
In reply to summo:

> It's all very pretty but as net contributors, it's really just a map of what UK taxpayers have funded, after several civil servants in different departments & countries have been paid. It's only eu money in the sense that the eu is spending eu money from tax payers on their behalf. The eu doesn't make or generate money of its own. 

The areas chosen for assistance are based on objective criteria of deprivation. How much do you think the Tories will put into those areas post-Brexit? Nothing or diddley-squit? So for the Brexit-voting resident of, say, Stoke-on-Trent, the EU was your best, well, only, friend. But if you are a turkey you've got a perfect right to vote for Christmas if you want to.

4
 summo 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Pekkie:

> The areas chosen for assistance are based on objective criteria of deprivation. How much do you think the Tories will put into those areas post-Brexit? Nothing or diddley-squit? So for the Brexit-voting resident of, say, Stoke-on-Trent, the EU was your best, well, only, friend. But if you are a turkey you've got a perfect right to vote for Christmas if you want to.

Perhaps people should vote for different parties? Lib dems offered 1% on tax for nhs, there were nearly no takers. Folk think everything is for free, or at least try to kid themselves. 

 

2
 Philip 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Pekkie:

I don't know why you picked Stoke, but it is a good example. As a city, one route to recovery is net migration, bringing a wider range of small businesses, their associated requirements providing employment for the city's current residents. So a city benefitting from the EU, with a future based on immigration, votes for Brexit.

This isn't turkeys voting for Christmas, this is turkeys petitioning the vegetarians to give up and come for Christmas.

 Tringa 10 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Although the information in chart in the first post here might be simplistic; isn't it exactly the sort of thing the Remain campaign should have been singing from the roof tops in the lead up to the referendum?

I don't recall it at all.

 

Dave

 

Lusk 10 Dec 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> It’s an observation based on bogus information.


True, but it was a quick observation on the shit information presented

OK, how about this, we've had around £5.5bn [1] pa off the EU, the population of Greater Manc is approx 4% of the UK.  Now if that money was divvied up equally per capita, GM would've had around £1.1bn over the last five years. Yes, there have been considerably more [2] than the 6 funded projects as in the OP, but no way are they any where near £1.1bn.

So, where is all this money going?

We were 6 years into austerity by the referendum, 10s of millions of people being driven into poverty, "Just about managing"!!!, and we're seeing vast amounts of money vanishing into f*ck knows where.
And you wonder why people had the audacity to consider and vote to leave the EU!

 

It's [EU] the golden egg laying goose for someone!

 

1: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7847

2: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/things...

6
 Pekkie 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Lusk:

 we're seeing vast amounts of money vanishing into f*ck knows where. And you wonder why people had the audacity to consider and vote to leave the EU! It's [EU] the golden egg laying goose for someone!

Wrong on every count. EU projects have to meet output targets and are strictly audited. As I said the areas are chosen based on objective deprivation criteria. But then if you had any direct experience of EU projects you'd know this.

 

 

4
 Pekkie 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Philip:

> I don't know why you picked Stoke, but it is a good example. As a city, one route to recovery is net migration, bringing a wider range of small businesses, their associated requirements providing employment for the city's current residents. So a city benefitting from the EU, with a future based on immigration, votes for Brexit.

> This isn't turkeys voting for Christmas, this is turkeys petitioning the vegetarians to give up and come for Christmas.

I picked Stoke because I have direct experience of EU funded regeneration there. So are you proposing unlimited immigration as a solution to Stoke's problems? Let me know when you intend put your ingenious solution to people on the street so I can come and watch.

1
pasbury 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Total f*cking bullshit, I’d trust my money to be well spent far more if it goes via Brussels than via Westminster.

6
 Timmd 10 Dec 2018
In reply to summo:

> It's all very pretty but as net contributors, it's really just a map of what UK taxpayers have funded, after several civil servants in different departments & countries have been paid. It's only eu money in the sense that the eu is spending eu money from tax payers on their behalf. The eu doesn't make or generate money of its own. 

There's the collaboration on a scientific level between UK and EU universities, too, which has been helpful for the UK. 

1
 Philip 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Pekkie:

Not unlimited, and it's not my idea, it's the council's. I think they estimated 300k people needed.

 Pekkie 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Philip:

> Not unlimited, and it's not my idea, it's the council's. I think they estimated 300k people needed.

Sorry, I'm not having that. Any evidence?

 Philip 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Pekkie:

Any evidence of what? I sat through the presentation by the council's directorate for 'place' where they described what the vision was for growing Stoke. I don't know Stoke that we'll, I've worked there for 12 years, but it seems the collapse of large firms has left a gap not only of manufacturing jobs but of all forms of support from office cleaner to IT.

A reasonable amount is spent trying to attract investment to the city in the hope that with new firms comes new opportunities. Look at things like ceramic valley, distributed heat network, AMRIC. It's all around the idea that the city has to grow its way out of the problems.

Anyway, I don't see what you're arguing against. I'm only reporting the situation as described by those responsible for improving it.

 summo 11 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Reading this thread it is a miracle why countries outside the eu haven't drifted back to the stone age. How have those non eu countries developed and improved their standards without Brussels to guide them. 

Why are most aspects generally much better in northern Europe than southern, surely if it's all down to the eu everything should be the same, or perhaps it's the actions of individual countries that count not Brussels.

There is nothing to stop individual countries and people doing anything the eu does, indeed the majority of what people claim the eu started were already in place elsewhere in Europe, the eu just watered it down and expanded it. It is simply down to the respective populations to vote in parties that support whatever they desire. 

 

18
 summo 11 Dec 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> Total f*cking bullshit, I’d trust my money to be well spent far more if it goes via Brussels than via Westminster.

Eu development grants are the area within the eu where there is most fraud and waste. Because they have to trust many aspects to individual countries governments, they all want as big a piece of the pie as possible so the truth is often a little flexible. 

6
 JoshOvki 11 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Not getting fleeced by the mobile operators when travelling in the EU is a massive win for me.

 

Edit: Also almost universally connectors for charging phones! It was getting out of hand all of the different plugs

Post edited at 07:17
 summo 11 Dec 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> Total f*cking bullshit, I’d trust my money to be well spent far more if it goes via Brussels than via Westminster.

Have you heard about the unused Spanish airport built with loads of grants? Cost 1.1billion, sold for 10,000 euros a couple of years ago in bankruptcy auction.

I'd say they are equally untrustworthy. 

5
 summo 11 Dec 2018
In reply to pasbury:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-fraud-idUKKCN0YM0Q8  Hungary Poland Romania....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11848048  eu mafia fraud. Italy of course

http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/questions-mounting-about-eu-develo...  not just airports.. bridges and other expensive projects that are not delivering.

So fraud and waste within the grant scheme is rife. CAP is 40% of eu budget and rewards land ownership not food production. Then there is the eu, wage and pension bill, Strasbourg...etc.

What exactly is the uk getting in a relative sense for it's money?

Whilst westminister is far from clean itself, the eu money still has to flow in and out of it twice. Perhaps fraud and waste can be reduced a little if the money only remains within the uk. Better the devil you know?

The UK can continue to spread it's love through the existing development grant system globally, which is already larger than most other eu nations. 

 

 

 

 

3
 jkarran 11 Dec 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> That map is quite wrong, I know of multiple European funding programmes that are not shown on that map, just in my little area, hundreds of projects. Even now we are still able to bid for money from regional funds.

There is another doing the rounds, starts out looking like that and keeps looking like that as you zoom into practically every town and village in the land, the projects get smaller but arguably more important to people: library refurbishments, village hall roof, parks... the stuff our government hasn't been bothering with, the stuff our squeezed councils can't justify faced with obligations to provide essential services from shrinking budgets. It's bad enough look like it might actually be deliberate disinformation.

jk

Post edited at 09:11
 jkarran 11 Dec 2018
In reply to summo:

> Perhaps people should vote for different parties? Lib dems offered 1% on tax for nhs, there were nearly no takers. Folk think everything is for free, or at least try to kid themselves. 

The problem with the Lib Dems isn't policy, it's our arcane voting system. Brexit doesn't fix that.

jk

 jkarran 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> We were 6 years into austerity by the referendum, 10s of millions of people being driven into poverty, "Just about managing"!!!, and we're seeing vast amounts of money vanishing into f*ck knows where.

Scroll down: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/11/09/public-att...

Vast?

In case you're interested to see what has actually been done for GM:

https://www.myeu.uk/#/

jk

OP krikoman 11 Dec 2018
In reply to summo:

> Perhaps people should vote for different parties? Lib dems offered 1% on tax for nhs, there were nearly no takers. Folk think everything is for free, or at least try to kid themselves. 


You keep putting this forward as if that's the sole reason people didn't vote for them, they do have other policies, which people aren't too keen on, and poor old Nick shot them in the foot for quite sometime with his ,"no increase on tuition charges".

So can we stop with the "1% on tax for nhs" as if that's the only reason people didn't vote LibDem for, it's bullshit and it doesn't indicate people wouldn't gladly pay an extra 1% for the NHS either.

2
OP krikoman 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Tringa:

> Although the information in chart in the first post here might be simplistic; isn't it exactly the sort of thing the Remain campaign should have been singing from the roof tops in the lead up to the referendum?

> I don't recall it at all.

> Dave


I agree, this should be updated and more information added.

Plus any inaccuracies fixed, but it's good information, that many people won't have any idea about.

 yorkshireman 11 Dec 2018
In reply to summo:

> Have you heard about the unused Spanish airport built with loads of grants? Cost 1.1billion, sold for 10,000 euros a couple of years ago in bankruptcy auction.

No. No I haven't. And I still haven't because all you gave me was a 'bloke down the pub, back-off Brussels apocryphal tale'. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but 

However two seconds on Google throws up a few articles such as:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-airports-specialreport/special-re...

When you wipe away the spittle and read the article, this really just reinforces what has been said. That these grants are being given to try to support and grow underdeveloped areas. You wouldn't expect the EU to give grants to extend Schiphol and Munich airports would you?

So by definition, this is going to be a long term struggle - not helped by the after effects of the 2008 financial crisis either.

Nobody is saying the EU is perfect. It's just that it's more than likely better than the opposite - less cooperation and sharing. Of course there's going to be fraud, crime and corruption if you look hard enough. It's the same within the UK - is that a reason just to not bother?

FWIW, the EU has given me the freedom to move countries and make a home abroad in the EU27, and at least avoid the carnage back home. That same freedom granted to EU citizens meant I spent 20 years in the UK living and working with some great people from all over the continent who enriched my personal and professional life. They weren't threats or scroungers and I'm truly saddened at a few of the examples I know of people who have either being made extremely unwelcome or even forced to go 'home'.

 

4
 summo 11 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

>  poor old Nick shot them in the foot for quite sometime with his ,"no increase on tuition charges".

As well you know there is world of difference between a manifesto pledge when being the sole party majority in government and the minority party of a coalition. The UK just is not accustomed to coalition politics, even the layout of parliament is all about 2 party winners and losers politics. 

Do you really believe Labour will deliver all their pledges?

The reality is people in the UK just don't correlate that if you want something you have to pay for it. Be it better public services, or that the money the eu 'gives' the uk is actually UK taxpayers money being given back, after being pushed through various departments.  

 

 

4
 summo 11 Dec 2018
In reply to yorkshireman:

> No. No I haven't. And I still haven't because all you gave me was a 'bloke down the pub, back-off Brussels apocryphal tale'. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spanish-ghost-airport-that-...

There is no reason why Europe can't have trade and movement agreements. Many other countries have them. But they don't have everything else the eu wants them to do, cap, fisheries, euro, Strasbourg etc.. There is a desire to integrate every aspect of life, that's what I'm against. 

4
 mrphilipoldham 11 Dec 2018
In reply to yorkshireman:

Lodz is an hour and a half drive from Warsaw, why on earth would/should the EU (who are apparently pro-environment) subsidise the building of an airport there? Upgrading to a high speed rail line in to the capital would be much more beneficial to the city.

It'd be the same wisdom that would see millions of £ spent redeveloping Blackpool or Carlisle airports. In the name of regeneration seen as a good thing, but doomed to fail as Manchester isn't unreasonably far away. 

 Pekkie 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Philip:

The core of any regeneration thrust for Stoke has got to be attracting inward job-creating investment as well as encouraging indigenous business start-ups and growth. And then you need to educate/train local people to get the jobs created. OK there may be some high level skilled jobs for which you need to attract immigrants but immigration on a large scale is such a political non starter that I can't see the Council advocating it.

1
 jkarran 11 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> I agree, this should be updated and more information added. Plus any inaccuracies fixed, but it's good information, that many people won't have any idea about.

Much better: https://www.myeu.uk/#/

The first link actually looks like deliberate misinformation it's so incomplete.

jk

 Sharp 11 Dec 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> I’m not sure who has put that map together, but it doesn’t even show any spend in Scotland.


To be fair it is titled "EU funded Projects in England", although I'm not sure why there's two in Wales. Maybe just to highlight that the country would be unrecognisable without EU investment.

 The New NickB 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Sharp:

I’ve seen the same map on Twitter with a bit more information about the timescale, which claimed it was for the U.K. Which no doubt confused me. I agree with jk it looks like deliberate misinformation.

 Sharp 11 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

I've always been pro-EU but they are in part responsible for the creation of Nigel Farage. Economic funding vs birthing the spawn of Satan, it's one of those 6 of one half a dozen of the other type conundrums.

Would he have sprung into being without the EU? Maybe he would, maybe he's always been here,like a perenial shrub that only flowers in conditions of bountiful immigration. Sitting in a pub somewhere biding his time drinking pints and muttering madly about sovereignty to bemused locals, angrily throwing the odd brussel sprout across the room without ever really knowing why. Little green buggers soaking up my gravy, baaah.

Post edited at 12:55
 ianstevens 11 Dec 2018
In reply to richprideaux:

> Wales looks a bit unloved too, although they got the bias towards South Wales right...

That's becasue despite the claims this is a UK map, its actually just England. Those projects in south wales are collaborations lead by others over the border. 

 richprideaux 11 Dec 2018
In reply to ianstevens:

> That's becasue despite the claims this is a UK map, its actually just England. Those projects in south wales are collaborations lead by others over the border. 

I am 75% sure that title/description has been amended since it was originally posted.

 Philip 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Pekkie:

> The core of any regeneration thrust for Stoke has got to be attracting inward job-creating investment as well as encouraging indigenous business start-ups and growth. And then you need to educate/train local people to get the jobs created. OK there may be some high level skilled jobs for which you need to attract immigrants but immigration on a large scale is such a political non starter that I can't see the Council advocating it.

Ah, you're using the word immigration when I said net migration.

I'm talking businesses migrating to Stoke, choosing Stoke for factories. Catapult centre for spin-outs that lead to more SMEs. Migration of skilled (graduate / post-doc) workers to the area who stay and start their own businesses. It's migration in the wider sense, not the fear-mongering of UKIP or Trump. Yes there is an element that some of those workers will need to come from overseas, but I don't mean 300,000 unskilled Europeans asking for a job.

1
 Carless 11 Dec 2018
In reply to richprideaux:

The title definitely said in the UK yesterday when I had a brief look - it's since been corrected

The title should also be corrected to point out it's only funding to England from the European Social Fund http://ec.europa.eu/esf/home.jsp?langId=en

and European Regional Development Fund https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/

 

It ignores vast amounts of funding going to England in other areas eg. H2020, FP7, etc

 neilh 11 Dec 2018
In reply to Philip:

Stoke is competing for warehouse business not high valued jobs ( although there are some in the niche ceramic business which is still there).

The issue is that it is in the wrong location. Warrington is better suited/located  to that development.

You also need to get the engineering business already there to upgrade just like Olympus Engineering.Most of them are still stuck in their ways and do not know how to market the highly valuable niche skills they have.They do not understand the value of what they have. I have seen a cockpit of an F35 being cast in a factory there because nobody else in the USA could do it...unreal.It was something I never expected under a huge pile of sand.Wow...an F35 cockpit.

And then of course there is the betting industry and before that Mr Cauldwell's business.

And of course locals still classify it as 5 towns, not one city.

And when you get stuck behind one of the low loaders moving a GE power station bit around ( roads closed etc etc). You realise that Stoke has a bit more going for it than the media portrays. its just hidden

Post edited at 17:28

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...