Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
A bit of an aside but I've just seen a well known actor (whose name escapes me) being interviewed on TV (The Wright Stuff) who was going on about how strange it is that people might not be happy with the EU when, in his words, there are signs everywhere saying funded by the EU or words to that effect.
I get it, maybe if we had signs on every publicly funded building, infrastructure project or whatever, saying 'Not funded by the EU' that'd put things into better perspective and redress the balance. The fact is that the EU simply gives us back some of the money it takes from us and one of the main arguments in support of Brexit is/was to take back the power to spend all of the money saved how we, via our elected leaders, choose to rather than having Brussels bureaucrats dictate it then erect signs telling us how generous they've been...
|
It's a weak argument certainly.
I can see a case to be made that the EU has focused spending in areas traditionally neglected by Westminster, Wales being an example, and these areas voted Leave. These areas are not having the subsequent shortfall in EU money safeguarded from Westminster either despite suggestions they would during the campaign (from the magical £350 million).
I didn't like this argument as a defense of the EU though because at best it's an argument that Westminster government is so poor that we need the EU to override it which isn't a great place from which to start.
The arguments I believed in and continue to believe in is that the economic benefit of the single market outweighs the downside and certainly wipes out the £350 million a week. Although I don't see the point of starting that debate again.
