Britain outside the EU

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Johnson's bright enough to know that some people would have taken it literally.

some idiots,and those with a political agenda

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

some idiots,and those with a political agenda

I was going to say well he is a professional politician, but I don’t really know his income and to the extent it’s something to do on the side while writing books, preparing for a speaking tour, comedy sketches, advisory boards of international conglomerates etc.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

I was going to say well he is a professional politician, but I don’t really know his income and to the extent it’s something to do on the side while writing books, preparing for a speaking tour, comedy sketches, advisory boards of international conglomerates etc.

As Cameron will testify, the real pay-out for Eton PMs begins when you step down from being PM.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

As Cameron will testify, the real pay-out for Eton PMs begins when you step down from being PM.

Well, the war criminal does not too bad for himself too. Although I accept in a way that is less overly corrupt.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

Well, the war criminal does not too bad for himself too. Although I accept in a way that is less overly corrupt.

Cameron's shown the rest up as mere amateurs! The combination of his Eton Filofax and his ex-PMs What'sApp is gold dust and some.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Cameron's shown the rest up as mere amateurs! The combination of his Eton Filofax and his ex-PMs What'sApp is gold dust and some.

He also said the next massive political scandal after mp expenses would be lobbying. What shocks me is how cheap they are, if you've got 250k spare you can get millions worth of taypayers money in contracts. The PCR tests are 20 times the fair price apparently for instance

[1andrew1]

2016: It's not the EU's money that's funding the poorer areas of the country, it's the UK's. That will continue. All Project Fear.
2021:

‘Red Wall’ and other poorer areas lose £1bn of development cash after Brexit, despite ‘level up’ pledge
Red Wall‘ and other poorer areas of England will lose up to £1bn of development cash this year because of Brexit, despite Boris Johnson’s vow to “level up” the country.

The government promised to match the grants – to build local economies by attracting businesses and jobs – when the UK left the EU, but has yet to set up a promised replacement fund.

Instead, just £220m is being made available across the whole of the UK for 2021-22, and no money has yet been handed out at all – even though the financial year is nearly halfway over.

Areas of the North and Midlands, many of which switched to the Tories at the 2019 election after the prime minister’s “levelling up” pledge, received £500m a year from EU Structural Funds, new analysis shows.

Now they will receive only a slice of the stopgap £220m Community Renewal Fund – amid further anger that councils had to put in bids, rather than be allocated cash according to need.

Some areas in the South have been made new “priority areas”, despite criticism that other funding pots have been skewed to Tory constituencies, including those of Cabinet ministers.

In total, English regions were awarded £1.12bn from the EU in 2018, the latest available figures – suggesting a loss of up to £1bn this year, depending on allocations from the stopgap fund.

The biggest likely losers are the Midlands (£190m in 2018), Yorkshire (£143m), Cornwall (£95m), the north west (£88m) and the north east (£80m), according to the figures obtained by Labour.

Wales will be even harder hit – having been in line to receive £373m a year in the EU – while Scotland received £125m a year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...9.html?r=20848

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

2016: It's not the EU's money that's funding the poorer areas of the country, it's the UK's. That will continue. All Project Fear.
2021:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...9.html?r=20848

Interesting how you chose to frame your post as if this is the normative situation post-Brexit, whereas in fact even the article you linked to is eventually forced to admit that the promised Shared Prosperity Fund is due to begin in April.

Meantime, I would hazard a guess that the interim Community Renewal Fund has been hampered more than a little by other pressing political priorities over the last year or so.

Nice try though, and thanks for the link - the Independent’s persistent remoaning is always good for a giggle.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Interesting how you chose to frame your post as if this is the normative situation post-Brexit, whereas in fact even the article you linked to is eventually forced to admit that the promised Shared Prosperity Fund is due to begin in April.

Meantime, I would hazard a guess that the interim Community Renewal Fund has been hampered more than a little by other pressing political priorities over the last year or so.

Nice try though, and thanks for the link - the Independent’s persistent remoaning is always good for a giggle.

You talk about April as if it's next month. The article states that a year's funding will have been lost as a result of inaction so it acknowledges that something might indeed happen next year.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You talk about April as if it's next month. The article states that a year's funding will have been lost as a result of inaction so it acknowledges that something might indeed happen next year.

The article is a thinly-veiled opinion piece that makes more than a few assumptions based on figures handed to the news desk by the Labour Party. It also stretches credulity somewhat by claiming that the current financial year is almost halfway through when in fact we’re barely past the one-third point, and also in the middle of the long summer recess when nothing happens anyway. So you and the independent need to make up your minds whether April 2022 is fast approaching or not - you can’t have it both ways.

Notwithstanding any of that, come the next general election, if there has been a failure to adequately fund regional development that will have been a failure of British politicians, who can be handed their P45s by British voters. Again, not for the first time, you appear not to have understood this simple, elegant truth of Brexit. Accountability. That is a good thing.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

The article is a thinly-veiled opinion piece that makes more than a few assumptions based on figures handed to the news desk by the Labour Party. It also stretches credulity somewhat by claiming that the current financial year is almost halfway through when in fact we’re barely past the one-third point, and also in the middle of the long summer recess when nothing happens anyway. So you and the independent need to make up your minds whether April 2022 is fast approaching or not - you can’t have it both ways.

Notwithstanding any of that, come the next general election, if there has been a failure to adequately fund regional development that will have been a failure of British politicians, who can be handed their P45s by British voters. Again, not for the first time, you appear not to have understood this simple, elegant truth of Brexit. Accountability. That is a good thing.

I might be aware of funding failures and successes but such matters are pretty opaque to most people. If a council cuts back services or improves them then it tends to get blamed or praised, not the government funding the council. It's an unfortunate truth and is not a good thing.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I might be aware of funding failures and successes but such matters are pretty opaque to most people. If a council cuts back services or improves them then it tends to get blamed or praised, not the government funding the council. It's an unfortunate truth and is not a good thing.

And adding a layer of money-splashing bureaucracy over which British voters had no effective influence was better?

(Answer: no it wasn’t, which is why we binned it in a referendum in 2016).

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

And adding a layer of money-splashing bureaucracy over which British voters had no effective influence was better?

(Answer: no it wasn’t, which is why we binned it in a referendum in 2016).

It was better because the money was actually allocated.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It was better because the money was actually allocated.

No, it was not better because it was beyond our democratic control. That’s a fundamental principle for me and for a great many long-time Eurosceptics.

You claim to have understood the point yet you’re still attributing the question of whether or not development funds are properly allocated this financial year to the wider and altogether more permanent issue of EU membership. You are plainly wrong about this. Regional development is now the remit of the UK government and if it does not adequately deliver the sanction lies in the hands of UK voters. That is a fundamentally better state of affairs, regardless of how well (or not) cash is allocated over the next 8 months.

The logic behind your position is that our own government and our own democratic processes are not to be trusted and we need a remote organisation to do these things for us in order for them to be done properly. That’s a position I find rather worrying.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, it was not better because it was beyond our democratic control. That’s a fundamental principle for me and for a great many long-time Eurosceptics.

You claim to have understood the point yet you’re still attributing the question of whether or not development funds are properly allocated this financial year to the wider and altogether more permanent issue of EU membership. You are plainly wrong about this. Regional development is now the remit of the UK government and if it does not adequately deliver the sanction lies in the hands of UK voters. That is a fundamentally better state of affairs, regardless of how well (or not) cash is allocated over the next 8 months.

The logic behind your position is that our own government and our own democratic processes are not to be trusted and we need a remote organisation to do these things for us in order for them to be done properly. That’s a position I find rather worrying.

I'm taking an evidence-based approach and not the ideological one which you espouse. The funds were allocated before, a promise was made that this would continue and it's not happened in this financial year. That's clearly not better. Councils and development agencies need to fund projects with cash not political ideologies.