Are we In or Out?

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, Alanhathaway said:

Oh, and ask the Greeks if they feel part of this common aim as well.  

Not really the same,  as we're not in the euro. 

[eFestivals]

55 minutes ago, ourkid1984 said:

No I don't think solely from the EU. I worked on a project as part of the New Deal for Communities program which having been able to see funding documents I remember seeing that at least some of the money came from EU funding, especially the European Social Fund. I've just done numerous searches but couldn't find anything to do with the precise funding. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_for_Communities

 

Quote

New Deal for Communities is a regeneration programme led by the government of the United Kingdom for some of the England's most deprived neighbourhoods. The programme was established by Tony Blair's Labour Government and is overseen by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit within the Department for Communities and Local Government.^[1]

Some of the funding might have technically come via the EU, but as that's the UK sending the EU money and the EU only sending some of it back again it's hard to see how they'd be less UK govt money available for the same projects outside of the EU.

PS: don't let me pointing that out change your vote tho. I just want to see the myth of the benficious EU killed off, cos it's bollocks but being used by nationalists to spread a lie.

Edited May 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[phillyfaddle]

10 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I can accept being on the same side as Cameron and Osborne on this - but not Nick Cohen.

Funny. I'm having GREAT difficulty being on the same side as Cameron & Osborne. Not Nick Cohen though - on this one.  

[ourkid1984]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_for_Communities

 

Some of the funding might have technically come via the EU, but as that's the UK sending the EU money and the EU only sending some of it back again it's hard to see how they'd be less UK govt money available for the same projects outside of the EU.

That's the wiki page that I've read a few times today to make sure I haven't missed anything. The funding for the program obviously came from a government department and it's hard to say where exactly it came from but yeah I do get your point about it being UK money basically coming back however what I was referring to is while I was working for the ndc we got yet more funds from the EU that was for stuff like buildings and infrastructure as well as some health and well-being stuff that the local authority couldn't fund due to how their own funds could be spent. We had one really frustrating time when we couldn't use the money we had to improve the area for pathways and roads but the EU money could be. This is senseless to me and I think leaving the EU would lead to yet more of this style, pointless red tape. I mean people moan about EU bureaucracy but at least I've never experienced that madness to do with EU money.

I essentially like the idea of putting money into one big pot shared by lots of countries as and when they need it. Yeah the current system needs to be improved and that's something that needs alot of work but for me it's better and fairer than leaving.

[pie_and_a_pint]

In, so, so, IN, without a shadow of a doubt. Vote done and this bad boy's going in the postbox on the way to work tomorrow .

Feels very odd to have voted so far in advance of an election!

[grumpyhack]

EU Funding has helped many of the projects in some of the most deprived parts of South Wales where I work.  Almost every project or community centre seems to have an EU Funding plaque.

In theory I think the principle of additionality was supposed to apply - in other words the EU funding was supposed to be in addition to UK government spend in the area.

But the reality for years has been that it has been instead of UK government funding as the UK government hasn't given a toss about deprived areas unlikely to vote tory.

So without the EU I doubt that a lot of deserving projects that are helping turn round the lives of many people in deprived communities would have ever got off the ground.

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, ourkid1984 said:

That's the wiki page that I've read a few times today to make sure I haven't missed anything. The funding for the program obviously came from a government department and it's hard to say where exactly it came from but yeah I do get your point about it being UK money basically coming back however what I was referring to is while I was working for the ndc we got yet more funds from the EU that was for stuff like buildings and infrastructure as well as some health and well-being stuff that the local authority couldn't fund due to how their own funds could be spent. We had one really frustrating time when we couldn't use the money we had to improve the area for pathways and roads but the EU money could be. This is senseless to me and I think leaving the EU would lead to yet more of this style, pointless red tape. I mean people moan about EU bureaucracy but at least I've never experienced that madness to do with EU money.

I essentially like the idea of putting money into one big pot shared by lots of countries as and when they need it. Yeah the current system needs to be improved and that's something that needs alot of work but for me it's better and fairer than leaving.

But, I think it's fair to say, that if we left the EU without there also being a Boris/IDS/Farage, etc agenda - so a politically neutral 'brexit' (yeah, I know that's not on offer) - that we could be pretty sure that farm subsidies would remain unaltered in the short term, and the amount of money unchanged in the longer term even if some policy changes were made later on. After all, the cost of those farm subsidies is already covered in what we pay to the EU, so the money doesn't need to be found.

So I reckon it's also fair enough to look at development funding in the same way. After all, it was something the UK was doing before the EU took it over, anyway, and something that's necessary as places adapt to an always changing world.

Of course, you could have a govt after brexit cut off those funds, but they can be cut off now in just the same way. The UK is not obliged to chip in to the required total funding, and if they don't there is no EU funding.

There's definitely some good things about the way it's all structured, but it's not a fairly godmother dropping money from the sky. That's us, that is.

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, grumpyhack said:

EU Funding has helped many of the projects in some of the most deprived parts of South Wales where I work.  Almost every project or community centre seems to have an EU Funding plaque.

In theory I think the principle of additionality was supposed to apply - in other words the EU funding was supposed to be in addition to UK government spend in the area.

But the reality for years has been that it has been instead of UK government funding as the UK government hasn't given a toss about deprived areas unlikely to vote tory.

So without the EU I doubt that a lot of deserving projects that are helping turn round the lives of many people in deprived communities would have ever got off the ground.

This is the very nationalist myth I was on about.

There is no longer UK govt money for the same things. It now goes thru the EU system, which has replaced the UK system. It's still the UK paying for it in exactly the same way but with a different system around how that cash is accessed/distributed.

It's possible that money might not have gone to exactly all the same places in the same amounts via a different system, but it would be much the same, dished out on a perceived-needs basis.

The fact that the assistance south Wales has had might not have been enough is a slightly different issue - tho it's worth noting it has more spent per-head in Wales than in England (about 5% more than UK average I think), so it's hard to argue that Wales is being particularly badly treated even if it's not being treated well-enough.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, clarkete said:

We have a veto too, that's one of the things that pricks the balloon of so many of the points people have tried to make during the out campaign thus far.

 

If we have to keep using (or threatening to use) our precious veto, what the hell is the point of staying in? If we have so little in common with the rest of the EU. we might as well be out.

[gaxsa]

I really hope the results in the above poll represent the voting and general consensus , coming out would have implications (how much I don't even know) for all us expats, its got to be IN

[jonodillieono]

24 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

If we have to keep using (or threatening to use) our precious veto, what the hell is the point of staying in? If we have so little in common with the rest of the EU. we might as well be out.

For the bants. Imagine if the EU proposed world peace and we veto'd it. We'd become king of the bants.

 

I for one disagree with the idea of throwing away potential bants

Edited May 30, 2016 by jonodillieono

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

Fascinated by this thread. I tend to shy away from politics personally, I appreciate how much it affects us all but in all honesty the subject either bores me to tears or frustrates the hell out of me. I will vote (although I don't normally, this just seems like a generation-defining opportunity), and this thread has strengthened my thoughts on the matter. I just wish the politicians and media could provide the ill-educated amongst us (I include myself in that) with facts, rather than biased, personal agenda driven opinion. Maybe there's a "Brexit For Dummies" book available?

Anyway, as you were, just wanted to say thanks for the valuable contributions. 

[clarkete]

38 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

If we have to keep using (or threatening to use) our precious veto, what the hell is the point of staying in? If we have so little in common with the rest of the EU. we might as well be out.

We don't, it only applies in certain key areas and is rarely used.

[grumpyhack]

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

This is the very nationalist myth I was on about.

There is no longer UK govt money for the same things. It now goes thru the EU system, which has replaced the UK system. It's still the UK paying for it in exactly the same way but with a different system around how that cash is accessed/distributed.

It's possible that money might not have gone to exactly all the same places in the same amounts via a different system, but it would be much the same, dished out on a perceived-needs basis.

The fact that the assistance south Wales has had might not have been enough is a slightly different issue - tho it's worth noting it has more spent per-head in Wales than in England (about 5% more than UK average I think), so it's hard to argue that Wales is being particularly badly treated even if it's not being treated well-enough.

My point wasn't meant to be nationalist.  I'd like to think that I'm an internationalist rather than a nationalist.  I was only describing the situation in South Wales, which is where I work, as it's the one that I have direct experience of.

My point is that a lot of deprived communities, not just in South Wales but in many other parts of the UK too, have benefitted from  the European Social Fund.

The particular aim of ESF spending is to support the creation of more and better jobs in the EU, which it does by co-funding national, regional and local projects that improve the levels of employment, the quality of jobs, and the inclusiveness of the labour market in the Member States and their regions.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, clarkete said:

We don't, it only applies in certain key areas and is rarely used.

So pretty much pointless then.

[timbrass]

23 hours ago, shoptildrop said:

48 minutes ago, SPTFRE said:

48 minutes ago, SPTFRE said:

Fascinated by this thread. I tend to shy away from politics personally, I appreciate how much it affects us all but in all honesty the subject either bores me to tears or frustrates the hell out of me. I will vote (although I don't normally, this just seems like a generation-defining opportunity), and this thread has strengthened my thoughts on the matter. I just wish the politicians and media could provide the ill-educated amongst us (I include myself in that) with facts, rather than biased, personal agenda driven opinion. Maybe there's a "Brexit For Dummies" book available?

Anyway, as you were, just wanted to say thanks for the valuable contributions. 

Fascinated by this thread. I tend to shy away from politics personally, I appreciate how much it affects us all but in all honesty the subject either bores me to tears or frustrates the hell out of me. I will vote (although I don't normally, this just seems like a generation-defining opportunity), and this thread has strengthened my thoughts on the matter. I just wish the politicians and media could provide the ill-educated amongst us (I include myself in that) with facts, rather than biased, personal agenda driven opinion. Maybe there's a "Brexit For Dummies" book available?

Anyway, as you were, just wanted to say thanks for the valuable contributions. 

I just wish they would explain more on how businesses and trade will actually look like if we left? As all the stuff I've seen so far is mainly scaremongering ....I still not sure 

That's the issue.  There are no real "facts" to be had.  You are trying to predict which of two possible futures is preferable.  The answer you get depends on what assumptions you start with (and what factors you consider relevant).  Like the weather in Pilton at the end of June, forecasting anything more than a few days ahead is a waste of time. 

I voted IN (despite being a baby boomer) because I suspect the country would be marginally better off and I don't want to encourage the Scottish Nationalists to break up the UK.

 

[clarkete]

27 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

So pretty much pointless then.

I feel like I've strolled into the argument sketch from monty python. 

[ourkid1984]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But, I think it's fair to say, that if we left the EU without there also being a Boris/IDS/Farage, etc agenda - so a politically neutral 'brexit' (yeah, I know that's not on offer) - that we could be pretty sure that farm subsidies would remain unaltered in the short term, and the amount of money unchanged in the longer term even if some policy changes were made later on. After all, the cost of those farm subsidies is already covered in what we pay to the EU, so the money doesn't need to be found.

So I reckon it's also fair enough to look at development funding in the same way. After all, it was something the UK was doing before the EU took it over, anyway, and something that's necessary as places adapt to an always changing world.

Of course, you could have a govt after brexit cut off those funds, but they can be cut off now in just the same way. The UK is not obliged to chip in to the required total funding, and if they don't there is no EU funding.

There's definitely some good things about the way it's all structured, but it's not a fairly godmother dropping money from the sky. That's us, that is.

 

Yeah I agree with what you're saying. 

For me it's safer to stay in especially with the people heading up the Brexit agenda.

It definitely isn't a fairy godmother dropping money from the sky. But it's better than not having it for me. 

[Alanhathaway]

44 minutes ago, timbrass said:

That's the issue.  There are no real "facts" to be had.  You are trying to predict which of two possible futures is preferable.  The answer you get depends on what assumptions you start with (and what factors you consider relevant).  Like the weather in Pilton at the end of June, forecasting anything more than a few days ahead is a waste of time. 

I voted IN (despite being a baby boomer) because I suspect the country would be marginally better off and I don't want to encourage the Scottish Nationalists to break up the UK.

 

Agree with your comments , but with the oil price so low I really doubt Scotland would leave the UK as they would be isolated economically.

[SwedgeAntilles]

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

I feel like I've strolled into the argument sketch from monty python. 

No you haven't 

[pehaw]

I see no advantage whatsoever of leaving so its REMAIN for me.

[incident]

46 minutes ago, Alanhathaway said:

Agree with your comments , but with the oil price so low I really doubt Scotland would leave the UK as they would be isolated economically.

If the UK left Europe? I think it'd become very likely, very quickly that Scotland would leave the UK, and rejoin Europe. Regardless of the oil price.

It's almost certain that the SNP would use a Leave vote as an excuse to hold another referendum. The uncertainty regarding how an independent Scotland would be able to fit into the EU was a significant factor in them voting to stay in the UK last time round - and was probably a much bigger factor than the oil price in the overall outcome.

A second Scottish independence referendum after the UK leaving the EU would essentially reverse that situation - ie leaving the UK would mean being welcomed back into the EU, as opposed to staying in a newly isolated UK and following the direction set by Prime Minister Gove. Scottish Independence suddenly becomes a much more desirable prospect. Hell, I'd consider moving there and probably wouldn't be alone in that.

Just my opinion, but I think a Leave vote would significantly increase the likelihood of the break up of the UK. If not guarantee it.

[Tyonks]

Strongly leaning towards out. (Voted out in this poll) 

Still genuinely confounds me that the left is so resoundingly behind the remain vote. 

[clarkete]

35 minutes ago, Tyonks said:

Still genuinely confounds me that the left is so resoundingly behind the remain vote. 

Because they value being part of Europe, rather than cosying up with Boris, Farage, Gove and their millionaire sponsors?

It's not that baffling  

[Tyonks]

1 minute ago, clarkete said:

Because they value being part of Europe, rather than cosying up with Boris, Farage, Gove and their millionaire sponsors?

It's not that baffling  

Ha true,

Don't get me wrong I hate them as much as the next guy, but EU is also full of people in the pockets of millionaires, only difference is that they're virtually untouchable. 

And just think, if we left the EU, what would be the point of UKIP? Farage would just go back to being the weird crank getting sloshed at the bar on a Monday afternoon, rather than being hailed as a hero for it.