EU funding for UK Canal Projects

[Mutts]

That would be an ecumenical matter....Ted

[Henhouse]

Our People who art in Britain

Great is Our name.

Thy Kingdom come.

Great things will be done.

In England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland

Give us this day Our Inches, Our Pints, and Our Pounds,

And forgive us our metrication,

As we banish those who federalise against us.

And lead us not into a republic,

But Preserve our Monarchy.

For Ours is Great Britain,

The Commonwealth and Empire

Forever and Ever.

Amen.

[George Kennedy]

Is it appropriate to introduce the subject of duty on red diesel?

[Athy]

 

Our People who art in Britain

Great is Our name.

Thy Kingdom come.

Great things will be done.

In England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland

Give us this day Our Inches, Our Pints, and Our Pounds,

And forgive us our metrication,

As we banish those who federalise against us.

And lead us not into a republic,

But Preserve our Monarchy.

For Ours is Great Britain,

The Commonwealth and Empire

Forever and Ever.

Amen.

 

Have a greeno, Mr.House. All your own work?

[Henhouse]

Thank You

[Dalesman]

I notice that everyone is concentrating on the CaRT element of EU funding, but what about all the other canal projects that receive EU funding, from the restoration of various canals to the restoration of buildings and boats? What will they do for funding if we do leave the EU? I cannot see the UK government concentrating on them with limited funds available.

And it isn't just the canals, but lots of other things that could be at risk, from preserved railways to other charities.

 

I know which way I will be voting!!

So do tell us were all the money comes from, for this EU funding..? I think you will find the lottery spends a lot on canal projects and boats like the Daniel Adamson etc.

[MoominPapa]

Is it appropriate to introduce the subject of duty on red diesel?

... and the recreational craft directive?

 

MP.

[BlueStringPudding]

BSP - So we have a discussion on funding where you claim that you are an "expert" in third sector funding

You'll have to show me where I say that. And you clearly haven't understood (or don't want to) anything I've said about third sector finances, added value, partnership working and its relationship to business resilience and solvency. So I have no intention of engaging with you any further on the subject. As I said before: some people just don't want to learn.

 

 

I notice that everyone is concentrating on the CaRT element of EU funding, but what about all the other canal projects that receive EU funding, from the restoration of various canals to the restoration of buildings and boats? What will they do for funding if we do leave the EU? I cannot see the UK government concentrating on them with limited funds available.

And it isn't just the canals, but lots of other things that could be at risk, from preserved railways to other charities.

 

I know which way I will be voting!!

You're absolutely right Edited May 11, 2016 by BlueStringPudding

[Mike Todd]

I have no experience of canal-related EU grants but have some limited experience here in Cornwall on other matters. Currently a main stream of funding is called Convergence Funding. The grants, when made, end up as contracts with the appropriate oversight department. It could be DEFRA but it might be local government or education.

 

What is clear is that these grants would not be available absent to EU funding. Look at the motivation for the preceding scheme - Objective One. Studies showed that the UK, on its own, disregarded the needs of areas such as Cornwall who received very little support with the consequence that, despite UK's pre-eminent economic position, their proportional GDP was well below par. It was only because the EU set out to build up the poorer parts that Cornwall could make its case directly, based on its economic position rather than its lack of political clout.

 

If that means that unelected Commissioners make decisions, then sometimes that might be a good thing. I heard yesterday part of a radio analysis of the impact of Richard the Lionheart and its was concluded that England was better administered because Richard went off on the Crusades and left the 'real' work to an (unelected) expert. It was suggested that the people of England felt much better served that way.

 

Sometimes 'democracy' is a touchstone for ultimate success that bears little relation to the evidence. There is a very important role for democracy in holding the administration to account but disaster awaits countries that confuse the two roles and allow politicians to do the administration (even worse when they try to dispense justice!)

[system 4-50]

... agreed by panels of industry relevant and governing officials from multiple EU countries. They have a much more socially progressive ideology than our current Tory government meaning our country benefits from the EU's more open minded view that the waterways, culture and heritage have a social value not just a financial one.

 

So, as a boater, I need to support membership of the EU, because the EU's government's current policies are better for boaters than the UK Government's current policies? And the principles behind being governed at a higher level or a lower local level should be ignored?

[billS]

You'll have to show me where I say that. And you clearly haven't understood (or don't want to) anything I've said about third sector finances, added value, partnership working and its relationship to business resilience and solvency. So I have no intention of engaging with you any further on the subject. As I said before: some people just don't want to learn.

Fine, and I am not disputing that these aspects are important in many areas, and I do understand that. Indeed Mike argues the case very well in the context of Cornwall funding. However, in the specific context of the size of the EU contribution to the ongoing running costs of CaRT (which you claimed would be severely affected by withdrawal from the EU) then these words are pretty meaningless without some indication of the size of the numbers involved.

 

If I had an interest and was allowed to discuss the implications of a Brexit on Cornwall ,then I would be trying to find out the actual size of hit that Cornwall would take.

 

I am sorry that you only seem to want to discuss thing with people who don't challenge your assertions. I'm not even disagreeing with you - just trying to put a figure on it.

[Graham Davis]

So do tell us were all the money comes from, for this EU funding..? I think you will find the lottery spends a lot on canal projects and boats like the Daniel Adamson etc.

 

It comes from ALL the payments by ALL the members of the EU.

 

And what has the Lottery got to do with it? I know that major development work on the Vale of Rheiddol, the Corris, the Talyllyn and other railways has all been funded by EU grants, that were well over what could have been paid by the Lottery.

[Phil.]

It comes from ALL the payments by ALL the members of the EU.

If only. Your not by chance an EU accountant are you.

[furnessvale]

At least you come across the odd fact such as yes UK out of EU will be able to trade with the EU but it will almost certainly be along one of the two existing models.

 

Model 1 which Iceland and Norway use they pay money in to the EU and have to produce everything being traded the EU regs but have no input to forming those regs.

 

Model 2. Used by Switzerland they don't pay in but are banned from trading in certain areas one being financial. A uk prevented from trading in banking etc with the EU would be missing out big time.

 

The fact that industries who export to the EU know their business will be effected.

 

It is a fact that parts of the UK get more in grants than they ever did from a UK government and those grants come to more than UK pays into that particular pot. Scientific research being one the grant being (from memory) about double what the UK pays in for scientific research grants.

 

etc etc

 

And as we are being in a childish patronising frame of mind Ah Bless to you too.

You missed out Model 3. That is the model used by EVERY other country in the world except the aforementioned three.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Graham Davis]

If only. Your not by chance an EU accountant are you.

 

So where does it come from then?

[Phil.]

So where does it come from then?

See post #18

 

It comes from us, the taxpayer in the UK. It is just currently we pay an awful lot of money out to some third party who then graciously gives us a little bit back but tells us how we must spend it.

 

We could actually spend more on canals and trains if that's your thing by being out because we would decide where and how much money is spent. Currently we are simply told how we must spend it.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

See post #18

 

It comes from us, the taxpayer in the UK. It is just currently we pay an awful lot of money out to some third party who then graciously gives us a little bit back but tells us how we must spend it.

 

We could actually spend more on canals and trains if that's your thing by being out because we would decide where and how much money is spent. Currently we are simply told how we must spend it.

But we wont will we? To keep reiterating the point, we have a Government committed to smaller Government so there is no way on earth that they are going to increase their 'commitment' to a minority sport like the canals whether or not they suddenly find themselves with a spare £20 billion pounds. Any money 'saved' by leaving the EU WILL go elsewhere to more deserving cases, not a brass farthing will come in the direction of the waterways.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Phil.]

But we wont will we? To keep reiterating the point, we have a Government committed to smaller Government so there is no way on earth that they are going to increase their 'commitment' to a minority sport like the canals whether or not they suddenly find themselves with a spare £20 billion pounds. Any money 'saved' by leaving the EU WILL go elsewhere to more deserving cases, not a brass farthing will come in the direction of the waterways.

And that is the whole point of living in a supposed democracy. If you don't like what the government is doing with your money you vote them out.

[Jerra]

You missed out Model 3. That is the model used by EVERY other country in the world except the aforementioned three.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

If the third model is so advantageous why do Norway,Iceland and Switzerland not use it and forgo the disadvantages of the ones they do use? Any ideas?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

And that is the whole point of living in a supposed democracy. If you don't like what the government is doing with your money you vote them out.

I agree with your 'supposed' democracy since no Government over the past 40 years have been significantly different from any other. Even in the unlikely event of the current crop being voted out nothing would change.

[Graham Davis]

Editted; quoted the wrong post!

Edited May 11, 2016 by Graham Davis

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Do you actually believe that?

I think it is almost a certainty, unless you know otherwise? Let me think, more money for the NHS (particularly Mental Health)? or more money for a leisure system (canals)? If the waterways are on their list of concerns at all it will be somewhere near the bottom!

[Graham Davis]

For some reason I quoted the wrong post!!

Now edited it.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Graham Davis

[furnessvale]

If the third model is so advantageous why do Norway,Iceland and Switzerland not use it and forgo the disadvantages of the ones they do use? Any ideas?

I have no idea.

 

Perhaps we should ask Japan and India* why they do not adopt the "favourable" Norway, Iceland and Switzerland model?

 

*Selected from over 100 countries trading with the EU as being the ones with GDP nearest to the UK.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Pluto]

See post #18

 

It comes from us, the taxpayer in the UK. It is just currently we pay an awful lot of money out to some third party who then graciously gives us a little bit back but tells us how we must spend it.

 

We could actually spend more on canals and trains if that's your thing by being out because we would decide where and how much money is spent. Currently we are simply told how we must spend it.

The money saved by coming out of the EU is around 1% of government spending, and I can't see that making much effect on spending nationally should we come out of the EU. For the average person, there will be little difference financially whether we are in or out, with any variation in line with current changes produced by the UK budget decisions. What will probably affect my voting is the European employment legislation which probably protects workers rather more than that coming out of Westminster recently, but I do rather take the 'pox on both their houses' attitude, given the intrigues of the politicians and business people who are interviewed by the media.