Also in the news

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Yes indeed, I agree that was rather the point of the development funds.  The point is that is it not that we don't advertise it, just that we have less of it.

 

Fair enough. I assumed from your comment that you also thought this was unfair? Maybe, I misinterpreted your comment?

 

I presume that there are EU nations that get even less such funding, if they have few or no regions that are underdeveloped/deindustralised/downright poor?

 

I've not seen any data, but I imagine that Germany, Netherlands, Luxembourg or the Nordic countries might get less than the UK.

Obviously, much more will have been spent in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland and the nations of Eastern Europe. Even there, I presume that well-off regions of poorer countries (Catalonia? Northern Italy?) would not get the funding that they get in Cornwall, Wales or wherever.

 

It's a bit like on a personal basis, those earning high incomes and with few needs will pay more and get less than those who are poor or have greater needs: redistribution.

Of course, the poor can become the rich and vice-versa. High-paid employees can become pensioners needing extensive social support. Likewise, poor countries can become richer - Ireland got a lot of funds, but is now a net contributor to the EU.

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Fair enough. I assumed from your comment that you also thought this was unfair? Maybe, I misinterpreted your comment?

 

I presume that there are EU nations that get even less such funding, if they have few or no regions that are underdeveloped/deindustralised/downright poor?

 

I've not seen any data, but I imagine that Germany, Netherlands, Luxembourg or the Nordic countries might get less than the UK.

Obviously, much more will have been spent in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland and the nations of Eastern Europe. Even there, I presume that well-off regions of poorer countries (Catalonia? Northern Italy?) would not get the funding that they get in Cornwall, Wales or wherever.

 

It's a bit like on a personal basis, those earning high incomes and with few needs will pay more and get less than those who are poor or have greater needs: redistribution.

Of course, the poor can become the rich and vice-versa. High-paid employees can become pensioners needing extensive social support. Likewise, poor countries can become richer - Ireland got a lot of funds, but is now a net contributor to the EU.

The original post seemed to me to be implying we were getting funding but not advertising the benefits, whereas in fact we got a lot less benefits.  You can argue whether this is good or bad policy, but it is a fact.

[Alf Bentley]

24 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Which is great for cornwall, wales and spain, they've now got all nice new roads etc and everyone wants to go there,  places like leicester and skeggy end up being shitholes because of the lack of local funding but are too wealthy for eu handouts, to which their residents have contributed to.

 

That's mainly due to democratic/political decisions taken in the UK.

 

We've repeatedly elected national govts that have slashed funding for local govt: Labour did this to some extent, but the Tories much more.

Ridiculous sums have been slashed from council budgets (and until recently councils were prevented from raising council tax beyond a certain level). Thus, less money for councils = less spending on local roads.

All because we vote in govts that want to cut tax - particularly tax for the wealthy and big corporations.

 

We contribute to EU funds based on national GDP/income per person (can't remember precisely) and are net contributors as the UK is richer than the EU average.

Some of our poorer regions get funds from the EU because they are comparatively poor.

Our nation then chooses to give tax cuts to big business and the wealthy, while slashing public and local spending, turning places into shitholes and increasing inequality, division and anger......that's our choice.

 

[Guest MattP]

Let's be honest it's absurd to even have these things claiming the EU did it when we are a net contributor to the project.

 

Imagine me taking 50 quid out your wallet, buying you a bottle of whisky and then asking for thanks. 

 

If certain areas are underfunded that should be a critique of the British government. 

[Legend_in_blue]

So here comes the long delay.

 

Cut the BS and bring it back to the people.  

 

Where's Rees-Mogg now?  Where is he?    This was our legally binding day to leave according to him but we're all still here.  Hahahahaha!  No doubt he'll be telling us we're out on a No Deal in May now this has happened because it's legally binding.

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Well it would, the only thing you could change about it would be reverting to NI-only backstop but given Labour favours a CU, I can’t imagine they’d scrap that bit of it.

 

Well given the only way they can bind the hands of a future government is ammending the Implementation Bill (need to vote for the WA first) or wining an election - but they’ve not brought forward another confidence motion and arguably the WA passing is their best route to no confidence - that seems a rather limp explanation of their position. 

 

Very fluid situation.

 

- This keeps alive the possibility of a Soft Brexit deal emerging next week - and being inserted in a redrawn Political Declaration.

- It also avoids giving a new PM (Boris? Raab?) carte blanche to negotiate the latter.

- It also makes the prospect of a general election MORE not LESS likely, if the experts are to be believed (though personally I'm dubious that Labour would win under Corbyn) - and an election that might have to happen with May as Tory leader, given the time required to elect a new Tory leader.

 

As for your "limp" comment......as I've said, I have a song for any situation: 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, Legend_in_blue said:

So here comes the long delay.

 

Cut the BS and bring it back to the people.  

 

Where's Rees-Mogg now?  Where is he?    This was our legally binding day to leave according to him but we're all still here.  Hahahahaha!  No doubt he'll be telling us we're out on a No Deal in May now this has happened because it's legally binding.

We will be out on the 12th April unless we agree something else with the EU.

[Legend_in_blue]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

We will be out on the 12th April unless we agree something else with the EU.

That won't happen.  Long extension I reckon.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

We will be out on the 12th April unless we agree something else with the EU.

Doubt they’ll want to see us go tbh and especially not without the 39 billion. I actually think they’ll bend over backwards to give us an extension and a lengthy one at that.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Doubt they’ll want to see us go tbh and especially not without the 39 billion. I actually think they’ll bend over backwards to give us an extension and a lengthy one at that.

They will, they have already extended when they said they wouldn't. 

 

I'm actually looking forward to the European Elections now though. 

[AKCJ]

 

 

Pretty impressive to get your new team's name wrong on the first attempt.

[Nick]

7 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

 

 

Pretty impressive to get your new team's name wrong on the first attempt.

It’s in her mind because change.org are taking legal proceedings over them stealing their name!

[Jon the Hat]

Agreed there will be an extension, probably a year or so I expect.  The point is picking apart people for saying we need a legal instrument to make that change is silly.

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I'm actually looking forward to the European Elections now though. 

 

 

Certainly wouldn't be boring. Potentially a good night for Brexit Party, UKIP, SNP, TIG, Greens and/or Lib Dems, and a bad night for Tories and Labour? 

 

One BBC commentator reckoned that the indicative vote process might now produce something with majority support: Customs Union with/without referendum?

Not sure about that myself - some would prefer May to referendum etc. Could be a shoot-out between that, if approved, and May IV!

 

The same commentator reckoned that May would call a general election rather than go to the EU to request a long extension for CU / Referendum, if that does get approved.

And 23rd May (same day as Euro elections) would be the logical time to hold a general election....

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Certainly wouldn't be boring. Potentially a good night for Brexit Party, UKIP, SNP, TIG, Greens and/or Lib Dems, and a bad night for Tories and Labour? 

 

One BBC commentator reckoned that the indicative vote process might now produce something with majority support: Customs Union with/without referendum?

Not sure about that myself - some would prefer May to referendum etc. Could be a shoot-out between that, if approved, and May IV!

 

The same commentator reckoned that May would call a general election rather than go to the EU to request a long extension for CU / Referendum, if that does get approved.

And 23rd May (same day as Euro elections) would be the logical time to hold a general election....

Should at least keep us going over the summer without a Euros or World Cup to look forward to. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Certainly wouldn't be boring. Potentially a good night for Brexit Party, UKIP, SNP, TIG, Greens and/or Lib Dems, and a bad night for Tories and Labour? 

 

One BBC commentator reckoned that the indicative vote process might now produce something with majority support: Customs Union with/without referendum?

Not sure about that myself - some would prefer May to referendum etc. Could be a shoot-out between that, if approved, and May IV!

 

The same commentator reckoned that May would call a general election rather than go to the EU to request a long extension for CU / Referendum, if that does get approved.

And 23rd May (same day as Euro elections) would be the logical time to hold a general election....

We've got the locals in some parts of the country on 2 May, but she needs to get a shift on if she wants to meet that deadline.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Is Wetherspoons closed for the afternoon?

 

 

Wetherspoons has come to the rally......Tim Martin just speaking about his Aussie brandy and English sparkling wine....  

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

We've got the locals in some parts of the country on 2 May, but she needs to get a shift on if she wants to meet that deadline.

 

Has to be at least 5 weeks notice, I think.....which would have meant announcing it yesterday, give or take?

 

They might prefer to have any general election on the same day as the Euros, anyway, seeing as Brexit would dominate both.

 

Can you imagine staging Euro elections 3 weeks after a general election, maybe one that had been controversial in content and outcome, perhaps with a hung parliament trying to form a govt? 

[yorkie1999]

59 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's mainly due to democratic/political decisions taken in the UK.

 

We've repeatedly elected national govts that have slashed funding for local govt: Labour did this to some extent, but the Tories much more.

Ridiculous sums have been slashed from council budgets (and until recently councils were prevented from raising council tax beyond a certain level). Thus, less money for councils = less spending on local roads.

All because we vote in govts that want to cut tax - particularly tax for the wealthy and big corporations.

 

We contribute to EU funds based on national GDP/income per person (can't remember precisely) and are net contributors as the UK is richer than the EU average.

Some of our poorer regions get funds from the EU because they are comparatively poor.

Our nation then chooses to give tax cuts to big business and the wealthy, while slashing public and local spending, turning places into shitholes and increasing inequality, division and anger......that's our choice.

 

Bit crap at making decisions then aren't we. Let's turn everywhere we don't live into paradise and make where we do live a shithole. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Bit crap at making decisions then aren't we. Let's turn everywhere we don't live into paradise and make where we do live a shithole. 

 

Can't argue too much with that, though some parts of the EU aren't exactly paradise either - not least thanks to similar "austerity politics" by the EU.

[Carl the Llama]

The crowds in London today have been pretty impressive.

 

Is what we would have said if hundreds of times more people hadn't shown up earlier in the week to voice the opposite opinion.  But let's keep pretending this is what the people want so some career politicians can keep their febrile claws on positions of power.

[lgfualol]

Lmao what a joke.  Leaving the EU because 'we want to make our own decisions' then spend 2 years not being able to make any decisions. Nice on Cameron you pig-snogging twot.

[Bellend Sebastian]

At last some actual news:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/nicolas-cage-files-annulment-just-14201346.amp

[urban.spaceman]

[Heathrow fox]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Let's be honest it's absurd to even have these things claiming the EU did it when we are a net contributor to the project.

 

Imagine me taking 50 quid out your wallet, buying you a bottle of whisky and then asking for thanks. 

 

If certain areas are underfunded that should be a critique of the British government. 

When they tarted up the Humberstone Gate area next to Highfields taxis mid 90s?It was actually funded by the EU.I remember the sign.It actually looked quite nice for a couple of years