EU referendum

[Brown Nose]

Probably one place to start looking is Euro 2016, most of the stadium redevelopment there is financed either wholly publicly funded or public-private partnerships, EU funding being a large part of that, particularly in areas of industrial decline - Lens and Lille former coal mining and steelmaking areas most obviously are being supported by regeneration and redevelopment grants (Structural Funds) which come down from the EU to member states. This has been much the case for every Euro since 2000 (The grounds in England then benefiting most from sites regenerated with EU money, Riverside and Stadium of Light not being ready in time for Euro96), particularly Portugal 2004 and Poland co-hosting 2012.

It's more fuzzy in the UK, both because of the tradition of clubs owning their own grounds and the habit of successive UK Governments to shove all their EU funds into a single treasury pot and trying to spend them on other stuff which general taxation should cover. Most of the support has been in cleaning the derelict sites on which grounds are then built and the surrounding areas spruced up, (such as Bede Island in LCFC's case) - the big one at the moment being the many millions of EU funding going into the Anfield regeneration, admittedly an expensive way to soften the blow that their team is doomed to underperform in perpetuity, for which I expect someone, somewhere is blaming the EU as I speak.

You've missed my point and avoided my question.

However, trying to argue the positive case of using EU money to help the likes of moneybags Liverpool made me chuckle.

 

[Real Sharapova]

So you're saying that an organisation that threatens people's livings, including those in two non-EU countries, is a good thing?

It's not the organisation that threaten's my nephew's business, it's the fall in the pound due to the uncertainty brought about by the referendum, and the certain further fall in the pound if the UK voted to leave the EU. Not sure how you can blame the EU for that to be honest.

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

You've missed my point and avoided my question.

However, trying to argue the positive case of using EU money to help the likes of moneybags Liverpool made me chuckle.

I don't really know what your point was, I was simply giving you (on a football fans forum) a specific example to aid your search if you were interested. I should perhaps have specified that Anfield is the streets and area around the ground being redeveloped, rather than the football ground, whose rebuilding is not being funded by the EU.

As Homer says, Lenny's endorsement was welcome and well made; sports funding from the EU is to help by doing useful things, and it is at the smaller, community scale, limited by article 165 of the Lisbon Treaty. The ERASMUS + programme offers funding for projects that promote co-operation, openness and fairness, widen participation and the physical and moral wellbeing of athletes. There's a whole lot of community/Community events being held during September designated "European Week of Sport" - inevitably it's the week we're away at Anfield. I'd have thought that was self-evidently a good thing and should not be jeopardised whether Brexit happens or not, as it partly addresses the evident failure of Lottery and other sports funding which prioritises chasing gongs, whilst letting grass roots participation wither.

 

[Brown Nose]

It's not the organisation that threaten's my nephew's business, it's the fall in the pound due to the uncertainty brought about by the referendum, and the certain further fall in the pound if the UK voted to leave the EU. Not sure how you can blame the EU for that to be honest.

But if we cannot afford to do anything outside of the status quo in fear of market fluctuations, nothing new or different will ever get done.

It's the, if you never leave your house, you'll never get knocked down by a bus, defence.

I get this sort of personal concern but there are much bigger issues at stake.

 

[Real Sharapova]

But if we cannot afford to do anything outside of the status quo in fear of market fluctuations, nothing new or different will ever get done.

It's the, if you never leave your house, you'll never get knocked down by a bus, defence.

I get this sort of personal concern but there are much bigger issues at stake.

I could chose to upset the status quo by going down to Beachy Head and hurling myself off the top. I don't quite see what it would achieve to be frank.

 

[Mawsley]

I'm so looking forward to this entire basketful of bollocks to be over so the price of second-hand Monster Munch can stabilise.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

I'm firmly in the leave camp. Ultimately yes it's better to have a seat at the table, but not at the price we pay for it which is a portion of our independence as well as the several hundred million pounds per week! In an ideal world we could all be independent and still co-operate on the issues that matter.

The perfect scenario would be a much better reformed EU. I don't think we will ever get that the way we want it. I think we've got greater growth potential out of it.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

If this was a vote to decide whether to join the EU, would people vote the same way in the current climate?

Probably an irrelevant question. But with us being the 5th biggest economy in the world at the minute and having one of the highest growth rates, and with several European countries having had massive bailouts in the last few years and more due to go the same way (Italy) you'd be saying stay the **** out.

Having said that, we're in the EU and have propsered from it clearly. The question is can we do better for ourselves when we can broaden our trade possibilities? I think we can. Also when they say 'out is out' I don't believe a word of it. There is so much shit being thrown around by both sides though that it's difficult to know what to believe.

 

[Jeff]

several hundred million pounds per week!

That's a lie put about by the leave campaign. They say it's £350 million a week when the actual figure is £110 million. And we benefit from being part of the free market, but putting a value on that is more difficult.

 

[Jeff]

The question is can we do better for ourselves when we can broaden our trade possibilities?

How is leaving the EU going to broaden our trade possibilities?

I used to work for a manufacturing company that exported around the world. When the single market started in 1992, it suddenly became much easier to export to EU countries and that helped grow the business. Exporting to non EU countries still involved loads of red tape and paperwork.
If we leave the single market a lot of companies will suffer.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

The single market is one of the pros of the EU but Norway shows you can be in it without being in the EU. In an ideal world we could stay whilst being able to trade outside of the single market as well of course. You do wonder if it would be better to stay in and try and reshape it, but, then you hear of Cameron and his failed attempts at getting the reforms he wants and question how likely it is.

 

[Jeff]

Norway shows you can be in it without being in the EU

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-minister-erna-solberg-warning-a7084926.html

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

Isn't Norway generally pretty like-minded with Britain and Sweden? It makes sense that they would want us to stay in if we provide a voice for them. I have a friend that has lived there for the last 2 and a half years. It's a very prosperous country with one of the highest average household incomes in the world. In Norway's case I think they'd be better off out of the EEA as well.

 

[Blaarev]

We're not in, but we're the most obedient country following every EU law and regulation more strictly than the member countries.

 

[Real Sharapova]

Isn't Norway generally pretty like-minded with Britain and Sweden? It makes sense that they would want us to stay in if we provide a voice for them. I have a friend that has lived there for the last 2 and a half years. It's a very prosperous country with one of the highest average household incomes in the world. In Norway's case I think they'd be better off out of the EEA as well.

I'd like Blarev's view on the relationship Norway has with the EU, but from my point of view they have had to accept free movement of labour and pay in to the EU around 20% less per head of population that we do ( I read these numbers a few weeks ago, so apologies if they are a bit out ), but they don't get a vote at the table. Again, Blarev can speak for this better that I, but I reckon they are prosperous mainly because they have a relatively small population compared to their enormous oil and gas reserves.

 

[Real Sharapova]

We're not in, but we're the most obedient country following every EU law and regulation more strictly than the member countries.

Sod it, beat to me my post!

 

[bocadillo]

That's a lie put about by the leave campaign. They say it's £350 million a week when the actual figure is £110 million. And we benefit from being part of the free market, but putting a value on that is more difficult.

Would it be fair to say then that we pay £110 million a week and have to spend almost a quarter of a billion a week on what the EU tells us rather than being able to choose for ourselves?

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

Being "like Norway" is even more improbable when Scottish oil disappears as they break away from the Union after Brexit.

 

[FryattFox]

Would it be fair to say then that we pay £110 million a week and have to spend almost a quarter of a billion a week on what the EU tells us rather than being able to choose for ourselves?

That £0.25bn is less than 2% of our annual spending. Hardly a huge amount given it gets spent on areas that we've still voted on, even if vicariously through the EU.

And as Jeff states, it's commonly accepted by the vast majority of experts that the financial benefits of membership and free trade outweigh this.

 

[Jeff]

Would it be fair to say then that we pay £110 million a week and have to spend almost a quarter of a billion a week on what the EU tells us rather than being able to choose for ourselves?

No.
Because around £100 million of that quarter of a billion comes straight back to the UK as a rebate.