He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind – politicalbetting.com

Mexicanpete said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, it seemed bizarre to me that pro-EU MPs didn't even attempt (they had three shots) to slip in a confirmatory referendum clause and back May's deal.

By what means would they get something better? And, if they opposed her deal, what alternative except a harder departure was on the table?

I would have opposed on all three occasions. I was outraged Mrs May brought the same deal back on a one more heave basis.

However, knowing what I know now, I would have voted it through on the first time of asking, such is Johnson's thin gruel deal.

TOPPING said:

In Afghan over the past 12 or 18 months the UK should have been winding down operations, getting the people out who we wanted to get out and ensuring that come the deadline it was just the ambassador left ceremoniously getting on board a C30 hold on that's a cassette tape C130 and that should have been it.

That is why the FCO is culpable.

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

That's just the UK's money recycled back, it isn't a subsidy.

It isn't. UK money (and other countries) were for access to trade markets at a favourable rate. Cost/benefit.

Anything we got back after was a subsidy.

It's like saying child benefit is a taxpayers tax recycled back, which is obvious rubbish.

Alphabet_Soup said:

TOPPING said:

In Afghan over the past 12 or 18 months the UK should have been winding down operations, getting the people out who we wanted to get out and ensuring that come the deadline it was just the ambassador left ceremoniously getting on board a C30 hold on that's a cassette tape C130 and that should have been it.

That is why the FCO is culpable.

There was a working assumption that the highly trained and well equipped Afghan national army would hold the line indefinitely. Wishful thinking, in retrospect. Every other mistake flowed from this one. If we and our allies had started evacuating people en masse 18 months ago it would have signalled to the Taliban that we expected the Kabul government to fall. How would they have responded?

TOPPING said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

TOPPING said:

In Afghan over the past 12 or 18 months the UK should have been winding down operations, getting the people out who we wanted to get out and ensuring that come the deadline it was just the ambassador left ceremoniously getting on board a C30 hold on that's a cassette tape C130 and that should have been it.

That is why the FCO is culpable.

There was a working assumption that the highly trained and well equipped Afghan national army would hold the line indefinitely. Wishful thinking, in retrospect. Every other mistake flowed from this one. If we and our allies had started evacuating people en masse 18 months ago it would have signalled to the Taliban that we expected the Kabul government to fall. How would they have responded?

There was an agreement to leave. We were going so the agreement was a pretty strong signal.

Plus fine, don't have the ticker tape parade with the massed bands of the Household Division leading the way to the airport.

Scott_xP said:

TOPPING said:

Also I note on this thread how people are lauding Brexit as it pertains to NI.

Love Brexit if you must but don't deny that it has completely fucked the ROI/NI situation.

For the Little Englanders, that's a feature, not a bug

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, it seemed bizarre to me that pro-EU MPs didn't even attempt (they had three shots) to slip in a confirmatory referendum clause and back May's deal.

By what means would they get something better? And, if they opposed her deal, what alternative except a harder departure was on the table?

If Labour had backed Mrs May’s deal, they’d have torn the government in half, and we’d quite likely have a PM Corbyn by now - but they were more interested in trying to engineer a second referendum without explicitly voting for one, than they were in trying to bring down the government.

(Oh, and I’m very pleased I was working yesterday, and didn’t bet on that farce in Belgium).

The irony of course was that Corbyn was not at all interested in a second referendum as is detailed in some detail, in "Get Out".

It was John McDonnell who really pushed it, in the end

Yes, left to his own devices Corbyn would have voted May's deal through, but there was no way the party would have allowed that. The counterfactuals in this regard are for fun only.

He was leader of the party and won two leadership elections. Who would have stopped him from allowing that?

Do you mean his Shadow Brexit Secretary perhaps who was behind the failed scheming to get a second referendum? Whatever happened to him I wonder?

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

TOPPING said:

In Afghan over the past 12 or 18 months the UK should have been winding down operations, getting the people out who we wanted to get out and ensuring that come the deadline it was just the ambassador left ceremoniously getting on board a C30 hold on that's a cassette tape C130 and that should have been it.

That is why the FCO is culpable.

There was a working assumption that the highly trained and well equipped Afghan national army would hold the line indefinitely. Wishful thinking, in retrospect. Every other mistake flowed from this one. If we and our allies had started evacuating people en masse 18 months ago it would have signalled to the Taliban that we expected the Kabul government to fall. How would they have responded?

There was an agreement to leave. We were going so the agreement was a pretty strong signal.

Plus fine, don't have the ticker tape parade with the massed bands of the Household Division leading the way to the airport.

Right, the army was going to leave, but I doubt they had planned for the entire embassy and local workers to also leave.

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

TOPPING said:

In Afghan over the past 12 or 18 months the UK should have been winding down operations, getting the people out who we wanted to get out and ensuring that come the deadline it was just the ambassador left ceremoniously getting on board a C30 hold on that's a cassette tape C130 and that should have been it.

That is why the FCO is culpable.

There was a working assumption that the highly trained and well equipped Afghan national army would hold the line indefinitely. Wishful thinking, in retrospect. Every other mistake flowed from this one. If we and our allies had started evacuating people en masse 18 months ago it would have signalled to the Taliban that we expected the Kabul government to fall. How would they have responded?

There was an agreement to leave. We were going so the agreement was a pretty strong signal.

Plus fine, don't have the ticker tape parade with the massed bands of the Household Division leading the way to the airport.

Right, the army was going to leave, but I doubt they had planned for the entire embassy and local workers to also leave.

Why not? What changed over the past 18 months? The Taliban conquered the country. Well they had been well on their way to doing that for some time.

What did the scenario analysis throw up when the Trump agreement was signed?

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

TOPPING said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

TOPPING said:

In Afghan over the past 12 or 18 months the UK should have been winding down operations, getting the people out who we wanted to get out and ensuring that come the deadline it was just the ambassador left ceremoniously getting on board a C30 hold on that's a cassette tape C130 and that should have been it.

That is why the FCO is culpable.

There was a working assumption that the highly trained and well equipped Afghan national army would hold the line indefinitely. Wishful thinking, in retrospect. Every other mistake flowed from this one. If we and our allies had started evacuating people en masse 18 months ago it would have signalled to the Taliban that we expected the Kabul government to fall. How would they have responded?

There was an agreement to leave. We were going so the agreement was a pretty strong signal.

Plus fine, don't have the ticker tape parade with the massed bands of the Household Division leading the way to the airport.

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, it seemed bizarre to me that pro-EU MPs didn't even attempt (they had three shots) to slip in a confirmatory referendum clause and back May's deal.

By what means would they get something better? And, if they opposed her deal, what alternative except a harder departure was on the table?

If Labour had backed Mrs May’s deal, they’d have torn the government in half, and we’d quite likely have a PM Corbyn by now - but they were more interested in trying to engineer a second referendum without explicitly voting for one, than they were in trying to bring down the government.

(Oh, and I’m very pleased I was working yesterday, and didn’t bet on that farce in Belgium).

The irony of course was that Corbyn was not at all interested in a second referendum as is detailed in some detail, in "Get Out".

It was John McDonnell who really pushed it, in the end

Yes, left to his own devices Corbyn would have voted May's deal through, but there was no way the party would have allowed that. The counterfactuals in this regard are for fun only.

He was leader of the party and won two leadership elections. Who would have stopped him from allowing that?

Do you mean his Shadow Brexit Secretary perhaps who was behind the failed scheming to get a second referendum? Whatever happened to him I wonder?

The membership. He fetishized his mandate from them. He was their tribune. No way could he facilitate Brexit.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, it seemed bizarre to me that pro-EU MPs didn't even attempt (they had three shots) to slip in a confirmatory referendum clause and back May's deal.

By what means would they get something better? And, if they opposed her deal, what alternative except a harder departure was on the table?

If Labour had backed Mrs May’s deal, they’d have torn the government in half, and we’d quite likely have a PM Corbyn by now - but they were more interested in trying to engineer a second referendum without explicitly voting for one, than they were in trying to bring down the government.

(Oh, and I’m very pleased I was working yesterday, and didn’t bet on that farce in Belgium).

The irony of course was that Corbyn was not at all interested in a second referendum as is detailed in some detail, in "Get Out".

It was John McDonnell who really pushed it, in the end

Yes, left to his own devices Corbyn would have voted May's deal through, but there was no way the party would have allowed that. The counterfactuals in this regard are for fun only.

He was leader of the party and won two leadership elections. Who would have stopped him from allowing that?

Do you mean his Shadow Brexit Secretary perhaps who was behind the failed scheming to get a second referendum? Whatever happened to him I wonder?

The membership. He fetishized his mandate from them. He was their tribune. No way could he facilitate Brexit.

He didn't need to facilitate it, he could have easily (just as Keir did after he took over) abstained on the deal and allowed a deal to get through Parliament on the pretext that any deal is better than no deal. Instead he opposed it every step of the way.

If he's abstained on May's deal it would have gone through and torn the Tories asunder and he's possibly be PM by now. And we'd still be in the Single Market and Customs Union via the backstop. And Boris would never have become PM.

Thank goodness none of that happened!

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

It was other parents' money, the ones subsidising those on the scholarships. Much like how subsidies in the EU work.

CarlottaVance said:

What's an RAF Voyager doing heading towards Kabul? Tanker run?

https://www.flightradar24.com/NAG99/28f71cb1

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, it seemed bizarre to me that pro-EU MPs didn't even attempt (they had three shots) to slip in a confirmatory referendum clause and back May's deal.

By what means would they get something better? And, if they opposed her deal, what alternative except a harder departure was on the table?

If Labour had backed Mrs May’s deal, they’d have torn the government in half, and we’d quite likely have a PM Corbyn by now - but they were more interested in trying to engineer a second referendum without explicitly voting for one, than they were in trying to bring down the government.

(Oh, and I’m very pleased I was working yesterday, and didn’t bet on that farce in Belgium).

The irony of course was that Corbyn was not at all interested in a second referendum as is detailed in some detail, in "Get Out".

It was John McDonnell who really pushed it, in the end

Yes, left to his own devices Corbyn would have voted May's deal through, but there was no way the party would have allowed that. The counterfactuals in this regard are for fun only.

He was leader of the party and won two leadership elections. Who would have stopped him from allowing that?

Do you mean his Shadow Brexit Secretary perhaps who was behind the failed scheming to get a second referendum? Whatever happened to him I wonder?

The membership. He fetishized his mandate from them. He was their tribune. No way could he facilitate Brexit.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, it seemed bizarre to me that pro-EU MPs didn't even attempt (they had three shots) to slip in a confirmatory referendum clause and back May's deal.

By what means would they get something better? And, if they opposed her deal, what alternative except a harder departure was on the table?

If Labour had backed Mrs May’s deal, they’d have torn the government in half, and we’d quite likely have a PM Corbyn by now - but they were more interested in trying to engineer a second referendum without explicitly voting for one, than they were in trying to bring down the government.

(Oh, and I’m very pleased I was working yesterday, and didn’t bet on that farce in Belgium).

The irony of course was that Corbyn was not at all interested in a second referendum as is detailed in some detail, in "Get Out".

It was John McDonnell who really pushed it, in the end

Yes, left to his own devices Corbyn would have voted May's deal through, but there was no way the party would have allowed that. The counterfactuals in this regard are for fun only.

He was leader of the party and won two leadership elections. Who would have stopped him from allowing that?

Do you mean his Shadow Brexit Secretary perhaps who was behind the failed scheming to get a second referendum? Whatever happened to him I wonder?

The membership. He fetishized his mandate from them. He was their tribune. No way could he facilitate Brexit.

He didn't need to facilitate it, he could have easily (just as Keir did after he took over) abstained on the deal and allowed a deal to get through Parliament on the pretext that any deal is better than no deal. Instead he opposed it every step of the way.

If he's abstained on May's deal it would have gone through and torn the Tories asunder and he's possibly be PM by now. And we'd still be in the Single Market and Customs Union via the backstop. And Boris would never have become PM.

Thank goodness none of that happened!

He was ironically pursuing a strategy that it is the LotO's duty to oppose whereas as you say had he not then the events you describe might well have transpired.

Ironically? Because SKS is getting a shellacking now precisely because he is not following that It is the LotO's Duty to Oppose strategy.

Its not the LOTO's duty to oppose. If the LOTO only ever opposed then you could replace the LOTO with an automatic nay vote, but that's not the case.

The LOTO's duty is to provide an alternative. That alternative might sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the government; and can sometimes do both.

Corbyn could have very easily said that May's deal was better than no deal (remember how all the Labour/Remain spin was mocking "no deal is better than a bad deal) so he wouldn't vote it down, but he opposed it so he wouldn't support it, and at the next election he'd be putting forwards his own better alternatives to replace it.

That would be entirely appropriate for a LOTO.

Yes of course they would have had to come up with an alternative. That is part of the premise of opposing or as you say you could just set up a no voting machine.

The opposition should proceed from the premise that everything they want to do would be better than anything the government is planning to do

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

Is that like the twenty pound Scottish we send you and don't even get a tenner back with a note saying "you are now seven pounds in debt".

Bit early for the turnip juice, isn't it?

eek said:

RobD said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

But the Brexiteers campaigned on "we send £350 million a week to the EU". they didn't campaign on "we send £350 million to the EU, but £150 million comes back to places like Pembrokeshire".

Both technically accurate. But the real reason that they used the gross rather than net figure was that the Remain side just wouldn't stop talking about it.

They used the Gross figure because they knew that even the net figure was bad so any argument against it's use really wasn't going to get very far.

DavidL said:

RobD said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

But the Brexiteers campaigned on "we send £350 million a week to the EU". they didn't campaign on "we send £350 million to the EU, but £150 million comes back to places like Pembrokeshire".

Both technically accurate. But the real reason that they used the gross rather than net figure was that the Remain side just wouldn't stop talking about it.

No, no, no Robb, the fact that it was only somewhere between £200m and £250m a week net was definitely a winning argument for remain. No doubt about it.

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

It was other parents' money, the ones subsidising those on the scholarships. Much like how subsidies in the EU work.

Even worse, what Davey is describing is akin to saying "pay us £25,000 per annum and we'll give you a scholarship for one month's fees" and describing that as a subsidy. Err no its not, that's just a deal to refund some of the money you paid yourself.

You used to see this regularly with mobile phone contracts a decade ago. "Pay us £40 per month and we'll give you £40 cashback after three months" ... that's not a subsidy, that's your own money being refunded back to you and is wrapped up within the costs you're paying for.

Funnily enough since then the cost of handsets has gone up, but the cost of contracts hasn't, because fripperies like that have been eliminated.

You have no idea. Bursaries are designed to either retain bums on seats in a competitive market by reducing the fee burden a little in touch and go cases, or raise the standard of the ability of a year group or subject by offering something to someone who is a good athlete or very bright at his subject. Scholarships are much greater and go toward providing a place for less well off students/parents. They are all examples of subsidies. What you used to do with your phone contracts is your own affair. It was not other parents' money. They were purchasing a service at a price and they got it.

OMG, do I have to explain commerce or economics to Tories? You'd have thought they'd have some idea....

eek said:

RobD said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

But the Brexiteers campaigned on "we send £350 million a week to the EU". they didn't campaign on "we send £350 million to the EU, but £150 million comes back to places like Pembrokeshire".

Both technically accurate. But the real reason that they used the gross rather than net figure was that the Remain side just wouldn't stop talking about it.

They used the Gross figure because they knew that even the net figure was bad so any argument against it's use really wasn't going to get very far.

malcolmg said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

You will give him a sore head trying to understand that.

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

It was other parents' money, the ones subsidising those on the scholarships. Much like how subsidies in the EU work.

Even worse, what Davey is describing is akin to saying "pay us £25,000 per annum and we'll give you a scholarship for one month's fees" and describing that as a subsidy. Err no its not, that's just a deal to refund some of the money you paid yourself.

You used to see this regularly with mobile phone contracts a decade ago. "Pay us £40 per month and we'll give you £40 cashback after three months" ... that's not a subsidy, that's your own money being refunded back to you and is wrapped up within the costs you're paying for.

Funnily enough since then the cost of handsets has gone up, but the cost of contracts hasn't, because fripperies like that have been eliminated.

You have no idea. Bursaries are designed to either retain bums on seats in a competitive market by reducing the fee burden a little in touch and go cases, or raise the standard of the ability of a year group or subject by offering something to someone who is a good athlete or very bright at his subject. Scholarships are much greater and go toward providing a place for less well off students/parents. They are all examples of subsidies. What you used to do with your phone contracts is your own affair. It was not other parents' money. They were purchasing a service at a price and they got it.

OMG, do I have to explain commerce or economics to Tories? You'd have thought they'd have some idea....

No you have no idea.

If people are getting full scholarships paid by other parents fees then they're getting subsidised absolutely but that's entirely paid for by the extra fees levied on other parents as a result. It is not some magical free "own" money from the school unless that school has its own resources it can access to provide for that. Some schools do have their own resources to pay for bursaries and scholarships, left in Trust or otherwise from prior graduates and their families etc for that purpose, but that's not the case with the EU.

If your school were levying £25,000 in fees then giving £1,000 back to all feepayers, paid for entirely from the fees, then that's not a subsidy to the feepayers, that's a rebate of their own money back.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

It was other parents' money, the ones subsidising those on the scholarships. Much like how subsidies in the EU work.

Even worse, what Davey is describing is akin to saying "pay us £25,000 per annum and we'll give you a scholarship for one month's fees" and describing that as a subsidy. Err no its not, that's just a deal to refund some of the money you paid yourself.

You used to see this regularly with mobile phone contracts a decade ago. "Pay us £40 per month and we'll give you £40 cashback after three months" ... that's not a subsidy, that's your own money being refunded back to you and is wrapped up within the costs you're paying for.

Funnily enough since then the cost of handsets has gone up, but the cost of contracts hasn't, because fripperies like that have been eliminated.

You have no idea. Bursaries are designed to either retain bums on seats in a competitive market by reducing the fee burden a little in touch and go cases, or raise the standard of the ability of a year group or subject by offering something to someone who is a good athlete or very bright at his subject. Scholarships are much greater and go toward providing a place for less well off students/parents. They are all examples of subsidies. What you used to do with your phone contracts is your own affair. It was not other parents' money. They were purchasing a service at a price and they got it.

OMG, do I have to explain commerce or economics to Tories? You'd have thought they'd have some idea....

No you have no idea.

If people are getting full scholarships paid by other parents fees then they're getting subsidised absolutely but that's entirely paid for by the extra fees levied on other parents as a result. It is not some magical free "own" money from the school unless that school has its own resources it can access to provide for that. Some schools do have their own resources to pay for bursaries and scholarships, left in Trust or otherwise from prior graduates and their families etc for that purpose, but that's not the case with the EU.

If your school were levying £25,000 in fees then giving £1,000 back to all feepayers, paid for entirely from the fees, then that's not a subsidy to the feepayers, that's a rebate of their own money back.

The easiest way to tell that it was a subsidy from the fee-paying parents would be for those parents to stop paying. I suspect the free scholarship would soon end.

Theuniondivvie said:

I see Brexit is a distant memory again.

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

It was other parents' money, the ones subsidising those on the scholarships. Much like how subsidies in the EU work.

Even worse, what Davey is describing is akin to saying "pay us £25,000 per annum and we'll give you a scholarship for one month's fees" and describing that as a subsidy. Err no its not, that's just a deal to refund some of the money you paid yourself.

You used to see this regularly with mobile phone contracts a decade ago. "Pay us £40 per month and we'll give you £40 cashback after three months" ... that's not a subsidy, that's your own money being refunded back to you and is wrapped up within the costs you're paying for.

Funnily enough since then the cost of handsets has gone up, but the cost of contracts hasn't, because fripperies like that have been eliminated.

You have no idea. Bursaries are designed to either retain bums on seats in a competitive market by reducing the fee burden a little in touch and go cases, or raise the standard of the ability of a year group or subject by offering something to someone who is a good athlete or very bright at his subject. Scholarships are much greater and go toward providing a place for less well off students/parents. They are all examples of subsidies. What you used to do with your phone contracts is your own affair. It was not other parents' money. They were purchasing a service at a price and they got it.

OMG, do I have to explain commerce or economics to Tories? You'd have thought they'd have some idea....

No you have no idea.

If people are getting full scholarships paid by other parents fees then they're getting subsidised absolutely but that's entirely paid for by the extra fees levied on other parents as a result. It is not some magical free "own" money from the school unless that school has its own resources it can access to provide for that. Some schools do have their own resources to pay for bursaries and scholarships, left in Trust or otherwise from prior graduates and their families etc for that purpose, but that's not the case with the EU.

If your school were levying £25,000 in fees then giving £1,000 back to all feepayers, paid for entirely from the fees, then that's not a subsidy to the feepayers, that's a rebate of their own money back.

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

And the bottom line below that bottom line was that the wider economic benefits exceeded the net contribution. Whether that was true - and if so the extent of its truth - will become clear in due course.

Absolutely not so. The real cost of membership of the SM was an £80bn a year trade deficit with the EU year after year after year. The cost of that was roughly 1m well paid jobs in this country and low tens of billions of foregone tax revenue.

You can make arguments that we did not play the game well, that it was our own fault that we were so inept at exporting and so prone to import, that government policy in this country positively encourages excess consumption etc but the fact remains that being in the SM was economically ruinous for this country and free trade with the EU is not actually in our interests until we can improve our competitiveness.

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Mexicanpete said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, it seemed bizarre to me that pro-EU MPs didn't even attempt (they had three shots) to slip in a confirmatory referendum clause and back May's deal.

By what means would they get something better? And, if they opposed her deal, what alternative except a harder departure was on the table?

I would have opposed on all three occasions. I was outraged Mrs May brought the same deal back on a one more heave basis.

However, knowing what I know now, I would have voted it through on the first time of asking, such is Johnson's thin gruel deal.

Defo. I was always for it. Never a Ref2 man. Just felt like tilting at windmills.

I'd say a definite error Sturgeon made (as opposed to all the ones the twerps on here fantasise about) was to throw her lot in with Euroref2 mob. Her tone should have been 'we recognise England and Wales have chosen to leave the EU and while we feel strongly this is a mistake we absolutely accept their right to make it. We expect Scotland's choice to be similarly respected'. May not have made much difference in the end but it would have helped on the consistent principle line.

I reckon her head was turned by all the great and good progressives who usually spit bile at her and the SNP slapping her on the back.

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Pre Covid, the period 2015-2019 saw our rate of growth fall behind peer nations.

By a rounding error.

Pre-Covid, the period 2010-2019 saw our rate of growth increase beyond that of our peer nations. "Despite Brexit" referendum result being in that period.

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

It was other parents' money, the ones subsidising those on the scholarships. Much like how subsidies in the EU work.

Even worse, what Davey is describing is akin to saying "pay us £25,000 per annum and we'll give you a scholarship for one month's fees" and describing that as a subsidy. Err no its not, that's just a deal to refund some of the money you paid yourself.

You used to see this regularly with mobile phone contracts a decade ago. "Pay us £40 per month and we'll give you £40 cashback after three months" ... that's not a subsidy, that's your own money being refunded back to you and is wrapped up within the costs you're paying for.

Funnily enough since then the cost of handsets has gone up, but the cost of contracts hasn't, because fripperies like that have been eliminated.

You have no idea. Bursaries are designed to either retain bums on seats in a competitive market by reducing the fee burden a little in touch and go cases, or raise the standard of the ability of a year group or subject by offering something to someone who is a good athlete or very bright at his subject. Scholarships are much greater and go toward providing a place for less well off students/parents. They are all examples of subsidies. What you used to do with your phone contracts is your own affair. It was not other parents' money. They were purchasing a service at a price and they got it.

OMG, do I have to explain commerce or economics to Tories? You'd have thought they'd have some idea....

No you have no idea.

If people are getting full scholarships paid by other parents fees then they're getting subsidised absolutely but that's entirely paid for by the extra fees levied on other parents as a result. It is not some magical free "own" money from the school unless that school has its own resources it can access to provide for that. Some schools do have their own resources to pay for bursaries and scholarships, left in Trust or otherwise from prior graduates and their families etc for that purpose, but that's not the case with the EU.

If your school were levying £25,000 in fees then giving £1,000 back to all feepayers, paid for entirely from the fees, then that's not a subsidy to the feepayers, that's a rebate of their own money back.

Who said the Parents paid extra fees to cover bursaries? That's like saying that our tins of beans are increased in price due to the adverts on TV. Fees are set at schools using a variety of factors. There will be an advertising budget and a scholarships/bursaries budget amongst others. There is a whole package. The value of the package is set and the parents then purchase it. It is not the other way round, where scholarships are awarded then we ring up everyone to provide an extra £100. Ridiculous. When they purchase it, money changes hands. They get the education plus pastoral support etc, the school gets the money to produce this. If parents don't like this, they can go elsewhere. I was in a fairly middling private school, but very few parents objected to scholarships etc.

You're really struggling with business and economics.

The price of a tin of beans is increased in price to pay for adverts on TV.

That's part of the reason why own-brand beans can be so much cheaper.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

It was other parents' money, the ones subsidising those on the scholarships. Much like how subsidies in the EU work.

Even worse, what Davey is describing is akin to saying "pay us £25,000 per annum and we'll give you a scholarship for one month's fees" and describing that as a subsidy. Err no its not, that's just a deal to refund some of the money you paid yourself.

You used to see this regularly with mobile phone contracts a decade ago. "Pay us £40 per month and we'll give you £40 cashback after three months" ... that's not a subsidy, that's your own money being refunded back to you and is wrapped up within the costs you're paying for.

Funnily enough since then the cost of handsets has gone up, but the cost of contracts hasn't, because fripperies like that have been eliminated.

You have no idea. Bursaries are designed to either retain bums on seats in a competitive market by reducing the fee burden a little in touch and go cases, or raise the standard of the ability of a year group or subject by offering something to someone who is a good athlete or very bright at his subject. Scholarships are much greater and go toward providing a place for less well off students/parents. They are all examples of subsidies. What you used to do with your phone contracts is your own affair. It was not other parents' money. They were purchasing a service at a price and they got it.

OMG, do I have to explain commerce or economics to Tories? You'd have thought they'd have some idea....

No you have no idea.

If people are getting full scholarships paid by other parents fees then they're getting subsidised absolutely but that's entirely paid for by the extra fees levied on other parents as a result. It is not some magical free "own" money from the school unless that school has its own resources it can access to provide for that. Some schools do have their own resources to pay for bursaries and scholarships, left in Trust or otherwise from prior graduates and their families etc for that purpose, but that's not the case with the EU.

If your school were levying £25,000 in fees then giving £1,000 back to all feepayers, paid for entirely from the fees, then that's not a subsidy to the feepayers, that's a rebate of their own money back.

Who said the Parents paid extra fees to cover bursaries? That's like saying that our tins of beans are increased in price due to the adverts on TV. Fees are set at schools using a variety of factors. There will be an advertising budget and a scholarships/bursaries budget amongst others. There is a whole package. The value of the package is set and the parents then purchase it. It is not the other way round, where scholarships are awarded then we ring up everyone to provide an extra £100. Ridiculous. When they purchase it, money changes hands. They get the education plus pastoral support etc, the school gets the money to produce this. If parents don't like this, they can go elsewhere. I was in a fairly middling private school, but very few parents objected to scholarships etc.

You're really struggling with business and economics.

The price of a tin of beans is increased in price to pay for adverts on TV.

That's part of the reason why own-brand beans can be so much cheaper.

I don't receive a bill in the post for 1p the day after my favourite asparagus is advertised on TV