[Flyin'Dutch']

Other countries develop infrastructure before building houses, bit like laying foundations before putting the roof on?

[eltonioni]

Other countries develop infrastructure before building houses, bit like laying foundations before putting the roof on?

So do we, but we don't have EU funding to build airports and motorways just in case a crowd turns up. Sorry, that was below the belt.

First principles - the market always wins in the end. That accepted, where the planning system restricts supply it increases prices. Poor infrastructure planning doesn't help but it tends to be the property business that makes things happen by forcing planning consents where authorities are often reluctant. Local / national government plays a bit of catch up and spends (quite often badly) the money the property business invests in infrastructure through a system of licenced extortion, usually taking a decade or more, before claiming the credit at some election campaign in the future.

Some government is better than others, the bell curve clusters around the slightly institutionally useless, with egregiousness increasing around the edges, exceptions and omissions apply. I dare say that your industry has similar conditions.

[kanga]

Other countries develop infrastructure before building houses, bit like laying foundations before putting the roof on?

So do we, but we don't have EU funding to build airports and motorways just in case a crowd turns up. Sorry, that was below the belt. ..

.

.. er, and not quite accurate. As part of EU member, less prosperous parts of UK, of which there are many, were always eligible to apply for EU development funds for infrastructure projects. There were EU rules about proportions of funding to be contributed by host nation according to the overall relative prosperity of that nation. UK being one of the more prosperous nations, that proportion was higher, but EU funds were and for the time being still ( ) are available to qualifying projects. However, aiui, in UK, possibly uniquely, all proposals have to go through Central Government as do all proposals for infrastructure spending, and there was no Central Government help in encouraging or preparing pertinent applications. For many or most EU countries, this is an important part of governments' and of MEPs' role, but UK MEPs who tried for their areas found that lack of home government support frustrated any projects. Also, a certain UK PM in the '80s vetoed on the mainland (but not in NI for some reason) any project alongside which there might be erected a hoarding which might declare that EU funds had been used, like that below

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-46782169

So the only reason that there have not been more and useful EU infrastructure funds spent in UK areas which needed them has been because London-based decision makers prevented it. It is likely that the London area would be too prosperous to be eligible for such funds, but that may be quite irrelevant.

Some, of course, may argue that this was proper exercise of sovereignty over how UK taxpayers' money should be spent; which is perfectly tenable if you choose to value absolute sovereignty over all consideration of prosperity.

[cockney steve]

^^^^^^ but we'd have that prosperity if we hadn't sent it to the EU in the first place, only to waste a load of it on civil serpents pushing paper around just to send the balance they hadn't used, back again.

Taking in each others' washing sort of comes to mind.

[PaulB]

^^^^^^ but we'd have that prosperity if we hadn't sent it to the EU in the first place, only to waste a load of it on civil serpents pushing paper around just to send the balance they hadn't used, back again.

Taking in each others' washing sort of comes to mind.

Ok, what proportion of total government expenditure goes to the E.U. (Hint - it’s on your tax statement.)

[Flyin'Dutch']

^^^^^^ but we'd have that prosperity if we hadn't sent it to the EU in the first place, only to waste a load of it on civil serpents pushing paper around just to send the balance they hadn't used, back again.

Taking in each others' washing sort of comes to mind.

Steve

The UK is by objective measures amongst the most prosperous in Europe - hence it is a big net contributor.

That so much of the infrastructure and services are awful has everything to do with the way the UK chooses to manage itself spend its money on itself and nothing to do with the EU or the pitiful amount the UK makes to the EU finances.

Roads, Rail, Airports, Energy, Health Care, Policing, Judiciary, Education, Social Care, Welfare, Defence, Border Control, Taxation, Education, Environment, Business etc etc etc all managed by the UK for the UK.

[defcribed]

...the pitiful amount the UK makes to the EU finances.

The UK is the third largest contributor to the EU budget. Approximately 13.5% of the total.

To make up that shortfall after we leave someone is going to have to pay more. Realistically the other significant contributors (Germany, France, Italy, Spain) are going to have to pay more, or else the EU will have to cut its cloth to suit a smaller budget - and I don't think the latter is really their intended direction of travel.

[kanga]

..
The UK is by objective measures amongst the most prosperous in Europe - hence it is a big net contributor.

That so much of the infrastructure and services are awful has everything to do with the way the UK chooses to manage itself spend its money on itself and nothing to do with the EU or the pitiful amount the UK makes to the EU finances

.. etc etc etc all managed by the UK for the UK.

.. or, one might say, managed by London for London ..

In Saturday's Times Business pages, there is an article by Simon French, described as 'Chief economist of Panmure Gordon', entitled 'Potholes are not the only obstacles in the way of improving regional output'. He notes that he commutes by bike, passing along The Mall twice daily. The road surface has always been immaculate. By contrast, there are no Central Government offices nor Ministers based near Oldham Road, Manchester, the road whose potholes attracted the most complaints last year.

Central Government instantly covered the latest cost overrun of London's Crossrail, pledging far more money than the extension of long-promised electrification of the South Wales railways, cancelled again as unaffordable.

The EU regional structural funds scheme plays a small part in creating or improving infrastructure, and so economic prospects, from relatively more to relatively less prosperous parts of the Union, even or especially within member nations where the difference in prosperity is greatest. For decades UK Central Government has failed to do this, under some governments more glaringly than others, and under some as national policy less prosperous areas have actually been discouraged or prevented from accessing such funds. It has, of course, been within the sovereign right of UK governments to do this, which some will applaud.

[Flyin'Dutch']

...the pitiful amount the UK makes to the EU finances.

The UK is the third largest contributor to the EU budget. Approximately 13.5% of the total.

To make up that shortfall after we leave someone is going to have to pay more. Realistically the other significant contributors (Germany, France, Italy, Spain) are going to have to pay more, or else the EU will have to cut its cloth to suit a smaller budget - and I don't think the latter is really their intended direction of travel.

@defcribed

You did not get my point - the UK contribution to the EU is a fraction of the UK total budget.

That leaves an awfully large amount of money for the UK to spend on the UK as the UK pleases.

That despite this enormous amount of money a lot of things in the UK are pretty dire at the moment is because of the way the UK chooses to spend that UK money, not the pitiful amount that it spends in the EU.

Total UK budget 810 Billion. Net contribution to the EU 9 Billion.

[johnm]

Politics notwithstanding the Germans could fill the gap in the EU budget we leave from the rounding error in their national budget.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Politics notwithstanding the Germans could fill the gap in the EU budget we leave from the rounding error in their national budget.

Not quite but they have had a neutral budget since 2014, i.e. no borrowing.

Mind you they still bicker amongst themselves as some reckon they should borrow to invest yet more in social housing, social mobility etc than they already do.

If you want to have a look (en Anglais)

https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/ ... udget.html

[eltonioni]

Politics notwithstanding the Germans could fill the gap in the EU budget we leave from the rounding error in their national budget.

Could've
Should've
Would've
Won't

(See Greece for further information)

[johnm]

Politics notwithstanding the Germans could fill the gap in the EU budget we leave from the rounding error in their national budget.

Could've
Should've
Would've
Won't

(See Greece for further information)

The point was that the U.K. net contribution is a relatively trivial issue in the grand scheme of things, both domestically and across the rest of the EU., as is the original topic of this thread. It goes to show that we live in a time when really important and politically important rarely coincide and politically important takes precedence.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Politics notwithstanding the Germans could fill the gap in the EU budget we leave from the rounding error in their national budget.

Could've
Should've
Would've
Won't

(See Greece for further information)

The ECB has sunk billions and billions in Greece for the bailout and the majority of that money came from Germany. So not sure why you think that the Germans would not step up and help to fill the financial gap. No doubt the EU budget will need to be adjusted too but the EU is not going to go pop financially on account of the missing 9Bn.

As far as the cost go to run the EU it is really peppercorn stuff in comparison with what serious money is.

Just putting aside the political reasons why people want to leave the EU, from a pure financial point of view there is no argument to be made that the cost of the UK contribution is peanuts. All economic commentators agree (also the most ardent Brexit supporting ones - although there are only a few of those) that the UK leaving the EU will impact the UK economy.

If that impact is only 1% of reduced GDP over what would be achieved over that what would have been realised by being part of the EU the contribution would have been, on pure financial grounds, been worth it.

If the negative impact is greater than the 1% then it is costing the UK economy serious money.

Why do you think the Swiss and Norwegians are happy to pay a contribution to be allowed into the EU, not as memberstates but to have access to the EU single market?

They can do the sums.

[Colonel Panic]

FD, may I humbly suggest you become a politician; after all, the answers to prosperity for all are so blindingly obvious...