Competition: How has the EU helped your area?

Dunfermline Liberal Democrats have come up with a way of highlighting how every town has benefitted from Britain’s membership of the EU. As you are out and about, keep your eyes peeled for signs that show that projects have been funded by the EU. Tweet them to @dunflibdems and whoever provides the most will get “a fantastic prize.”

This is the brainchild of local member Aude Boubaker and it’s a great way of understanding how the EU affects our daily lives.

So, get looking and snapping. Have fun.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

13 Comments

  • If you want to claim the EU is good for Britain, it certainly can’t be on the basis of them funding us!

  • Again an article which overlooks the *fact*, that the EU fund us with our own British money. If I’m wrong, just send me a £20 note and I’ll send you a £10 note from J Dunn Funding Ltd. This,…’EU funding’, is the same barefaced scam, but with billions behind the (£) sign.

  • Both campaigns have their weaknesses and the UK net contribution is the Achilles heel of Remain, the issue where you change the subject to trade and jobs and cheaper international roaming. The best you can say is that it’s not as bad as £350m a week it’s only £161m a week as that’s a drop in the ocean compared to overall budgets. Better still don’t bring it up in the first place.

    Reminds me of my late grandfather who every so often would come home extolling the virtues of his mates William Hill and Ernie Ladbroke. There was no point reminding him that for all his study of the geegee form guides, Bill and Ernie took £25 off him for every tenner they gave him back. Nope, just smile and enjoy the Bernie Inn breaded chicken and new potatoes Bill and Ernie had so kindly donated. My late grandmother would just have blown the cash on useless stuff like turning up the gas fire to stop the ice forming on the inside of the windows anyway.

    As a 200% Remain evangelist I would urge caution about promoting “benefits” so easily ridiculed by Brexit supporters. A prize for the best example of getting £10 back for £25 put in? Seriously?

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 25th May '16 - 10:33pm

    Or you could look at it as investment in particularly poorer areas which wouldn’t have been made otherwise.

    And I’d say that what we get out in terms of international co-operation and trade is much more than what we pay in by some margin.

  • “I’d say that what we get out in terms of international co-operation and trade is much more than what we pay in by some margin.”

    I’d totally agree with that one. But there’s no basis for the first point Caron – no reason we could not have made similar regional development investments. And are we not more qualified than Brussels to decide which areas would benefit the greatest from our own money? Remain is not without its flaws and this is one of them.

  • I understood the principle to be that the wealthier EU economies made a net contribution to fund things like infrastructure development in the poorer regions, so that their economies would develop and provide a larger market for our goods and services.

    I agree that this is still a weakness in the Remain argument, but that still doesn’t stop the likes of Boris exagerating it and insisting it £350m while deliberately ignoring the rebate and inward funding.

  • “Or you could look at it as investment in particularly poorer areas”
    Ok, let’s look at our EU contribution as an investment, using just one real world example. Britain is a net contributor to the EU, whilst Poland is a net recipient. Poland is a poorer country, so investment is a valid claim. And yet,…
    Two young recently qualified doctors start work in a British hospital. One is British and starts their career with £40,000 tuition debt. The other doctor is Polish and they have no tuition debt. Does it still look like a good investment to the mum and dad of the young British doctor to know that some of their [ EU contribution ], was ‘invested’ in Polish universities, giving Polish students free tuition, which subsequently created a career (debt) disadvantage for their own son or daughter.?

  • James Calder 26th May '16 - 4:45pm

    Frankly, a lot has been made by the Leave Campaign in its claims of £350 million pound a week contribution to the EU (which of course is nonsense anyway considering the rebate cuts a substantial amount of that) – and when we created this competition we thought it would be a fun way of showing one example of how this is a two-way street.

    Of course I think the UK contribution itself pales in comparison to the social and economic benefits of EU membership (the business I work for has huge benefits both in importing and exporting products through membership of the EU and its Single Market), but this is just showing one of many benefits we get from being in the EU.

  • “when we created this competition we thought it would be a fun way of showing one example of how this is a two-way street.”

    It’s not fun, it’s deadly serious. The livelihoods of hundreds of thousands are at stake. When you create a fun competition for best example of getting £10 back for £25 put in, you give Brexit a free pot shot that undermines the holistic perspective that emphasises that the overall economic benefits far outweigh the £161 net contribution. Consider those that are undecided and stumble across that competition on its own. It would be enough to push me, and therefore anyone, towards Brexit as it invites the immediate response, as you saw, that this is Brussels giving us back some of our own money to spend how they, not we, see fit. Red rag time. It’s not a two way street, it’s a one way street with speed humps that slow down our contribution. It’s not a benefit to get some of your own money back, it’s a partial mitigation at best. Just keep repeating £161m and how the overall benefits of membership far exceed that, which is a strong Remain argument.

    Perhaps a competition for the British business that has benefited most from EU membership would have been a better bet.

  • “…the holistic perspective [of EU membership], that emphasises that the overall economic benefits far outweigh the £161 net contribution.”
    You make it sound as if we are getting some kind of ‘Costco card’ for our £161 million per week? Come on,..seriously,.. this EU scam is far more simple to understand….
    The EU take £350 million per week of British taxpayers money,….they skim the top and keep £161 million,.. giving us back the £189 million remainder [of our own money !], in a very large brown envelope cynically felt tipped with the words *EU Funding*, and the £161 million of our money they keep allows Britain to,.. … Well what?
    If you wish to delude yourselves that Britain is getting some kind of ‘EU Costco card’ for our yearly subs of £8.4 billion, feel free,.. but my take on this is that some seem so blindsided by their emotive love-fest for all things EU, that they cannot recognise a protection racket when they see one.?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Martin
    " As auntie appears to annoy politicos every stripe they must be doing something right." This is a lazy and dangerous line of argument: it merely enco...
  • David Evans
    I was sad to say that while the Thornhill report was tough in its findings and its conclusions, in all honesty it wasn't anything like tough enough, and its rec...
  • James Baillie
    I'm currently disinclined to support the proposals. I'm concerned about whether the "scrutiny committee" will have a meaningful enough role: we've seen with the...
  • Matt McLaren
    Thanks Callum, I agree that the Federal Board needs to be slimmed down and that the specific proposals coming to Spring Conference do very much provide for a de...
  • Paul Barker
    For me the crucial factor here is Size : large bodies are useless at making decisions. Conference needs to Vote for smaller bodies if we are serious. Clear dec...