Brexit petition

[CWARD]

2 minutes ago, trundlenut said:

"would agree with this but so much money from the EU used to improve infrastructure which then allows business to relocate"

 

I spent several years working on such projects in Wales.

 

Which businesses relocated from other member states to Wales due to the projects you worked on?

 

[KenONeill]

1 hour ago, Skoda_newby said:

Any UK resident at any age, not even a citizen can sign that petition

Which applies equally to signatures on your Wrecksit petition, so how ever you cut it the Remain petition has at least 10 times more "real" signatures.

[trundlenut]

Just now, CWARD said:

 

Which businesses relocated from other member states to Wales due to the projects you worked on?

 

Continental was one I remember, they built a factory on a reclaimed colliery site.  I did work for both the WAG on the wider area and continental in Germany on the site.

[CWARD]

4 minutes ago, trundlenut said:

Continental was one I remember, they built a factory on a reclaimed colliery site.  I did work for both the WAG on the wider area and continental in Germany on the site.

 

Are you referring to Continental Teves in Blaenau?

[trundlenut]

2 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

Are you referring to Continental Teves in Blaenau?

Yep

[john999boy]

2 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Back on topic is the petition still gaining 100,000 signatures per hour or has the enthusiasm dribbled away like all new toys?

As the Government replied that A50 wasn't going to be revoked but there would be a debate on Monday,  I'd have thought it was pointless adding more signatures. 

[CWARD]

Bad example then

 

http://www.welshautomotiveforum.co.uk/directory/companies/c/continental-teves-uk-ltd/

 

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/350-continental-teves-jobs-go-2339049

 

If you'd said Llanelli or Breacon they had created more jobs but still have them now relocating.

 

[trundlenut]

5 minutes ago, CWARD said:

Bad example then

 

http://www.welshautomotiveforum.co.uk/directory/companies/c/continental-teves-uk-ltd/

 

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/350-continental-teves-jobs-go-2339049

 

If you'd said Llanelli or Breacon they had created more jobs but still have them now relocating.

 

But they still got money from the EU via WAG for the plant.  i worked on it from 2003 to 2008ish.

 

There was also a whole load of stuff on a portfolio of former British Steel sites where WAG were redeveloping them and building new infrastructure to enable houses and commercial/industrial sites to be built.  This included Ebbw Vale.

 

There was work at Port Talbot to get a US company to build new coking ovens.

 

there was the Amazon warehouse in Swansea which was actually pinched from Scotland IIRC using EU money to finance a new access road, also this was intended to allow an adjacent site upgrade their access with a view to expansion.

 

These were all projects that the UK government refused funding for.

[trundlenut]

Just now, trundlenut said:

But they still got money from the EU via WAG for the plant.  i worked on it from 2003 to 2008ish.

 

There was also a whole load of stuff on a portfolio of former British Steel sites where WAG were redeveloping them and building new infrastructure to enable houses and commercial/industrial sites to be built.  This included Ebbw Vale.

 

There was work at Port Talbot to get a US company to build new coking ovens.

 

there was the Amazon warehouse in Swansea which was actually pinched from Scotland IIRC using EU money to finance a new access road, also this was intended to allow an adjacent site upgrade their access with a view to expansion.

 

These were all projects that the UK government refused funding for.

I also did all the Cardiff Bay stuff where the BBC moved to, that had a lot of EU money put in at the beginning.

[shyVRS245]

Amazon opened a large warehouse not far from where I live so thought I would enquire to reduce my commute about vacancies and pay. Bit surprised they were not interested in experienced people just paying folks minimum wage, to keep the profit margin high.

[CWARD]

7 minutes ago, trundlenut said:

But they still got money from the EU via WAG for the plant.  i worked on it from 2003 to 2008ish.

 

There was also a whole load of stuff on a portfolio of former British Steel sites where WAG were redeveloping them and building new infrastructure to enable houses and commercial/industrial sites to be built.  This included Ebbw Vale.

 

There was work at Port Talbot to get a US company to build new coking ovens.

 

there was the Amazon warehouse in Swansea which was actually pinched from Scotland IIRC using EU money to finance a new access road, also this was intended to allow an adjacent site upgrade their access with a view to expansion.

 

These were all projects that the UK government refused funding for.

 

Why did the UK Government refuse funding for these projects. Iirc it was Labour and pro EU Blair that was in power during this period?

[trundlenut]

3 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

Why did the UK Government refuse funding for these projects. Iirc it was Labour and pro EU Blair that was in power during this period?

Don't know.  All I know is that the EU wouldn't fund things until it had gone to the UK government first.  This is what I was told by the people at WAG.  We sometimes had to supply costings and other information to support bids they were making.

[expostmanpat]

Just for the folks moaning about propping up poorer eu countries, and how the money spent on the eu could be better spent on the bus.

 

Currently,

£145.8 billion per year is spent on the nhs or 19.9 % of public spending

£8.6 billion per year or 1.2% is spent on overseas aid

£5.4 billion per year or 0.7% is spent on contributions to the EU

I would suggest that most people in the UK  in any one year benefit far greater from the eu contribution than the others and certainly proportianly it is a bargain. 

 

Source the government https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary

 

[CWARD]

5 minutes ago, trundlenut said:

Don't know.  All I know is that the EU wouldn't fund things until it had gone to the UK government first.  This is what I was told by the people at WAG.  We sometimes had to supply costings and other information to support bids they were making.

 

The government didn’t fund it so the EU did, getting some of contributions back but still remaining a net contributor.  

As the statement by Chorlten was people seeing money been taken from the richer EU members and given to the poorer along with foreign aid been a good thing. This was mainly agreed on with the exception of wastage and reliance of that money.  I’m not really following your argument about given to the EU and getting some back. 

[CWARD]

12 minutes ago, expostmanpat said:

Just for the folks moaning about propping up poorer eu countries, and how the money spent on the eu could be better spent on the bus.

 

Currently,

£145.8 billion per year is spent on the nhs or 19.9 % of public spending

£8.6 billion per year or 1.2% is spent on overseas aid

£5.4 billion per year or 0.7% is spent on contributions to the EU

I would suggest that most people in the UK  in any one year benefit far greater from the eu contribution than the others and certainly proportianly it is a bargain. 

 

Source the government https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary

 

 

What has the NHS and foreign aid, which are  paid through taxation, has to do with the U.K. contribution to the EU?

The U.K. remains a net contributor to the EU

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

[CWARD]

The thread is way off topic now, which was the petition to revoke article 50. Any chance of getting back on topic and less whataboutery. 

[Skoda_newby]

57 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

Which applies equally to signatures on your Wrecksit petition, so how ever you cut it the Remain petition has at least 10 times more "real" signatures.

 

Agree, that's why we have votes cast at official stations. And the vote was.... well, you know the rest.

[expostmanpat]

4 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

What has the NHS and foreign aid, which are  paid through taxation, has to do with the U.K. contribution to the EU?

The U.K. remains a net contributor to the EU

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Everything in the context of numpties saying that leaving the eu will stop the UK from helping poorer countries, and how leaving eu will cure all the nhs problems.

Edited 28 March, 2019 by expostmanpat

[Chorlton]

8 minutes ago, CWARD said:

The thread is way off topic now, which was the petition to revoke article 50. Any chance of getting back on topic and less whataboutery. 

Surely this topic is now done and dusted in that case.  5.7M have signed it and the government have given their response to say they will not revoke Article 50.

 

A new general Brexit discussion topic should be commenced - but moderators will probably just kill it.

[john999boy]

7 minutes ago, Chorlton said:

Surely this topic is now done and dusted in that case.  5.7M have signed it and the government have given their response to say they will not revoke Article 50.

 

A new general Brexit discussion topic should be commenced - but moderators will probably just kill it.

Thread abusers killed the last one!

[CWARD]

17 minutes ago, expostmanpat said:

Everything in the context of numpties saying that leaving the eu will stop the UK from helping poorer countries, and how leaving eu will cure all the nhs problems.

 

That won’t happen, some will still want to blame others and as Aspman posted wastage of billions will still occur. 

[expostmanpat]

1 minute ago, CWARD said:

 

That won’t happen, some will still want to blame others and as Aspman posted wastage of billions will still occur. 

My point exactly, might as well spend the money on the EU and at least get something back in return.

[CWARD]

10 minutes ago, Chorlton said:

Surely this topic is now done and dusted in that case.  5.7M have signed it and the government have given their response to say they will not revoke Article 50.

 

A new general Brexit discussion topic should be commenced - but moderators will probably just kill it.

 

Further to John's comment it was closed due to going way off topic, pretty much like this one is. We are now covering the same arguments as was in the previously closed thread so prepare yourself for a strong sense of Dejavu. 

[trundlenut]

1 minute ago, CWARD said:

 

The government didn’t fund it so the EU did, getting some of contributions back but still remaining a net contributor.  

As the statement by Chorlten was people seeing money been taken from the richer EU members and given to the poorer along with foreign aid been a good thing. This was mainly agreed on with the exception of wastage and reliance of that money.  I’m not really following your argument about given to the EU and getting some back. 

Given your strident opinion of the EU, I doubt anything would satisfy you.  We get more back from the EU that we put it.  Otherwise it would be a clear and easily presentable argument as to how leaving the EU will make us better off, make more money available for the NHS, increase inward investment and improve life chances for our children.  No one anywhere has been able to make that argument.

 

You, yourself have fallen back on stuff that has been proven to be untrue for several years as your argument for leaving.  you have never presented a positive argument for leaving.

[CWARD]

Just now, expostmanpat said:

My point exactly, might as well spend the money on the EU and at least get something back in return.

 

You know that makes no sense to spend £10 and get £4 back.