EU latest. 100bn! Seriously???

It was only a guess - probably a bad one. Not sure about the industrial estate next to the Dodworth Bypass (and the road itself). Does anyone know about those? - And Barugh Green and the new stuff at Birdwell/Hoyland Common.

 

• Large industrial estates such as Wentworth Business Park, Carlton Industrial Estate, Goldthorpe
Industrial Estate, Station Road Industrial Estate and Platts Common Industrial Estate that were
designated by Barnsley MBC in the 1960s and 1970s.

• Former pithead sites such as Redbook Business Park and Mapplewell Business Park where there

are examples of converted buildings and stock developed in the 1980s, primarily for industrial
purposes although there are some examples of office accommodation.

• New developments such as Capitol Park, Wharncliffe Business Park, Shortwood Business Park,

Zenith Park and Park Springs where brand new industrial development has taken place on former
coalfield sites using UK government or EU funding provided through Yorkshire Forward or
English Partnerships.

• New development such as Claycliffe Industrial Estate and Fall Bank Industrial Estate which were

built by private sector “builder developers” using their own funding sources.

• Bespoke office developments such as Churchfield Court, Burleigh Court, Morston Claycliffe

Office Park, One Capitol Court at Capitol Park, Longfields House at Wharncliffe Business Park
and Fields End Office Park, the majority of which have required external funding.

There are numerous other smaller sites where the private sector has developed commercial property or
where land is available for development.

Demand for space has come from many sources including:

• Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which are mostly Barnsley based or have a Barnsley
connection.

• Larger businesses both from within and outside Barnsley which require a regional presence and

which can benefit from the undoubted location close to the major road and motorway networks.

• Substantial businesses that have been courted to come to Barnsley by the use of economic levers


to ensure that jobs are created in the Borough. The most obvious and recent example is ASOS at

Park Springs although Koyo Bearings at Dodworth and Fresh-Pak Chilled Foods at Wombwell

were similarly brought to the Borough.

Interestingly and depressingly, the link below is to an article from 2013 that supports the argument by some on here that UK Govt is less than supportive when it comes to regions like South Yorkshire and decisions are driven for political rather than economic reasons. However, at the same time it sort of negates the argument that the EU alone is responsible for directing funds to South Yorkshire for some of the projects mentioned since it appears from the article that the UK government STILL has the power to divert those funds away from the regions EU funding was intended to places the UK Government saw fit to p;ace it (in this case Scotland). It also has to be said another article around time of Brexit campaigning highlighted that £1bn of EU money had helped the region over many years , but this seemed to have been spent largely in Sheffield on various projects and compared to the UK money given to the EU by taxpayers in this region during that period was actually a very small return.

I do fear that nothing will change that much with consecutive London centric governments but, given the existing powers that the UK Govt has to divert EU funds from where they are intended it does weaken the argument as to whether we are better off staying in rather than leaving the EU when it comes to regional funding.

 

Pretty much all recent development monies have come at least in part from the EU. That money won't be replaced by central government. I don't see it as a particularly strong reason to stay in the EU ( on a national level) but areas like ours and Cornwall have lost money we will never get back.


Sent from my iPad using Barnsley FC BBS Fan Forum mobile app

 

https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/860082122375258114

Liar liar pants on fire

 

Just on the point re negotiations in the original post. Yes - article 50 envisages discussing future relations. But it also envisages that membership ceases after two years if no agreement is reached unless the parties (the EU and the departing state) agree to extend the talks.

At the moment we participate in trade with Europe via the single market as of right. Once we moot coming out of the EU then our future participation in the single market or (short of that) our trading with the EU on favourable terms will depend on agreement with the EU going forward. So if the EU takes the position that they are not going to strike a deal on future trading until the terms of departure are agreed, then the reality is that that is what we are stuck with. We have no leverage. So it is incumbent on Teresa May to be more conciliatory in the negotiations. It may be of course that her present stance is more related to willy-waving (metaphorically) ahead of the general election.

To call the settlement terms a divorce bill or a punishment is counter-productive. If we have freely entered into financial obligations during our EU membership then we should honour that part of the commitment which involves costs which the EU cannot avoid following our departure. So the assessment of those costs on a fair and rational basis is what this part of the negotiations should be about. But any threat of our walking away altogether from those liabilities would surely call into question our reliability as a trading nation, and would surely affect our credit rating, and hence our ability to secure future funds against government bonds. The notion that we could demand 'our share' of the value of the EU buildings and infrastructure is quite silly. These assets (unlike a matrimonial home) cannot simply be sold and their value realised. The remaining 27 states need them to conduct the ongoing EU business. Our partial ownership could be recognised - for what good it would do us!

There is a pressing need to take down the temperature of the debate around our exit costs. We need to agree a fair assessment method for determining their amount, and to not resort to feigned outrage at some arbitrary amount beyond which we should not go. And we need to remember that we want something from Europe (i.e. favourable trading terms) which is largely within their gift as a result of our exit. To make the argument that the EU will not 'cut it's nose off to spite it's face' on trading terms may well underestimate the extent to which the EU places a greater priority on preserving the integrity of the union (with or without reform).

 

Have a read of this

https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/pb_barker_brexit_bill_3feb17.pdf

It breaks the bill down using publicly available figures and explains why it is so high. Basically, the EU uses a different (French) accounting method, so spends the money then claims it back while the UK prefers to spend the money as the work is done. So we actually owe for projects that are underway with some dating back to 2004! The pension contribution for the UK natives working for the EU will also have to be paid.