EU funding for UK Canal Projects

[billS]

Several canal restoration and development projects have benefited from EU regional Development funding in the past.

 

With the possibility of Brexit looming, are any current projects receiving EU money?

 

Is it likely that any such funding would be immediately replaced by UK government funding should Brexit occur?

[Tiggs]

 

 

Is it likely that any such funding would be immediately replaced by UK government funding should Brexit occur?

 

No, I doubt it very much.

[cotswoldsman]

The Mon & Brecon is in for part of a £27 million funding from EU

[billS]

The Mon & Brecon is in for part of a £27 million funding from EU

 

That's the kind of thing I mean. Presumably that funding would be lost if Brexit occurs.

[GoodGurl]

 

That's the kind of thing I mean. Presumably that funding would be lost if Brexit occurs.

not necessarily wouldn't they have to honor funding if we exit?

[BlueStringPudding]

Yes. All new EU funding would be lost. Any live funded programmes would depend on the small print as to whether the programme continues or is shut down and would likely incur vast financial penalties for the UK partners in each project rendering those projects effectively bust.

 

The Chesterfield Canal work has been funded by ERDF which is one of the main EU funding streams relevant to CRT's work till at least 2020. The ERDF as well as the ESF and EAFRD are the main streams that pay for the vast majority of rural, social and urban development programmes in the UK since the UK government withdrew vast swathes of funding from the third sector from 2010, and EU funding will become even more crucial as central government eliminates grant funding from all local authorities as they announced in the budget.

 

Currently those three main EU funding streams pay for huge amounts of waterways work including towpath maintenance, administrative costs, canal heritage projects, and importantly they shore up staffing levels and keep the books buoyant so expect all boaters to see huge rises in license and mooring fees plus rapid closing down of large sections of the canal and navigable rivers infrastructure if Britain leaves the EU. The same three funding streams pay for social services programmes, small business development opportunities, intervention programmes for children, disabled people, victims of domestic violence, town centre rejuvenation, arts, culture, museums, science, medical research, all the UK's Enterprise Partnerships which support and fund manufacturing and infrastructure like roads, also we'd lose funding for parks including national parks programmes, car parking, community centres, schools and university facilities and most local authority services you think the government pays for.

 

A vote to leave the EU will effectively close down all these things because our own economy can no longer support them due to consecutive governments's emphasis on the Banking and Service industries, tax havens and import over Manufacture, Raw Materials and developing new smaller businesses.

 

Incidentally, I've spent the last few years of my career writing the funding applications to these funding streams in partnership with local authorities, UK and international partners, which is why I know what they pay for. And it's why I know that economically the UK has not been an island for many, many decades and cannot survive as such anymore. Sadly too many people who have a misplaced sense of what they think sovereignty is, are too ignorant to bother researching this sort of thing before they vote to financially and socially ruin the country.

 

Boaters will vote to stay in the EU or say goodbye to the canals and the lifestyle they love, it's as simple as that.

Edited May 10, 2016 by BlueStringPudding

[billS]

That's very interesting - and a bit alarming

 

Do you have a figure for the annual EU funding of the maintenance costs of the England and Wales canal network? Presumably that is separate to grants for specific restoration projects such as the Chesterfield.

Edited May 10, 2016 by billS

[peterboat]

Yes. All new EU funding would be lost. Any live funded programmes would depend on the small print as to whether the programme continues or is shut down and would likely incur vast financial penalties for the UK partners in each project rendering those projects effectively bust.

 

The Chesterfield Canal work has been funded by ERDF which is one of the main EU funding streams relevant to CRT's work till at least 2020. The ERDF as well as the ESF and EAFRD are the main streams that pay for the vast majority of rural, social and urban development programmes in the UK since the UK government withdrew vast swathes of funding from the third sector from 2010, and EU funding will become even more crucial as central government eliminates grant funding from all local authorities as they announced in the budget.

 

Currently those three main EU funding streams pay for huge amounts of waterways work including towpath maintenance, administrative costs, canal heritage projects, and importantly they shore up staffing levels and keep the books buoyant so expect all boaters to see huge rises in license and mooring fees plus rapid closing down of large sections of the canal and navigable rivers infrastructure if Britain leaves the EU. The same three funding streams pay for social services programmes, small business development opportunities, intervention programmes for children, disabled people, victims of domestic violence, town centre rejuvenation, arts, culture, museums, science, medical research, all the UK's Enterprise Partnerships which support and fund manufacturing and infrastructure like roads, also we'd lose funding for parks including national parks programmes, car parking, community centres, schools and university facilities and most local authority services you think the government pays for.

 

A vote to leave the EU will effectively close down all these things because our own economy can no longer support them due to consecutive governments's emphasis on the Banking and Service industries, tax havens and import over Manufacture, Raw Materials and developing new smaller businesses.

 

Incidentally, I've spent the last few years of my career writing the funding applications to these funding streams in partnership with local authorities, UK and international partners, which is why I know what they pay for. And it's why I know that economically the UK has not been an island for many, many decades and cannot survive as such anymore. Sadly too many people who have a misplaced sense of what they think sovereignty is, are too ignorant to bother researching this sort of thing before they vote to financially and socially ruin the country.

Of course we do put in twice as much as we get out so maybe non of this will happen? like the war Cameron said would happen if we leave the EU? The simple answer is you dont know because you dont! and thats because non of us can know know until it happens

[Phil.]

What a load of nonsense. But I expect it will be locked soon as clearly political.

[BlueStringPudding]

That's very interesting - and a bit alarming

 

Do you have a figure for the annual EU funding of the annual maintenance costs of the England and Wales canal network? Presumably that is separate to grants for specific restoration projects such as the Chesterfield.

All separate grants. Also every grant will be administered to a cohort of organisations one of which includes CRT which, even with they annual accounts in your hand, would make it extremely difficult to break down into exactly how much goes into canals. As I wrote above, when you run a charity the deliverables of a funded programme (like rebuilding a derelict lock or financially supporting the Waterways Museum) are only a small part of what the EU funding actually is paying for. It's also paying to keep CRT, the museum(s), the charities and waterways businesses that benefit from related business and so on financially afloat. "Added value" in terms of business sustainability and financial resilience, not just in terms of deliverables, and how those things ensure future funding from other trusts, foundations and state funds are much, much more beneficial to the canals and to us as boaters long term

 

Also remember there will be a domino effect:

Britain pulls out of the EU

CRT can no longer draw down the ERDF funding for a project like the Chesterfield or others

CRT try to make up the shortfall by raising license fees and applying to other trusts for funding

All other charities who also lost EU money are also applying to the same pool of trusts for funding - there's not enough to go round

So CRT apply to local councils for money

But the local councils were also funded by the EU and have increased business rates and council taxes and certainly can't spare any for CRT. If anything they'll be trying to draw down more money from the grey areas of their relationship with CRT such as council tax for boaters.

Canal businesses can't afford the rates and are closing down

Boaters can't afford the council tax and mooring costs and are leaving the waterways

CRT cannot fund essential maintenance work and having priced themselves out of the market by trying to fill the financial shortfall with license fees and mooring costs, start to close down the canal network

Boating becomes a hobby only the rich can afford and certainly no longer a lifestyle

Too few boaters remain to subsidise CRT's income. And with no EU funded programmes for cyclists, walkers, kids, education or boaters they have nowhere else to find income. CRT closes down. Canals close down. Waterways businesses close down. Navigable rivers close.

 

If you think this sounds far fetched, it's not. It's already happened to the arts sector. It's already happened to the heritage sector. It's already happened to the disability sector. And it's already happened to small social intervention charities like those that support single mums or victims of crime. They've followed the same route: funding gets withdrawn so they ask the council. But the council's funding has been reduced by central government. So the charity applies to lots of trusts and foundations. But demand is too high and there's only a 1 in 10 chance of getting a grant and that's if it's perfectly written, competitive and incudes match funding. (But there's no other funders to provide match funding...)

I've watched numerous charities close down since the Tory government withdrew direct, Indirect and trickle-down funding in 2010/11

 

And that's before you even look at what will be simultaneously happening with the poverty gap, social services, employment, fuel costs and disposable income which will also affect boaters

Edited May 10, 2016 by BlueStringPudding

[billS]

What a load of nonsense. But I expect it will be locked soon as clearly political.

 

It is completely pertinent to the funding of the canal network, and provided people can confine the discussion to that, why should it get locked?

[Nightwatch]

Political, yes, but extremely relevant to a canal forum.

[Athy]

s

Yes. All new EU funding would be lost. Any live funded programmes would depend on the small print as to whether the programme continues or is shut down and would likely incur vast financial penalties for the UK partners in each project rendering those projects effectively bust.

 

The Chesterfield Canal work has been funded by ERDF which is one of the main EU funding streams relevant to CRT's work till at least 2020. The ERDF as well as the ESF and EAFRD are the main streams that pay for the vast majority of rural, social and urban development programmes in the UK since the UK government withdrew vast swathes of funding from the third sector from 2010, and EU funding will become even more crucial as central government eliminates grant funding from all local authorities as they announced in the budget.

 

Currently those three main EU funding streams pay for huge amounts of waterways work including towpath maintenance, administrative costs, canal heritage projects, and importantly they shore up staffing levels and keep the books buoyant so expect all boaters to see huge rises in license and mooring fees plus rapid closing down of large sections of the canal and navigable rivers infrastructure if Britain leaves the EU. The same three funding streams pay for social services programmes, small business development opportunities, intervention programmes for children, disabled people, victims of domestic violence, town centre rejuvenation, arts, culture, museums, science, medical research, all the UK's Enterprise Partnerships which support and fund manufacturing and infrastructure like roads, also we'd lose funding for parks including national parks programmes, car parking, community centres, schools and university facilities and most local authority services you think the government pays for.

 

A vote to leave the EU will effectively close down all these things because our own economy can no longer support them due to consecutive governments's emphasis on the Banking and Service industries, tax havens and import over Manufacture, Raw Materials and developing new smaller businesses.

 

Incidentally, I've spent the last few years of my career writing the funding applications to these funding streams in partnership with local authorities, UK and international partners, which is why I know what they pay for. And it's why I know that economically the UK has not been an island for many, many decades and cannot survive as such anymore. Sadly too many people who have a misplaced sense of what they think sovereignty is, are too ignorant to bother researching this sort of thing before they vote to financially and socially ruin the country.

 

Boaters will vote to stay in the EU or say goodbye to the canals and the lifestyle they love, it's as simple as that.

Well, no one could accuse you of under-dramatising the effects of leaving the EEC, but I recognise that you know what you're talking about.

Now, could you send this letter to all known boating magazines so that more people read and understand it?

Edited May 10, 2016 by Athy

[MoominPapa]

So, we can add "Canals run dry" to "House prices crash", "Boris becomes PM", "Eire/NI border closed and besieged by refugees" and "World war three" as consequences of Brexit. Not looking too clever, is it?

 

MP.

Edited May 10, 2016 by MoominPapa

[Jerra]

Political, yes, but extremely relevant to a canal forum.

I wasn't aware that the new regime was so sensitive I thought the statement was clear no political discussion. I haven't seen anywhere any list of what is acceptable and what isn't only a clear statement politics and religion aren't accpetable.

 

One law for some and another for the rest?

[MoominPapa]

Well, no one could accuse you of under-dramatising the effects of leaving the EEC,

ITYF it's been known as the EU for some time now, Athy.

 

MP.

[Athy]

ITYF it's been known as the EU for some time now, Athy.

 

MP.

Yes, EEC, EC, EU, I've heard them all and I tend to use them interchangeably, alongside "Europe" which I believe was one of our governments' official way of referring to it. Never heard it called "ITYF" before though.

 

Potayto, potarto.

[Phil.]

Ok, let's see if this thread remains then. To answer the point as to why I believe blue strings post was nonsense. We pay ball park 18 billion a year to the EU. We get an immediate rebate of 5 billion plus the EU then spends 4.5 billion of OUR money on so called EU projects. All this money will not just disappear if we leave. It just means that instead of the EU telling us how to spend 4.5 billion of OUR money, we can decide ourselves. In addition to this however we will also be able to spend the 8.5 billion we pay them that we don't get back.

Edited May 10, 2016 by bag 'o' bones

[Paul C]

I wasn't aware that the new regime was so sensitive I thought the statement was clear no political discussion. I haven't seen anywhere any list of what is acceptable and what isn't only a clear statement politics and religion aren't accpetable.

 

One law for some and another for the rest?

 

The thread is fine so far - political topics can be discussed if they relate to canals/boating.

[Athy]

Ok, let's see if this thread remains then. To answer the point as to why I believe blue strings post was nonsense. We pay ball park 18 billion a year to the EU. We get an immediate rebate of 5 billion plus the EU then spends 4.5 billion of OUR money on so called EU projects. All this money will not just disappear if we leave. It just means that instead of the EU telling us how to spend 4.5 billion of OUR money, we can decide ourselves. In addition to this however we will also be able to spend the 8.5 billion we pay them that we don't get back.

Although I failed my O level physics (or was it chemistry? see another thread) I did pass my maths, but I'm pleased this calculation wasn't in the exam paper. My brain 'urts.

Edited May 10, 2016 by bag 'o' bones

[BlueStringPudding]

Ok, let's see if this thread remains then. To answer the point as to why I believe blue strings post was nonsense. We pay ball park 18 billion a year to the EU. We get an immediate rebate of 5 billion plus the EU then spends 4.5 billion of OUR money on so called EU projects. All this money will not just disappear if we leave. It just means that instead of the EU telling us how to spend 4.5 billion of OUR money, we can decide ourselves. In addition to this however we will also be able to spend the 8.5 billion we pay them that we don't get back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vote Leave.

Your post isn't about CRT funding or the waterways. It's generic politics. Please make it relevant and specific rather than to openly try to get the thread closed down. Maybe just generic politics posts will be deleted instead?

 

Also, do tell me about your 20 year career in the charity sector fundraising from UK and international, state and private funding initiatives, trusts, foundations and the EU. And then tell us all where you got your stats from because they contradict everything I've seen published by economists on how much better off we are in the EU, and why you think the government will spend any small initial saving on the waterways. Because they won't!

[billS]

All separate grants. Also every grant will be administered to a cohort of organisations one of which includes CRT which, even with they annual accounts in your hand, would make it extremely difficult to break down into exactly how much goes into canals. As I wrote above, when you run a charity the deliverables of a funded programme (like rebuilding a derelict lock or financially supporting the Waterways Museum) are only a small part of what the EU funding actually is paying for. It's also paying to keep CRT, the museum(s), the charities and waterways businesses that benefit from related business and so on financially afloat. "Added value" in terms of business sustainability and financial resilience, not just in terms of deliverables, and how those things ensure future funding from other trusts, foundations and state funds are much, much more beneficial to the canals and to us as boaters long term

 

 

 

I have had a quick glance through the CaRT 2014/15 annual report. their incoming resources stood at £180M, from a variety of sources, the largest being investment income, followed by Defra grant funding, then boat licencing. There appears to be no specific mention of EU funding. There is a line item of £19M "income for Maintenance, Restoration and Museums". Is it included in there?

Edited May 10, 2016 by billS

[bastion]

Ok, let's see if this thread remains then. To answer the point as to why I believe blue strings post was nonsense. We pay ball park 18 billion a year to the EU. We get an immediate rebate of 5 billion plus the EU then spends 4.5 billion of OUR money on so called EU projects. All this money will not just disappear if we leave. It just means that instead of the EU telling us how to spend 4.5 billion of OUR money, we can decide ourselves. In addition to this however we will also be able to spend the 8.5 billion we pay them that we don't get back.

 

This is my understanding of the funding issue as well.

Edited May 10, 2016 by bag 'o' bones

[GoodGurl]

EU Facts: how much does Britain pay to the EU budget? How much does Britain give to the EU budget? Do we really pay £55 million a day?

Last year we paid 12.7 billion to the EU surely that would cover what we could lose by coming out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12176663/EU-Facts-how-much-does-Britain-pay-to-the-EU-budget.html

Edited May 10, 2016 by GoodGurl

[Phil.]

Your post isn't about CRT funding or the waterways. It's generic politics. Please make it relevant and specific rather than to openly try to get the thread closed down. Maybe just generic politics posts will be deleted instead?

Also, do tell me about your 20 year career in the charity sector fundraising from UK and international, state and private funding initiatives, trusts, foundations and the EU. And then tell us all where you got your stats from because they contradict everything I've seen published by economists on how much better off we are in the EU, and why you think the government will spend any small initial saving on the waterways. Because they won't!

I certainly don't want the post locked. The figures come from this link but there are many others.

 

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

 

The 18 billion by the way is per year every year so hardly a small initial saving. As to where it is spent that will be for people to make the case and I would hope the waterways would be in there with everything else.