EU funding for UK Canal Projects

[Theo]

 

Our People who art in Britain

Great is Our name.

Thy Kingdom come.

Great things will be done.

In England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland

Give us this day Our Inches, Our Pints, and Our Pounds,

And forgive us our metrication,

As we banish those who federalise against us.

And lead us not into a republic,

But Preserve our Monarchy.

For Ours is Great Britain,

The Commonwealth and Empire

Forever and Ever.

Amen.

 

 

I wonder if I should remove this for being both political and religious.

 

Nah!

[romarni123]

How come there is a political post even if it is dressed up as a bit boaty...there is more about the leaving /staying in the EU than the effects it will have on canals.IE what has india got to do with our canals

[StarUKKiwi]

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

No

[peterboat]

I have no experience of canal-related EU grants but have some limited experience here in Cornwall on other matters. Currently a main stream of funding is called Convergence Funding. The grants, when made, end up as contracts with the appropriate oversight department. It could be DEFRA but it might be local government or education.

 

What is clear is that these grants would not be available absent to EU funding. Look at the motivation for the preceding scheme - Objective One. Studies showed that the UK, on its own, disregarded the needs of areas such as Cornwall who received very little support with the consequence that, despite UK's pre-eminent economic position, their proportional GDP was well below par. It was only because the EU set out to build up the poorer parts that Cornwall could make its case directly, based on its economic position rather than its lack of political clout.

 

If that means that unelected Commissioners make decisions, then sometimes that might be a good thing. I heard yesterday part of a radio analysis of the impact of Richard the Lionheart and its was concluded that England was better administered because Richard went off on the Crusades and left the 'real' work to an (unelected) expert. It was suggested that the people of England felt much better served that way.

 

Sometimes 'democracy' is a touchstone for ultimate success that bears little relation to the evidence. There is a very important role for democracy in holding the administration to account but disaster awaits countries that confuse the two roles and allow politicians to do the administration (even worse when they try to dispense justice!)

But the unelected rulers were in england not the continent and they had a duty to do the job right otherwise it was off with their heads!! Now if we introduced that for the EU..........................

ALEXAKOSAlex

3d

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS:

1: I am out of seals!!! But I still have 9 sets of pistons.

My dog ate (SERIOUSLY WHATS WRONG WITH MY DOG???) 2 sets of rubber seals. I will receive a few more in a couple of weeks.

2: due to more austerity measures imposed by the IMF on Greece ( our penssion is now 259€ per month from 750€ It was one year ago) the post office was on strike Friday and saturday which may lead to slight shipment arrival delays.

Watch what's going on in Greece closely, cause we are the Guinea pig of what's to follow on the rest of the EU..

From my forum friend Alex in Greece Will they really look after our canals better than us?

Edited May 12, 2016 by peterboat

[Mike Todd]

 

It comes from ALL the payments by ALL the members of the EU.

 

And what has the Lottery got to do with it? I know that major development work on the Vale of Rheiddol, the Corris, the Talyllyn and other railways has all been funded by EU grants, that were well over what could have been paid by the Lottery.

Same principle as taxation - or pooled economics. We pay tax on the basis of a shared determination of collective need not what we individually get out of it (otherwise there would be little point, although that is a very US attitude - you get (only) what you can afford and wish to pay for) Against all the odds, we still have the vestige believing that there is such a thing as society and that some things are better done as a society rather than left to individuals.

[Mike Todd]

See post #18

 

It comes from us, the taxpayer in the UK. It is just currently we pay an awful lot of money out to some third party who then graciously gives us a little bit back but tells us how we must spend it.

 

We could actually spend more on canals and trains if that's your thing by being out because we would decide where and how much money is spent. Currently we are simply told how we must spend it.

Too often there is a confusion between the right to make a decision and the ability to do so.

 

I am perfectly free to decide whether to buy a Rolls Royce - sadly I lack the ability to pay for it!

 

There is also a misapprehension about the extent to which a non-EU UK would be free to set its own rules. Let us say that there was a case for having 'muddy brown' diesel with a special tax rate only for use on inland boats. We might be free to do so but the fact that all the available suppliers are international means that the real decision would come down to whether those few suppliers could be bothered to make something different just for such a modest market. We could abolish the limitations of energy consumption for hair dryers but there is little chance of us seeing any products in the shops that do not conform to the EU standard (or similar large regulatory body).

[onionbargee]

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.

A complete fantasy. That totally ignores the fact that we pay the EU the money they give to us in the first place. Unless you think the EU has a magic money tree ?

[Dave_P]

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.

I was leaning towards staying in before reading this, but with a heavy heart, since the EU and EC seem to be deeply corrupt and opaque organisations. However, BSPs comments put pragmatism ahead of principle and she's convinced me.

 

Can I repost this elsewhere please?

A complete fantasy. That totally ignores the fact that we pay the EU the money they give to us in the first place. Unless you think the EU has a magic money tree ?

Actually it addresses that perfectly. Read it again. It comes down to this: our successive governments have prioritised their spending elsewhere, whilst the EU have backed canal infrastructure due to its wider social benefits.

 

What chance do you think that the government will have a complete change of spending policy if we leave?

[Bee]

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.

 

 

 

Yes but this 18 billion has already been earmarked for everything that the 'out' lot can think of, hospitals, schools, defence, border controls, Suddenly its all gone and theres nothing left for canals. Deep breath here but I would rather have these projects decided on by the EU with a socially inclusive viewpoint. The track record of Brit governments for many years is to socially engineer a huge mass of peasants with all the power and benefits going to the top few percent.

 

 

 

 

[billS]

I was leaning towards staying in before reading this, but with a heavy heart, since the EU and EC seem to be deeply corrupt and opaque organisations. However, BSPs comments put pragmatism ahead of principle and she's convinced me.

 

Can I repost this elsewhere please?

 

Unfortunately, although it reads very well, she has consistently refused to refused to even speculate on the actual size of the contribution to CaRT's running costs which originate from EU funding, preferring instead to attack the question and saying she will not engage any further when pressed.

 

As far as I am concerned, without actual numbers to back it up, this is emotive conjecture. Personally I am still undecided which way to vote, but this type of presentation of opinion as facts registers high on my bullshit meter.

Edited May 13, 2016 by billS

[magictime]

 

Unfortunately, although it reads very well, she has consistently refused to refused to even speculate on the actual size of the contribution to CaRT's running costs which originate from EU funding

 

I know next to nothing about third sector funding, but from a layman's perspective, this is how I understand the point BSP has been trying to get across:

 

Suppose Sustrans receives £100,000 a year from the EU, and spends 1% of its annual budget directly on towpath-improvement schemes run in partnership with with CaRT.

 

Now suppose that the loss of that £100,000 is the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of Sustrans' financial viability; six months later, they've disappeared.

 

The 'actual size' of the lost EU contribution to those joint Sustrans-CaRT schemes, if you wanted to put a figure on it, is £1000. But putting that figure on it, as if what's been lost is just the ability to buy £1000 worth of gravel, completely misses the bigger picture. What's actually happened is that the loss of a partner organisation with its own funding, its own connections, its own 'clout', has seriously and permanently reduced CaRT's ability to win support and funding for towpath-improvement schemes.

 

Now suppose that a similar financial hit has been taken by all the other the members of a network of (as BSP puts it) "tens or probably hundreds of organisations, trusts, foundations, statutory funders, major donors and local authorities" with which CaRT might work in some way on projects to attract visitors, restore historic structures, maintain/improve infrastructure, support businesses, etc. etc. Again, putting a figure on the 'actual size' of a theoretical overall pot of lost EU contributions, as if we can then just refill that pot with an equivalent amount of our own money, wouldn't really get you any closer to understanding the actual impact on the waterways.

 

Edited to add: apologies, BSP, if I'm misunderstanding anything or appearing to put words in your mouth.

Edited May 13, 2016 by magictime

[furnessvale]

 

Actually it addresses that perfectly. Read it again. It comes down to this: our successive governments have prioritised their spending elsewhere, whilst the EU have backed canal infrastructure due to its wider social benefits.

 

What chance do you think that the government will have a complete change of spending policy if we leave?

There is one flaw in this argument which goes to the core of the problem about Brexit or not.

 

Many people seem to be basing a decision to stay in on the fact that CURRENT EU policies are more to their liking than CURRENT UK policies.

 

As long as this remains the case they will be happy.

 

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately depending on your point of view, politics is a fluid thing. In 5, 10, 15 or 20 years time the overall political mix of the EU could be very different. For example, right wing parties are in the ascendance in various EU countries.

 

Unlike the Scottish referendum, this will genuinely be a "once in a lifetime" decision, and that cross in a box will tie us irrevocably to the EU whichever way it turns politically.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Jerra]

Unlike the Scottish referendum, this will genuinely be a "once in a lifetime" decision, and that cross in a box will tie us irrevocably to the EU whichever way it turns politically.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Equally it ties us to being out of the EU if things turn out to be more to our liking.

 

As far as I can see that is just an argument for either side to make sure you have got as many facts as you can and make the correct decision.

[system 4-50]

Are we confident that the EU will not introduce harsher rules for the BSS?

Ditto more stringent requirements for our diesel engines? Will such changes suddenly appear out of the blue?

[billS]

 

I know next to nothing about third sector funding, but from a layman's perspective, this is how I understand the point BSP has been trying to get across:

 

Suppose Sustrans receives £100,000 a year from the EU, and spends 1% of its annual budget directly on towpath-improvement schemes run in partnership with with CaRT.

 

Now suppose that the loss of that £100,000 is the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of Sustrans' financial viability; six months later, they've disappeared.

 

The 'actual size' of the lost EU contribution to those joint Sustrans-CaRT schemes, if you wanted to put a figure on it, is £1000. But putting that figure on it, as if what's been lost is just the ability to buy £1000 worth of gravel, completely misses the bigger picture. What's actually happened is that the loss of a partner organisation with its own funding, its own connections, its own 'clout', has seriously and permanently reduced CaRT's ability to win support and funding for towpath-improvement schemes.

 

Now suppose that a similar financial hit has been taken by all the other the members of a network of (as BSP puts it) "tens or probably hundreds of organisations, trusts, foundations, statutory funders, major donors and local authorities" with which CaRT might work in some way on projects to attract visitors, restore historic structures, maintain/improve infrastructure, support businesses, etc. etc. Again, putting a figure on the 'actual size' of a theoretical overall pot of lost EU contributions, as if we can then just refill that pot with an equivalent amount of our own money, wouldn't really get you any closer to understanding the actual impact on the waterways.

 

Edited to add: apologies, BSP, if I'm misunderstanding anything or appearing to put words in your mouth.

 

I understand that, but this approach just continues to muddy the water. From a boating perspective, the thing that really matters to me is maintenance of the network. From this perspective, Sustrans involvement is detrimental, as it results in a lot of speeding cyclists on the towpath with no benefit to that navigation.

[Machpoint005]

 

I understand that, but this approach just continues to muddy the water. From a boating perspective, the thing that really matters to me is maintenance of the network. From this perspective, Sustrans involvement is detrimental, as it results in a lot of speeding cyclists on the towpath with no benefit to that navigation.

 

Doesn't it also mean that a boater can step onto the towpath without getting her feet muddy, and more to the point, get to and from the pub with clean feet?

[Jerra]

 

I understand that, but this approach just continues to muddy the water. From a boating perspective, the thing that really matters to me is maintenance of the network. From this perspective, Sustrans involvement is detrimental, as it results in a lot of speeding cyclists on the towpath with no benefit to that navigation.

We as boaters tend to forget that CRT has to make itself all things to all men (including women of course). If they didn't spend time and money on making towpaths more welcoming to all then they could be criticised etc. At least they aren't having to spend all their own money on the improvements.

 

Yes I know cyclists can be a pain in the nether regions but it is only some.

 

With regard to the navigation I know I have only covered a couple of hundred miles or so of the system this year but I (and those with me) have been impressed at the amount/signs of maintenance going on.

[magictime]

 

I understand that, but this approach just continues to muddy the water. From a boating perspective, the thing that really matters to me is maintenance of the network. From this perspective, Sustrans involvement is detrimental, as it results in a lot of speeding cyclists on the towpath with no benefit to that navigation.

 

I only chose Sustrans to illustrate the point because they're relatively high-profile, and they have a clear interest in the quality of a key piece of waterways infrastructure (towpaths). So I don't want to get sidetracked into a debate about whether the (completely hypothetical!) loss of this particular partner would be a good or a bad thing from our particular perspective as boaters.

 

Three points I would make, though:

 

(1) the more money Sustrans manage to provide (or attract) for funding towpath improvement/maintenance, the less money CaRT have to spend on it out of their own pocket - which obviously frees up funds to be used in ways you would regard as being of benefit to the navigation.

 

(2) The same applies to money provided or attracted by all sorts of other organisations that might have particular interests in anything from museums and heritage, to wildlife habitats, to urban renewal, to the arts: every pound provided or attracted by such an organisation frees up CaRT funds to be spent elsewhere. (Just as an unlikely example, I remember a thread on here a couple of years ago about a project in Manchester that involved volunteers clearing rubbish out of the canal to be used by local groups, working alongside professional artists, to make junk sculptures. That's a stretch of canal CaRT didn't have to pay to be cleared out of their own pocket, again freeing up funds for use elsewhere.)

 

(3) Boaters' perspectives are important, but aren't the only ones that count. And for the reasons just given, it might help CaRT to spend more on directly boater-y concerns if other organisations are sharing the burden in terms of their wider responsibilities.

Edited May 13, 2016 by magictime

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

I understand that, but this approach just continues to muddy the water. From a boating perspective, the thing that really matters to me is maintenance of the network. From this perspective, Sustrans involvement is detrimental, as it results in a lot of speeding cyclists on the towpath with no benefit to that navigation.

I think you are just looking at this from the perspective of a boater, after all, whatever the state of the towpath we can get around it somehow. To look at from a wider perspective however, over the past couple of days I have passed three people pushing childrens buggies along the towpath and one elderly gent pushing his wife (I presume) in a wheelchair along the well maintained towpath. None of these would have been possible if the towpath here wasn't as good as it is. It is an unfortunate side effect that if you tarmac the towpath errant cyclists will then use it as a speedway but then how do you prevent that whilst still giving access to the disabled?

[Phil.]

an unfortunate side effect that if you tarmac the towpath errant cyclists will then use it as a speedway but then how do you prevent that whilst still giving access to the disabled?

 

Have a walking stick to hand, to jam into the spokes of said errant cyclists bicycle, thereby hurling said errant cyclist towards the cut, at a similar speed to that, which he or she was travelling at.

[Mac of Cygnet]

Have a walking stick to hand, to jam into the spokes of said errant cyclists bicycle, thereby hurling said errant cyclist towards the cut, at a similar speed to that, which he or she was travelling at.

 

I know that this has been said before, but that would be regarded as assault, and you would likely end up in prison. I assume you weren't being serious.

[Henhouse]

 

I know next to nothing about third sector funding, but from a layman's perspective, this is how I understand the point BSP has been trying to get across:

 

Suppose Sustrans receives £100,000 a year from the EU, and spends 1% of its annual budget directly on towpath-improvement schemes run in partnership with with CaRT.

 

Now suppose that the loss of that £100,000 is the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of Sustrans' financial viability; six months later, they've disappeared.

 

The 'actual size' of the lost EU contribution to those joint Sustrans-CaRT schemes, if you wanted to put a figure on it, is £1000. But putting that figure on it, as if what's been lost is just the ability to buy £1000 worth of gravel, completely misses the bigger picture. What's actually happened is that the loss of a partner organisation with its own funding, its own connections, its own 'clout', has seriously and permanently reduced CaRT's ability to win support and funding for towpath-improvement schemes.

 

Now suppose that a similar financial hit has been taken by all the other the members of a network of (as BSP puts it) "tens or probably hundreds of organisations, trusts, foundations, statutory funders, major donors and local authorities" with which CaRT might work in some way on projects to attract visitors, restore historic structures, maintain/improve infrastructure, support businesses, etc. etc. Again, putting a figure on the 'actual size' of a theoretical overall pot of lost EU contributions, as if we can then just refill that pot with an equivalent amount of our own money, wouldn't really get you any closer to understanding the actual impact on the waterways.

 

Edited to add: apologies, BSP, if I'm misunderstanding anything or appearing to put words in your mouth.

 

 

There is one point which has yet to be mentioned in any post so far in this thread; Administration Costs.

 

Our government ( no matter of which political persuasion ) collects revenue from us in many ways. To do this costs money.

 

Some of what is collected by our government is paid into Europe. Another massively expensive administration.

 

Europe then gives us some of our money back. Some directly to our government, and some by way of grants to other organisations. All of these organisations have running costs which must be met before one single pound ever gets spent on a project.

 

 

Our tax system was very inefficient, and costly to run. I believe it is improving.

 

The EC administration is horrendously expensive, out of control, and regularly suspected of being corrupt. ( Does no one remember the scandal of huge grants being paid to non existent olive farms ?)

 

Add in more costs by organisations such as sustrans coordinating with local government, and some more money has been frittered away.

 

 

Think of it as walking to the pub with ten pounds in loose change..............................but you have a hole in your pocket...........................................By the time you get to the bar you only have enough left for one pint !!!

[peterboat]

 

 

There is one point which has yet to be mentioned in any post so far in this thread; Administration Costs.

 

Our government ( no matter of which political persuasion ) collects revenue from us in many ways. To do this costs money.

 

Some of what is collected by our government is paid into Europe. Another massively expensive administration.

 

Europe then gives us some of our money back. Some directly to our government, and some by way of grants to other organisations. All of these organisations have running costs which must be met before one single pound ever gets spent on a project.

 

 

Our tax system was very inefficient, and costly to run. I believe it is improving.

 

The EC administration is horrendously expensive, out of control, and regularly suspected of being corrupt. ( Does no one remember the scandal of huge grants being paid to non existent olive farms ?)

 

Add in more costs by organisations such as sustrans coordinating with local government, and some more money has been frittered away.

 

 

Think of it as walking to the pub with ten pounds in loose change..............................but you have a hole in your pocket...........................................By the time you get to the bar you only have enough left for one pint !!!

Greenie sir if I could give you 10 I would

[Jerra]

I am just wondering how this thread is being allowed. Much of it is purely about the EU and has little or nothing to do with politics.

[Bee]

Lovin` it. I'd really like to jump in with both feet and stir up several hornets nests but that would just get me on the naughty step. I would seriously like to thank those in charge for not stopping this thread. What happens as a result of the vote is going to affect everything we do, as boaters, workers, holidaymakers, investors (The small amount of money I have in shares in Brit companies is coming out if its looking likely we come out), pensioners, and so on. Our boat is in France, this could affect us, probably not overnight, but it will. If the Out lot take power after the event then its looking like a bigger boat in Europe for us and winter visits to a sad and diminished England.