“Everybody thought the EU was about people coming into the country … no-one told of us the benefits”.

[MrsMurphyIWish]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2136jnjx1o

And the response to this very now deprived community is to vote Reform.

“Brexit has removed a key source of funding, which the area desperately needs. County Durham received £154m of EU funding between 2014 and 2020, about £22m a year. Since the UK left the European Union, it receives about half that amount, £12m annually, under the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.”

The story is sad (and typical of deprived areas - I know, I live in one). Towns feeling forgotten and never recovering from closed industry but why can they not see history will repeat itself?

I live in the SE, and there were definitely signs!

The EU part-funded a flyover to avoid the level crossing on a major trunk road very close to where I live, and the EU symbol was clear on the signs apologising for the delays. Needless to say, some people blamed the EU for the delays caused while the flyover was being built...

I worked for the county council for several years, and they had a staff member whose job was mainly getting money out of the EU for stuff. The EU part-funded road schemes, school and library improvements, arts projects, environmental projects - loads of stuff, really. The EU was always acknowledged as a partner on signs, publicity material etc, along with all the other organisations they'd squeezed a bit of money out of.

What a great question!

The textbooks that deal with economic integration (the general topic covering trade blocs) cover trade diversion (e.g. UK buying French meat rather than NZ following EEC entry) and trade creation (new trading relationships as a result of joining a free trade area e.g. UK-Polish trade) but the dynamic effects are thought to be much larger - free movement, much larger markets to sell to, the bloc attracting more investment, etc.

It's almost as if lower GDP means there is less government revenue.

Yes. If you travelled elsewhere in Europe, you saw signs telling you how various things had been funded by the EU. Here in the UK, I didn't see anything like that.

Germany. also has lower GDP

They didn't leave the EU

there is a worldwide recession.

There were and still are plenty of signs round here.

The EU would be buggered if they did, right?!

Both sides had their say, laying out all the so called benefits/shortcomings. People voted to leave. 🤷‍♀️. End of.

52% of the people who bothered to vote. Slightly over half and they were influenced by misleading claims. It's hardly a resounding victory. Also things can change there is no end of.

Both sides lied. Just a matter of choice. I voted remain, but the vote was whst it is was. Percentage wins/losses are irrelevant.and, yes, it is fine, so that vote is done. I don’t think any party would think they would get away with trying to get back in.

They were everywhere.

It is a condition of taking EU funds that the notices are used.

The tiny cafe opened by friends of ours on a sheep farm had one. Farm gates had them on. Civic buildings had them on.

Everywhere you turned they were there. That's probably why nobody noticed them.

In the Museum of Brands and Advertising (a quirky little place in West London) they have a copy of the 1975 referendum information leaflets: one each for "Why you should vote Yes" and "Why you should vote No".

I sympathise with the people in that article and I do think that David Cameron & co who were in charge of the government at the time, and supposedly in favour of remain (I emphasise supposedly) should have done a lot more to educate people of the negatives of Brexit in terms of loss of funding in poorer
areas. There are quite a few places where this happened.

And yes of course there are other factors at play here, I don’t think anything in that article is suggesting that there aren’t. OP has picked that one factor out of the article.

We were already in by then. It was a referendum to decide whether to stay in and we did.

I know that. I found it was a more grown up way of communication than anything I saw in 2016. Made me think.

Cameron didn't expect to lose, did he?

And different member states (including in the EU15) have had different growth rates since Brexit. The factors affecting Germany's economy are reasonably well documented - this isn't the gotcha you think it is.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to imagine what might have been had we not kneecapped investment, trade and jobs.

He didn't. He did it to appease likes of Farage and the right of the Tory party and I blame him for the whole mess

They couldn't "educate people as to the loss of funding in poorer areas" because that loss of funding was entirely the decision of our own goverment. It was not a result of Brexit itself, but a result of different spending decisions for the same money by the people we elected to make those decisions.

We gave the EU that money in the first place which they then chose to give us some back. It wasn't some marvellous act of generosity by the EU.

Of course it's a good question. It's my job.

The answer is there are some pretty thick people out there. Including myself. At times.

Having actually met - and seen Cameron in action - he was genuinely a passionate European. The "tragedy" is that his explanation and defence of the EU was flawless and accurate. But the meeting fidgeted all the way through the sensible bits, until someone was able to ask about "all these foreigners".

Cameron gave a very good account of the UKs position. However the only takeaway was a (white) South African anaesthetist who asked why they should stay in a country that so despises foreigners.

Which is why he will get the pasting history will give him.

When you belong to a club (which is what the EU is, with quite a large membership fee), you don't get to say exactly how the club spends its funds though? Although Thatcher certainly had a good go. Nor do we (taxpayers, local areas, whoever) get to mandate how our own government spends its money.

I think it's a more than a bit simplistic to treat the funding regimes as the same. The EU had/has different objectives to the UK government.

Are people thick or was it a predictable consequence of making a political issue out of an economic matter and then deciding on emotional grounds?

People answer the easier question: how do I feel about this, if they aren't equipped to answer the harder one.

Yes I picked the one issue to raise the debate why a community who suffered due to Brexit and voted to leave on false promises, think Reform will be the answer to their problems - similar ideology.

I think I may have to change my OP.

When you belong to a club (which is what the EU is, with quite a large membership fee), you don't get to say exactly how the club spends its funds though? Although Thatcher certainly had a good go. Nor do we (taxpayers, local areas, whoever) get to mandate how our own government spends its money.

Thatchers beef with the EEC was that it wasn't really as much about frictionless trade as she felt it should be. Which is why the UKs entry really shook it up and with the UKs very firm insistence, the single market was born. Very much to the complaints from France and Germany.

The single market is fundamentally a British invention. And now it works the EU cant get enough.