Just popping a couple of points in and really no wishing to resurrect the bloody 'garden' debate, but on funding in general. We have a really poor system for funding as it is. For example, central government will tell you "we've allocate/spent £xxxx on bridlepaths". The money allocated to 'bridlepaths' is then given to a local council budget. The local council then sidetracks that funding to mends its roads. No money spent on bridlepaths, yet central government still tell the truth.
I really dont know how EU funding is applied for, in the sense that, is there a certain amount already allocated to say 'green projects' or 'youth project' and its then the lower level of governance who decides 'who or what' can apply? I agree too with smallfox, the EU arent sitting there saying such and such need a garden. But IF the structures are the same as our current central/local government, has anyone actually got a clue about what money is or isnt available and what has or hasnt been spent in any area claimed?
Second point, agree, how do we support 180m on this island? Id have to throw the fracking debate out there. Not saying or debating the rights or wrongs of fracking, but as its revolutionised the energy industry in the US, sure with an uncontrolled population fracking would/may be the only option out there. Personally, with some level of population control now coming with the leave vote, perhaps one of the positives of that is, that the fracking issue can still be debated as an 'alternative' idea, rather than a 'we have no other choice' idea.
Just my 2 thoughts on the recents posts..........