So this explains the loyalty of the third sector to Brussels then

However, his guarantees are not backed up by any legislation or formal policy. Despite his public assurances, funding that is directly administered by EU institutions could be most under threat immediately after Brexit happens. This is because the UK government has not been involved in the process of managing or distributing funds. Essentially these direct funds bypass the UK government. Preliminary research by DSC indicates that in 2015 £189.9m was paid directly to UK charities by the European commission.

That’s rather a cheap way for Brussels to buy the loyalty of an entire class of screaming harpies.

11 comments on “So this explains the loyalty of the third sector to Brussels then

  1. And:

    “The migrant, refugee and asylum charity sub-sector may find it more difficult to get the political and financial support they need to help their beneficiaries.”

    This filled my eyes with tears. Of laughter.

  2. “Demonstrating value for money on charitable projects is already difficult”

    Nope. You can measure it in £/life, or like the NHS in £/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). Bjørn Lomborg has done a lot of work in this area too. There’s no shortage of metrics.

  3. “Funding programmes that currently align with EU values and policy interests could change to be more closely aligned with the policy interests of the UK government of the day, which might not be in charitable beneficiaries’ best interests.”

    You don’t say. No doubt the same will go for educational grants, the sort that has Ritchie’s snout in the trough.

  4. CM middle-class London Bubble scum being bribed with UK taxpayers money stolen by the EU.

    Needs to be stopped at once.

  5. Andrew M
    January 30, 2017 at 8:55 am
    “Demonstrating value for money on charitable projects is already difficult”

    Nope. You can measure it in £/life, or like the NHS in £/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). Bjørn Lomborg has done a lot of work in this area too. There’s no shortage of metrics.

    I suspect what they mean is, if you use those well-established measures, you find that there is no value for money.

    Hence, they should be de-funded. An inconvenient truth.

  6. Good thing is in a couple of years the peeps will get the choice .EU political agenda driving charity or NHS, Police, schools or war. Hope so anyway. The pessimist darwinist inside me thinks it won’t take that long for charities to evolve into government political agenda driving operations.

  7. That’s rather a cheap way for Brussels to buy the loyalty of an entire class of screaming harpies.

    In fact this shows how profligate the EU is, because they had their undying support before they spent a single cent.

  8. Jack Hughes,

    > I suspect what they mean is, if you use those well-established measures, you find that there is no value for money.

    To be fair, pro-immigration activism massively boosts QALYs for the immigrants themselves, at very low direct cost (albeit high indirect costs). Be careful how you choose your metric.

  9. It’s already happening, on the radio a couple of days ago Oxfam was described as a Deprivation Thinktank.

  10. Isn’t this the whole point about the so called ‘big lie’ over 350m a week to the EU? It’s not that much apparently because they give half of it back…..half in the CAP and the rest in funding the remainiac third sector – who remain 100% committed to the cause (and the money)

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.