The difference is that, first, you get 100% back and not 50% (a tiny detail...), and second, you elect UK government and MPs... you don't elect the "Commissioners" in Brussels, you can decide what and where to spend money on.

But if you have no problem with that then contact me by email, for your own good, i'd suggest that your spending go through me first, give me your money and I'll fund you in the "optimal" way, for your own good. ;)

The difference is the weird branding issue. It's as though implying 'The EU did this!' when really it was local taxpayers who did, in fact, they've likely overpaid as services will disproportionately go to poor countries.

I think it's fair on some level, but should be commensurate with the activity.

Towns should not be forced to fly an EU flab 'because some fund'.

If a highway in Poland is built with EU funds, then it's very fair to have ample signage indicating that.

Or of the vaccines are paid for by the EU, then the vaccine rollout should make that very clear. That's fair.

That way at least there's legitimacy to it.

I cannot see a difference to the other examples?

„If a British town reinvigorates their high street with EU funds, …“

There's no such thing as EU funds. EU funds are British, French, and Germany's money.