Post EU Referendum


Did you see the news tonight surrounding the budget.? Did you hear the comments made by senior officials. ? 10 yRS before there can be any hope of even returning to pre.recession figures. Peoples wages frozen. The UK in the worst economic mess since the 1950's... Where are you getting your personal economic miracle from?
(b). If government continues to permit high net immigration we will continue to see frozen wages and living standards.
(c). I am not suggesting an "economic miracle", there are a whole range of other impacts that are + or - to the economy, I am merely stating the negative impacts of high net immigration on housing, wages and productivity.


It already was worth millions,nay at least a billion to Liverpool in monies given for the regeneration of that city-a fact the government failed to mention in its 'dissing' of the EU.pre- Brexit. Is it the press moaning though? or actual city councils? It would seem patently obvious that you can no longer enter a contest when you have disqualified yourself 



Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 18,314













Banned










Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724












I am in the far East ,hopefully adding to my knowledge of other cultures and confirming yet again that those idiots who talk about dictatorships, restrictions to our freedoms, the role of the judiciary etc do not have a clue about the real world where such matters really do influence the daily lives of millions. .


I am in the far East ,hopefully adding to my knowledge of other cultures and confirming yet again that those idiots who talk about dictatorships, restrictions to our freedoms, the role of the judiciary etc do not have a clue about the real world where such matters really do influence the daily lives of millions. .



A greater chunk of the EU money "given" to Liverpool would have been 'German' money rather than 'British' money, by definition, not to mention any added expertise, they must be hopping about that.

Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 18,314












The UK net contribution to the EU budget is around 0.5% of UK GDP, which is less than Germany's contribution. Liverpool were due to receive a billion for regeneration.
A greater chunk of the EU money "given" to Liverpool would have been 'German' money rather than 'British' money, by definition, not to mention any added expertise, they must be hopping about that.
A greater chunk of the EU money "given" to Liverpool would have been 'German' money rather than 'British' money, by definition, not to mention any added expertise, they must be hopping about that.



I really get fed up with all this tosh about the contributions - it's like listening to yuppies divvying up the bill - "Oh, but I had the vegetarian option!", or worse, listening to jerks whinging about how they haven't got kids so shouldn't pay towards state-funded education. Just like the focus on foreign aid, this is part of the selfish, self-centred, "what's in it for me?" attitude that has grown like a cancer in the UK over past decades.
The EU is a club, where the idea is that harmonising attitudes across the board will reduce the risk of conflict. As part of this, it's principles are to provide subsidies for regions or infrastructure that need to be brought up to a common level. The contributions are based on an agreed formula, taking the comparitive wealth of a state into account.
Therefore, it is blindingly obvious that a comparitively wealthy state will pay more money into the common pot than a poor one. It is also obvious that a wealthy state is less likely to need support from that common pot to bring its regions and infrastructure up to speed. The fact it happens at all suggests there has been an ongoing lack of support for that region or infrastructure within the state concerned.
I am more concerned at the risk of money "sticking" to certain fingers, than about the subsidies towards agreed causes and I'm more concerned at the methods of agreeing and distributing funds than the raw numbers. However, having spent years arguing about the numbers, the UK is now stomping off. Having been part of the process that offered support, it is now withdrawing - and some people seem to think it's OK to leave erstwhile allies hung out to dry because it will save a few bob.
What a sad little country it has become.
The EU is a club, where the idea is that harmonising attitudes across the board will reduce the risk of conflict. As part of this, it's principles are to provide subsidies for regions or infrastructure that need to be brought up to a common level. The contributions are based on an agreed formula, taking the comparitive wealth of a state into account.
Therefore, it is blindingly obvious that a comparitively wealthy state will pay more money into the common pot than a poor one. It is also obvious that a wealthy state is less likely to need support from that common pot to bring its regions and infrastructure up to speed. The fact it happens at all suggests there has been an ongoing lack of support for that region or infrastructure within the state concerned.
I am more concerned at the risk of money "sticking" to certain fingers, than about the subsidies towards agreed causes and I'm more concerned at the methods of agreeing and distributing funds than the raw numbers. However, having spent years arguing about the numbers, the UK is now stomping off. Having been part of the process that offered support, it is now withdrawing - and some people seem to think it's OK to leave erstwhile allies hung out to dry because it will save a few bob.
What a sad little country it has become.
Last edited by macliam; Nov 24th 2017 at 1:29 pm.


The UK net contribution to the EU budget is around 0.5% of UK GDP, which is less than Germany's contribution. Liverpool were due to receive a billion for regeneration.
A greater chunk of the EU money "given" to Liverpool would have been 'German' money rather than 'British' money, by definition, not to mention any added expertise, they must be hopping about that.
A greater chunk of the EU money "given" to Liverpool would have been 'German' money rather than 'British' money, by definition, not to mention any added expertise, they must be hopping about that.
There is zero German money given to the UK, just as there is zero money from any other EU country, we are a net contributor.


Yes, and I'm the sole net contributor within my family. Family life can be good value, you get a lot back in return, and it certainly beats living alone in Brexit bedsit land.

BE Forum Addict






Joined: Jan 2010
Location: In the middle of the continent
Posts: 1,865












I think that this is a real nice summary of the situation. It isn't all about money but friendship and neighborship, peace and stability. The stronger supporting the weaker. If that all doesn't count in Britain the country is indeed better off own.


I really get fed up with all this tosh about the contributions - it's like listening to yuppies divvying up the bill - "Oh, but I had the vegetarian option!", or worse, listening to jerks whinging about how they haven't got kids so shouldn't pay towards state-funded education. Just like the focus on foreign aid, this is part of the selfish, self-centred, "what's in it for me?" attitude that has grown like a cancer in the UK over past decades.
The EU is a club, where the idea is that harmonising attitudes across the board will reduce the risk of conflict. As part of this, it's principles are to provide subsidies for regions or infrastructure that need to be brought up to a common level. The contributions are based on an agreed formula, taking the comparitive wealth of a state into account.
Therefore, it is blindingly obvious that a comparitively wealthy state will pay more money into the common pot than a poor one. It is also obvious that a wealthy state is less likely to need support from that common pot to bring its regions and infrastructure up to speed. The fact it happens at all suggests there has been an ongoing lack of support for that region or infrastructure within the state concerned.
I am more concerned at the risk of money "sticking" to certain fingers, than about the subsidies towards agreed causes and I'm more concerned at the methods of agreeing and distributing funds than the raw numbers. However, having spent years arguing about the numbers, the UK is now stomping off. Having been part of the process that offered support, it is now withdrawing - and some people seem to think it's OK to leave erstwhile allies hung out to dry because it will save a few bob.
What a sad little country it has become.
The EU is a club, where the idea is that harmonising attitudes across the board will reduce the risk of conflict. As part of this, it's principles are to provide subsidies for regions or infrastructure that need to be brought up to a common level. The contributions are based on an agreed formula, taking the comparitive wealth of a state into account.
Therefore, it is blindingly obvious that a comparitively wealthy state will pay more money into the common pot than a poor one. It is also obvious that a wealthy state is less likely to need support from that common pot to bring its regions and infrastructure up to speed. The fact it happens at all suggests there has been an ongoing lack of support for that region or infrastructure within the state concerned.
I am more concerned at the risk of money "sticking" to certain fingers, than about the subsidies towards agreed causes and I'm more concerned at the methods of agreeing and distributing funds than the raw numbers. However, having spent years arguing about the numbers, the UK is now stomping off. Having been part of the process that offered support, it is now withdrawing - and some people seem to think it's OK to leave erstwhile allies hung out to dry because it will save a few bob.
What a sad little country it has become.

