Probably parity or less...1.05 or at worst parity, short term.
But how long is 'short term'?
After all smogg reckoned it would be 50 years!
Probably parity or less...1.05 or at worst parity, short term.
So when the UK was a net beneficiary and Germany was paying in, that was ok?
I don't think the UK was ever a net beneficiary although I could be wrong.So when the UK was a net beneficiary and Germany was paying in, that was ok?
How about when all those builders headed off to Europe when there was no work in the UK, to the detriment of their local work forces. Was that ok?
Anyone who makes the argument about 'subsidising' another country being wrong fails to understand that when a country has got back onto it's feet it becomes a bigger market to trade with, and then becomes a net contributer.
Apart from the fact that raising everyone's living standards is the right thing to do!
One could as easily complain that the regions of the UK are subsidised to the detriment of the South.
But if you want an example of massive subsidies, then look no further than the UK corporate welfare - aka tax credits.
Currently running at £26bn a year!
Your point would only be valid if you consider the EU to be a sovereign state.All these people complaining about supporting the poorer countries seem to live in supported parts of the UK.
Briefly in the late '70's and it then bumped along the bottom and was almost at zero during the recessions in the '80's and '90'sI don't think the UK was ever a net beneficiary although I could be wrong.
It is a good analogy if you are trying to point out that supporting less well off areas is a good thing.Your comparing the distribution of regional subsidies within the UK as analogous with how the EU distributes it funds among member states would only be valid if you consider the EU to be a sovereign state.
And ironically corporate welfare will get far worse when we leave and if the UK becomes a corporate tax haven!I agree with your points about corporate welfare.
prove me wrong.
Net contributor ,net beneficiary, you don't really know the difference do you.
Use your head mate, if Poland wasn't getting billions a year from the EU they wouldn't be in the position to pay pensions at all never mind be able to reduce the pension age to 60 for woman and 65 for men, just like it used to be in the UK.
The wealthy Northern European countries give money to the EU , the EU then gives this money to Southern and Eastern European countries to help build up their countries because without it they would still be riding around on donkeys.
There is nothing wrong in principle with helping other countries but it shouldn't be to the detriment of your own country.
No it wouldnt.Your point would only be valid if you consider the EU to be a sovereign state.
You don't, really, care about the success of the Eurozone.
like I said.
you don't really care
you don't understand the subject
you cannot say anything sensible
you're just spewing out worthless verbiage.