Only Germany makes a higher net contribution to the EU than the UK. We put more into the EU than France and Italy combined. Staggering to think about really.
£53m/day......plus .....£23m/day to third world countries....A mind blowing amount when you consider the fastest growing business in the UK are Food Banks....
Oh, I'm sorry, what were you trying to imply when you responded to Monty with; ??? You see Monty was confirming my point that Welsh Councils do not depend on EU grants and that we would not be "up the creek" without them.....AS WE ARE THE SECOND BIGGEST NET CONTRIBUTOR AFTER GERMANY!!!!!!! Lost dipshit? OK how about this one Mr. Councillor Sir..... You stated; Some questions for you; 1) What is the size of budget that the Welsh Assembly is responsible for? 2) What is the cost of the Welsh Assembly's annual running costs? 3) What do you imagine the cost of the Assembly is to the Welsh taxpayer? 4) How does that compare to what came before? 5) How, exactly, is the Assembly draining funds from the Welsh economy? How much money? Where? C'mon genius, grow some bollocks and have a go at debate
So tell me Monty, just how much do we 'put in'? and how much does Germany, Italy and France 'put in' Also be interesting to know how much the UK gets out of the EU in the form of funding, regeneration financing, grants and subsidies. I think you'll be shocked to learn the truth and that the US owned tabloid propaganda is completely and utterly incorrect, bordering on deceit.
While the UK makes a net contribution Wales does very well out of the EU getting grants which the UK government doesn't / wouldn't provide. The net contribution does not take into account the profits made outside government by companies and individuals because of ease of trade and common regulations to ease and speed commerce and trade. Nor does it take account of the net benefit EU immigrants pay in taxes or the payment for training / education they receive in their home countries before taking employment in the UK. A similar number of UK subjects live and work in the EU countries as vice-versa so numbers exchanged is comparable. The big difference is we take in mostly fit, heathy and young while exporting higher proportion of elderly, infirm and / or retired. Again a hidden but lucrative benefit for the UK. Obviously I see EU as positive and the Assembly essential. Others disagree. But what I do find odd is that people who would remove our limited self determination for foreign (English) voters, politicians, lords & law makers have a problem when some regulation is handed to Brussels in which the UK is well represented. Before the Assembly we always had to do what England's voters wanted - if England voted Labour we had a labour government, if England voted conservative we had a Tory government. It is also interesting that every country in Europe, most of Asia (including China & Russia), each state of America and many other democracies provide significantly greater autonomy to their regions than the UK allows its constituent countries. Take away the Assembly and we return to being a slave nation at the beck and call of our masters in England.
Wales gets ~£200m per year in grant money from the EU, but we pay for that, and more. Poland gets 500 times more from the EU than Wales. Greece even more. We do benefit from trade advantages, but it's an average overall deal at best.
Greece and Poland are both countries - Wales is classed as a region. Direct regional grants are capped (I think) and from that source we get a decent % when compared with the regions of other countries in a similar financial situation to Wales. It is up to the UK government to provide grants, funding, opportunity or wherewithal for its regions to prosper. It doesn't - a stark example is that, on average, a pupil in a school in England attracts roughly £1,200 pa more than a pupil in Olchfa (£5,500 compared with the Swansea average of £4,335 - which is roughly the Welsh average. Family members teach in England and Wales) So a school like Olchfa receives about £2,400,000 less than an equivalent (outside London) in England. This is almost entirely down to the finical formula set by Westminster.
This could be a good option nation wide ? http://inhabitat.com/portlands-water-pipes-are-the-newest-source-of-clean-energy/
The UK get more out of the EU than it puts in and Wales have benefited greatly. Cameron is not trying to get us to pay less as he knows he has no chance, he is there to negotiate many other things that the EU has control over like for instance the human rights bill and many other powers that can be overruled that the UK government make. We will never leave the EU referendum or no referendum as too many industries and businesses big and small cant survive without the EU. What we want is more control of our own decisions and not make decisions to find that the EU has overruled the decision.....Overall we do ok in the EU and are better in it than out of it....
Moaners? You mean intellectual people who actually have an understanding of the complex systems at work in the Bay. Sand movement, fish migratory routes and sand dunes are all bound to be affected. If you plonk a huge concrete barrier in the Bay it will upset the whole equilibrium of the area - the question is, by how much? If a company wants to upset the whole ecological and geographical systems in the Bay then they HAVE to show it is not going to adversely affect the area to an extent that would outweigh the benefits. In principle I hope the project goes ahead. The benefits are obvious, although several more years of construction in the Fabian Way area may not be welcome for those people who live, work and visit there.
They are probably the ones with the best understanding of fish migration patterns!! NB: You don't have to be a scientist to be intellectual.
But you do need to be a scientist to know how to conduct a real study that will provide proof to a level of Sigma 5.
