First, Rick Noack detailed how, following Brexit, the county of Cornwall, located in southwestern England,
stands to lose approximately 60 million pounds in E.U. subsidies — an “investment” that keeps the municipality afloat. Noack explained the sad state of things in Cornwall, stating that, “the county with more than 500,000 inhabitants is considered one of Britain’s poorest regions, and experts say further funding cuts could be catastrophic.”
Next, The Post’s Max Ehrenfreund wrote that, “the people who will suffer the most severe impact of Brexit don’t live in the U.K.” The most vulnerable victims of Brexit are those who could lose British foreign aid as a result of the vote changing the E.U. foreign-aid formulary under which Britain must give, Ehrenfreund wrote.
He went on to explain that Great Britain “has committed to spending 0.7 percent of national income on foreign aid — about 12.2 billion pounds.” Ehrenfreund gives the specific example of Ethiopia, which received 322 million pounds from the U.K. in 2014, or about 0.8 percent of Ethiopia’s economy, and argues that this money is now at risk.
Well, let’s think about that. Let it sink in. Cornwall, which is located in the U.K., may lose its E.U. subsidy — and the U.K. might stop shipping some of its money to Ethiopia.
Do you suppose British subjects in Cornwall wonder why they have to depend on a subsidy from the E.U. in Brussels while their government in London is sending more than five times that amount to Ethiopia? Maybe U.K. voters would prefer that Cornwall look to London for assistance and Ethiopia could take a haircut on what they receive from British taxpayers. It makes sense that British voters would want these decisions made by their government in London.
Reply With Quote
