EU companies warned of 700,000 job losses in no-deal Brexit

British Library must be wrong then.... :ROFLMAO::LOL:

Don't you understand the wording 'roughly the same borders' ? - You're making yourself look very daft here
Roughly the same isn't the same. It was you being pedantic about the borders being formed in the 10th century when they weren't.

The Welsh border as we know it ("Monmouth" apart) wasn't defined until the 15th Century.
 
Roughly the same isn't the same. It was you being pedantic about the borders being formed in the 10th century when they weren't.

The Welsh border as we know it ("Monmouth" apart) wasn't defined until the 15th Century.
I think the country of Northumbria extended from Edinburgh to the Humber.
The Country of North Rehghed included part of modern South West Scotland, Cumbria and extended into South Lancashire.
 
I think the country of Northumbria extended from Edinburgh to the Humber.

It did until the Vikings got a hold of the bit south of the Tees. That became part of the Danelaw and the kingdom of Northumbria's southern border was the Tees. You can actually see this in the place names, place names ending in -by indicate Viking settlements (Normanby, Lazenby, Whitby, Lackenby, Danny etc etc) - there are comparatively few of those names north of the Tees.
 
That is an interesting take Juninho, and it is correct. The tax revenue in Scotland per person is greater than in England, and significantly more. Scotland's defecit shows higher than England's for a couple of reasons. Firstly the way oil revenue is sliced. If you slice it at the geographical border it makes a large positive difference to Scotland's GDP and secondly because Scotlands GDP is much less than England. That does not change the fact that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK's finances.

Since 1980, Scotland has paid over 200 billion more in taxes, per capita than England.

You are just wrong Juninho.

One area where you may be right, inadvertently is the fact the oil revenues are reducing year on year, and eventually Scotland will be a drain on the UK, all other things staying the same, which is a big if.
I would agree historically they probably have paid a lot in taxes - but unfortunately it's the future we need to think about - and i think they could be a huge drain
 
I would agree historically they probably have paid a lot in taxes - but unfortunately it's the future we need to think about - and i think they could be a huge drain
Ouch, nice attitude and where does that stop, the north east used to be productive, we aint so much anymore.
 
Stockton was just a small part of Norton at one time which is one of the older Viking settlements, and Thorpe means a smaller settlement, both North of the Tees.
Also Norseman Lager was a Vaux Brewery product.
 
Financial Times: More than 700,000 jobs would be at risk for EU companies exporting to Britain if the UK and Brussels fail to agree a trade deal this year, according to a leading German economic research institute.

In total, including companies outside the EU that export to the UK, there would be 1m potential job losses in a no-deal Brexit scenario, according to an unpublished report by the Halle Institute for Economic Research seen by the Financial Times.

SOURCE: https://www.ft.com/content/18ff26dc-b4c1-406d-ab68-2eacf24944b7

So 700k jobs in a total EU workforce of circa 200 mill (it was 229m in 2018 but that includes the UK). So 0.7% job losses. Wonder what UK losses looks like, I but it's at least 3 times that in pure numbers maybe 2mill? which would be around 7% loss.
 
I think the country of Northumbria extended from Edinburgh to the Humber.
The Country of North Rehghed included part of modern South West Scotland, Cumbria and extended into South Lancashire.
It did North-humber-ia
 
Current prediction is that a no deal will result in a 3.9% loss of GDP. The limited deal that is still "just about" possible will result in a 3.1% loss of GDP.
 
Back
Top