14 ms·

That doesn't mean they can only benefit from it, it mean they can't be completely shafted. If they get 2.4~2.5 Billions every year, or a year at 2.8 followed

That doesn't mean they can only benefit from it, it mean they can't be completely shafted. If they get 2.4~2.5 Billions every year, or a year at 2.8 followed by a 2.1, it would be less, but not significantly less (the law of average make this last option a lot less likely). The idea of the program is not to get all the money attributed to your country, I imagine the interest is also to pool specialist to evaluate the grant requests. In particular in small countries that just don't have enough people to have available specialists for everything.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
'significantly' is obviously a weasel word that is opened to further arguments, and I suspect it was added on purpose so that both parties can claim 'victory'. Your comment is your personal interpretation, for instance. I could also say that if I paid 2.5 billions in and only got 2.1 billions out over a single year that is significantly less (16%) so I demand a refund or guaranteed extra funding to make it up the following year. > The idea of the program is not to get all the money attributed to your country Whatever the idea of the program is, the aim of the UK seems not to be a constant net contributor, i.e. to ensure that on average it receives at least as much as it contributes, which was also the aim of various 'discounts' it got within the EU.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  > 'significantly' is obviously a weasel word that is opened to further arguments This is from the government announcement. I am 99.9% sure that when you read the actual text of the agreement there will be a process with exact cutoffs with the scenario laid out for how the funding would be recouped, and by whom.