>No it's not, not unless they are installing toll booths and giving us a percentage of the revenue generated.
Sorry, didn't realise you were talking about ROI for you guys specifically - I was talking about ROI for the structural funds' recipients and the EU as a whole, including you and us.
Again, the fundamental idea is that if you help these economies develop, they'll have more spending power and down the road, they will be able to buy more of your exports and everyone will be better off - i.e. everyone being richer means everyone can buy more.
>It's not just "one thing", something is fundamentally wrong when a load of them are scamming the system, something has to change.
A load of them? I don't think that's fair at all. And anyway, it wasn't just poor countries that were getting funds, it's poor regions of rich countries too. Wales, Connacht, Extremadura, East Germany etc would all be recipients of these kind of funds.
>We tried to change things, the EU refused to change so we had to take a drastic approach and leave, hopefully things will change for the better, but I won't hold my breath.
You didn't really though, at least not in good faith. You went to the EU in the middle of the refugee crisis when it had its hands full and made a whole bunch of demands for special treatment for the UK specifically or you would leave. The EU accommodated as many of those demands as it could (on top of all your previous exemptions and opt-outs) and you left anyway.
>Well you put yourself in the shoes of those that contribute more to the EU budget than they take.
Very easy, because thanks to those EU funds we've become a net contributor.
I still hold the same view: economic growth is not a zero-sum game and the existence of (relatively small levels of) corruption does not mean you should scrap all investment. Even if we weren't a member of the EU at all, I would still think investing in trading partners' economies is a very good and prudent idea.