RECENT correspondence in the Guardian has offered different views on the EU and BREXIT.

Mention has been made of EU money which revitalised both Liverpool and Manchester, and that such funds were needed due to neglect of the regions by the UK Government.

However, it has to be borne in mind we did not join the EU until some 30 years after the Second World War, by which time both cities had already seen a massive amount of regeneration.

Therefore while the UK may have benefited to some extent from EU regeneration money other countries have also similarly benefited and so far no one has adequately explained the source of the development funds which lifted up the economies of countries such as Ireland, Spain, and Portugal.

Nor the location of the money tree which is currently up-lifting the economies of former Eastern Bloc countries such as Poland and Hungary, or where it is envisaged similar funds will appear when the Balkan countries are allowed to join the EU.

What we do know is that throughout its membership the UK has always been a major contributor to the EU budget, and yet such luminaries as Jean-Claude Juncker, Guy Vehofstadt, Gina Miller and Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, are warning the UK of dire consequences if BREXIT goes ahead.

Which seems somewhat quixotic, for if, as implied, despite our contributions, the UK is benefitting to a disproportionally large extent from EU membership, surely they would be glad to see us go?

Or do they fear that without the UK`s financial contributions the on-going expansion of the EU will be jeopardised?

In view of the conflicting opinions surrounding these issues surely a rational cost benefit analysis, together with more clarity on all aspects of our membership of the EU is needed, rather than rhetoric from both Remainers and Brexters?

Mabel Taylor Knutsford