"bob" wrote in message ...
Optimist wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:35:32 +0100, "JohnD"
wrote:

"Optimist" wrote in message
...

Leaving the EU will save £10 billion a year net so lack of money need
not
be an issue.

How does that work then? On the assumption that joining eg EFTA will not
require a considerable annual contribution from the UK? Seriously?

This, in a nutshell, is the outright lie that too many gullible would-be
Brexiteers have been sold. If the UK were to have a Norway-style
relationship to the EU then the likely annual contribution (on an
equivalent
per capita basis) would be ca £8B, even assuming that the UK wasn't
required
to pay some punitive rate. (Plus accepting most, if not all, of the 4
freedoms.)

Forgetting about EFTA altogether and regressing to plain WTO
arrangements
really isn't a viable option either, for anyone with enough patience and
interest see eg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...sury-committee

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...sury-committee

Why a Norway-style arrangement? Much better is we get tariff-free access
to EU market in return for
tariff-free access to UK market. No freedom of movement, no subsidies to
EU.

Almost certainly the rEU won't go for that.

If EU does not agree, WTO tariffs apply. German industrialists and
French farmers would be up in
arms, so EU will cave in. If not, tough, EU dole queues get longer.

Meanwhile UK negotiates trade deals with rest of world (there have been
approaches already).

When was the last time the UK negotiated a trade deal?

as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of
universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top 5
destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you think
that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best

The various
countries of the world are queueing up to screw over a desperate Britain
that needs trade deals fast and has no experience at how to negotiate
them.

Just how hard is it to make sure that a deal is equitable before signing?

tim

wrote in message
...
In article , (tim...)
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:19:40 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
If, as I fear, Mrs. May is willing to accept free movement
in exchange for free access,

ISTM that the team she has put in place will not accept this.

The EU really has its head in the sand over this. It really does seem
to think that we will roll over and ask to have our tummy tickled. The
sooner it gets to understand that we wont, the better it will be for
everyone (UK/EU/ROW). It really does need to offer sensible
concessions
on FoM or I think that our negotiators really will walk away.

In which case it's "hello WTO". Is that what you want?

as per my earlier post:

The threat of that solution should make the EU see some sense, as
they have as much to lose from that solution as we do.

This mantra that they cry "free trade requires free movement" is
patent nonsense as they have agreed a free trade agreement with
Canada that doesn't have free movement. They are not intrinsically
linked in any way at all except in the minds of a few ideological
nutcases.

The situation has become intolerable for a large percentage of the
population.

What situation?

Influx of immigrants.

I can see you missed your vocation in an earlier age to be a colonial
administrator.

I'm only telling you what's in the newspapers as you seem to have missed it.

tim

wrote in message
...
In article , (tim...)
wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message

al-september.org...
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:46:28 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:29:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:11:32 on Fri, 15
Jul 2016, Graham Murray remarked:

irrespective of the vote the UK will remain a member of the EU
for
at least 2 years and until we actually leave we will continue to
enjoy the benefits, and endure the downsides, of EU membership.

I don't think we'll continue to have the benefit of influencing
any
future EU legislation, including those which will affect us for
ever in a "Norway solution".

Yes, from now and till the end of 2018 we will continue to bear all
the costs of EU membership, but the benefits will dwindle. For
example, our participation in new EU funded research projects has
already fizzled out, where we were previously disproportionately
represented.

Then the shortfall should be paid by the UK treasury, and deducted
from the amount paid to Brussels.

It's not so simple. Countries are not rewarded with research
participation based on their EU contributions. They are included
because their universities are appropriate participants. We have the
best EU universities and so were included disproportionately; now,
knowing we will soon be gone, our universities are not considered for
inclusion in new EU-funded projects, as their work may not be funded
after 2018.

Same answer - fund our OWN universities from the amount we pay in EU
contributions.

Which will cost us more, and exclude us from multi-national EU research
projects.

You've already said (correctly) that the UK has the best (by a very
long way) universities in the EU

do you really think that, in the long term, they are going to be
excluded from cross country research projects because of some
political argy bargy?

Yes. You just don't understand what the lack of free movement means in
terms
of the hassle involved in getting people from abroad involved, do you?
Instead of just working with the best people in the field you have to jump
through so many hoops that most people won't bother. Look at the situation
40 years ago.

Sharing a research project between counties does not mean that people have
to go and live in the other country involved

They work in their home laboratory and communicate using modern methods of
communications (that didn't exist or were prohibitively expensive/unreliable
40 years ago) and attend the occasional conference/meeting.

what's so hard?

I don't for one minute believe that the result of us leaving the EU will
require any paperwork at all for people to go on holiday/attend business
meetings. It's nonsense.

tim

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

Neil Williams;156835 Wrote:
On 2016-07-15 08:29:59 +0000, Robin9 said:
-
Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement.-

Whyever do you think that? Parliament is quite heavily pro-European.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Because, with the Labour Party is its present state,
the Tories would win with a huge majority. Tory Party
activists will make quite sure that most new Members
will be opposed to free movement.

If there is a snap election "tomorrow" I doubt that Tory members will have
any influence at all over the chosen candidates, there simply isn't the time

The balance of power
in Parliament will be changed enormously.

You may be right. Personally I can't see too many of these seats that
Labour are likely to lose changing hands to the Tories. UKIP are going to
sweep them up.

Though I suspect my prediction is not going to be tested (it's only for
valid now, don't extrapolate it to 2020 - yet. A week is a long time in
politics a lot will change by then, for good or bad).

tim

"tim..." writes:

as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of
universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top
5 destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you
think that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best

Prof X (of foreign university) applies for UK visa.
Home Office: Sorry Prof X, we have filled our quota of workers of your
category, and we do not consider you a special case.

tim... wrote:

"bob" wrote in message ...
Optimist wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:35:32 +0100, "JohnD"
wrote:

"Optimist" wrote in message
...

Leaving the EU will save £10 billion a year net so lack of money need
not
be an issue.

How does that work then? On the assumption that joining eg EFTA will not
require a considerable annual contribution from the UK? Seriously?

This, in a nutshell, is the outright lie that too many gullible would-be
Brexiteers have been sold. If the UK were to have a Norway-style
relationship to the EU then the likely annual contribution (on an
equivalent
per capita basis) would be ca £8B, even assuming that the UK wasn't
required
to pay some punitive rate. (Plus accepting most, if not all, of the 4
freedoms.)

Forgetting about EFTA altogether and regressing to plain WTO
arrangements
really isn't a viable option either, for anyone with enough patience and
interest see eg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...sury-committee

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...sury-committee

Why a Norway-style arrangement? Much better is we get tariff-free access
to EU market in return for
tariff-free access to UK market. No freedom of movement, no subsidies to
EU.

Almost certainly the rEU won't go for that.

If EU does not agree, WTO tariffs apply. German industrialists and
French farmers would be up in
arms, so EU will cave in. If not, tough, EU dole queues get longer.

Meanwhile UK negotiates trade deals with rest of world (there have been
approaches already).

When was the last time the UK negotiated a trade deal?

as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of
universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top 5
destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you think
that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best

Because the recruiting and organisation of a trade negotiating team is
something that will be arranged and co-ordinated by Whitehall's finest, by
a bunch of people who have never undertaken a large scale trade negotiation
before. I think it will take more time and experience to get a good team
together to do this kind of task than we have.

The various
countries of the world are queueing up to screw over a desperate Britain
that needs trade deals fast and has no experience at how to negotiate
them.

Just how hard is it to make sure that a deal is equitable before signing?

It took Canada something like 9 years to negotiate the current trade deal
that is still being ratified and has a lot of problems. If we're starting
from a position of no experience and organisational expertise in the field,
trying to negotiate as many deals as we can in parallel as quickly as we
can, there is a high risk of us making errors when faced by opponents in
such negotiations with none of these problems.

Robin

"tim..." wrote in message ...
Dream on - hope you enjoy your make-believe world.

You can dis it as much as you like, you have to live in it too now.

If you don't engage with the process you will get the worst of all worlds
==============

That's a bunch of non-sequiturs:

To start with, I can hope that it never happens. Even if the Article 50
trigger is eventually pulled (which is in some doubt), there's all sorts of
reasons for believing that any notional settlement will be put back to the
people, whether that be by way of another referendum, a general election, a
judicial review or whatever.

Even if it's not, then I have enough pension and means to ensure that it
won't impact me anything like as adversely as it will the millions of other
rUK citizens. It _will_ be a different story once inflation starts to bite,
external investment dries up taking a lot of jobs with it, taxes have to
rise etc.

I don't need to 'engage with the process' in the slightest - I've got the
luxury of being able to highlight the sheer stupidity and pointlessness of
this reckless endeavour at every opportunity. The war has only just begun.

"Graham Murray" wrote in message
...
"tim..." writes:

as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of
universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top
5 destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you
think that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best

Prof X (of foreign university) applies for UK visa.
Home Office: Sorry Prof X, we have filled our quota of workers of your
category, and we do not consider you a special case.

As HMG are specifically looking for international trade negotiators why the
hell would we not consider them a special case?

tim

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 19:34:09 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

"tim..." writes:

as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of
universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top
5 destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you
think that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best

Prof X (of foreign university) applies for UK visa.
Home Office: Sorry Prof X, we have filled our quota of workers of your
category, and we do not consider you a special case.


http://www.burnabynow.com/news/educa...eave-1.2297619

"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"tim..." wrote in message ...
Dream on - hope you enjoy your make-believe world.

You can dis it as much as you like, you have to live in it too now.

If you don't engage with the process you will get the worst of all worlds
==============

That's a bunch of non-sequiturs:

To start with, I can hope that it never happens. Even if the Article 50
trigger is eventually pulled (which is in some doubt),

I don't think it is, that's wishful thinking

there's all sorts of reasons for believing that any notional settlement
will be put back to the people, whether that be by way of another
referendum, a general election, a judicial review or whatever.

That's even more wishful, triggering Article 50 is unstoppable.

Once it's done we are OUT (eventually), putting the final deal to a
referendum does not give us an "Oh we don't want to leave now" option.

The only way we get that option is if the EU offer us a deal to stay in
before we trigger Article 50. That looks very unlikely to happen.

Even if it's not, then I have enough pension and means to ensure that it
won't impact me anything like as adversely as it will the millions of
other rUK citizens. It _will_ be a different story once inflation starts
to bite, external investment dries up taking a lot of jobs with it, taxes
have to rise etc.

I don't need to 'engage with the process' in the slightest - I've got the
luxury of being able to highlight the sheer stupidity and pointlessness of
this reckless endeavour at every opportunity. The war has only just begun.

But fighting this unnecessary "war" harms the very people above that you
seem to care about (that's people in general, not anyone specific)

If you are personally disinterested than that's fine, but don't disadvantage
others by fighting a war that you don't care about

tim