In article , (tim...)
wrote:

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

I'm sorry to tell you that, following the Brexit vote and fall in the value
of sterling, the British economy fell to 6th largest economy in the world.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

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

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.

More Brexit fantasies!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 16/07/2016 07:32, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:


The UK is not in Schengen, so it has control over its borders already.
If it doesn't use that, it's not the EU's fault.


Only in respect of non-EU nationals - the UK has no border controls for
EU nationals.

Colin

"tim..." wrote in message ...

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
========================================

Who said I don't care? I care passionately as it happens - I really do not
want to see this country destroyed, which is effectively the aim of the
Brexiteers, whether they realise it or not. Personally I regard the main
Brexiteer fraudsters as guilty of high treason - I'd have them in the Tower
now if I had my way.

So I will personally be fighting the war at every possible turn, whether
that requires financial support or whatever. It's an existential crisis for
the UK and I'll do my utmost to try to ensure that it survives in a viable
state.

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

"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.

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

Agree.

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.

Unlike the SNP, it seems that UKIP is in no shape on the ground to pick up
the Labour seats. Look at the pattern of local government byelection results
I post each week in uk.politics.electoral. UKIP's vote has been falling with
Labour winning their safe seats by default, even though they are losing a
few more marginal seats to the Tories. UKIP often can't find candidates to
defend their seats. One of this week's four Lib Dem gains was a gain in such
a seat.

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).

I tend to agree with you there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (JohnD)
wrote:

"tim..." wrote in message ...

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
========================================

Who said I don't care? I care passionately as it happens - I really
do not want to see this country destroyed, which is effectively the
aim of the Brexiteers, whether they realise it or not. Personally I
regard the main Brexiteer fraudsters as guilty of high treason - I'd
have them in the Tower now if I had my way.

So I will personally be fighting the war at every possible turn,
whether that requires financial support or whatever. It's an
existential crisis for the UK and I'll do my utmost to try to ensure
that it survives in a viable state.

Attaboy!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Colin Reeves) wrote:

On 16/07/2016 07:32, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

The UK is not in Schengen, so it has control over its borders already.
If it doesn't use that, it's not the EU's fault.

Only in respect of non-EU nationals - the UK has no border controls
for EU nationals.

Yes it does, even if most are entitled to entry, they are still subject to
control.

Across the Irish land frontier, no-one is subject to control of course. The
British just don't understand land frontiers. The ability to control flows
across them is distinctly limited, unless you go to Iron Curtain lengths.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2016\07\16 21:12, JohnD wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message ...

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
========================================

Who said I don't care? I care passionately as it happens - I really do
not want to see this country destroyed, which is effectively the aim of
the Brexiteers, whether they realise it or not. Personally I regard the
main Brexiteer fraudsters as guilty of high treason - I'd have them in
the Tower now if I had my way.

So I will personally be fighting the war at every possible turn, whether
that requires financial support or whatever. It's an existential crisis
for the UK and I'll do my utmost to try to ensure that it survives in a
viable state.

The Doublethink in this one is strong!

Optimist wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:20:54 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:49:33 on
Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Optimist remarked:
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.

But the whole £350m(sic) has already been promised to the NHS, or was it
Cornwall, or perhaps Wales.

Our universities are world-class, so it would be foolish of the EU not to
co-operate with us as they
do with other non-EU countries. If they decide not to, well, we can
co-operate with other countries
instead, their loss not ours.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/16/research-funding-hit-by-brexit-vote

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 00:07:48 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:20:54 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:49:33 on
Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Optimist remarked:
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.

But the whole £350m(sic) has already been promised to the NHS, or was it
Cornwall, or perhaps Wales.

Our universities are world-class, so it would be foolish of the EU not to
co-operate with us as they
do with other non-EU countries. If they decide not to, well, we can
co-operate with other countries
instead, their loss not ours.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/16/research-funding-hit-by-brexit-vote

The fact is the hundreds of millions of pounds supposedly from the EU are provided by UK taxpayers
in the first place. So, if they axe a grant, UK can pay it directly instead and deduct the amount
from what is given to Brussels.

Typical Guardian doom-mongering.