wrote in message
...
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.

but we have almost no control over who is allowed in from the EU

the only control that we have is to check that they have a valid identity
document (and aren't on a terrorist list)

this isn't what most people mean when they refer to control (and pretending
that it is is disingenuous)

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.

no-one is worried about people who come here to "see the sights", they are
worried about people who come here to take advantage of our facilities that
they haven't contributed to.

Of course we wouldn't have this problem if we checked at point of use that
people were "entitled" but I think that is an argument that is long lost

tim

"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"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?

you more or less said it

And persisting in shooting the messenger doesn't help anybody.

I care passionately as it happens - I really do not want to see this
country destroyed,

so work with what we have then

calling people who think differently from you names and refusing to
co-operate with them, helps nobody

which is effectively the aim of the Brexiteers,

What nonsense

Many of the people who campaigned/voted for Brexit have well founded claims
that it will be better for Britian('s economy) in the longer term.

You may not agree with those claims, but insulting the people that have them
doesn't win you the argument. You have to engage in the discussion.

You're not God, your personal opinion isn't Gospel, it's worth no more than
any one other individual person and behaving like it is is downright
arrogant.

whether they realise it or not.

More insults

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.

Even more insults

So I will personally be fighting the war at every possible turn,

more shooting the messenger with no willingness to engage in finding the
best solution

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.

So work with the decision that's been made. (It seems that) you aren't
going to change that and working simply to trip up the people that made it
in some stupid attempt to prove that you are right and they are wrong is
just silly and if everybody did it would be bound to be worse for the
country (which you claim is the state that you don't want, but your actions
belie that claim)

tim

wrote in message
...
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!

wannt bet

how much?

tim



--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
...
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.

Like that makes an overall difference

Clutching at straws

tim

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:33:07 -0500, wrote:

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.

Researchers travel quite easily throughout the world, despite there being no "free movement" between
most countries.

If the EU's model were so wonderful why isn't being replicated elsewhere? Perhaps because they look
at the economies of many European countries which are total basket cases (50% youth unemployment in
Greece, for example.

The real reason why big businesses love EU freedom of movement is that it enables wages to be cut to
the bone, even undermining minimum wages (see the Laval case).

Optimist wrote:
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.

This is one of the areas where we got back more than we put in. So Brexit
means we'll have to pay more for a lower quality of cooperation in future.


So, if they axe a grant, UK can pay it directly instead and deduct the amount
from what is given to Brussels.

Typical Brexiter lie.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"tim..." wrote in
:


wrote in message
...

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.

no-one is worried about people who come here to "see the sights", they
are worried about people who come here to take advantage of our
facilities that they haven't contributed to.

I think you missed Colin's point there. Land borders aren't fully
controllable anyway, unless you want to have eastern block style
borders and control practices. The UK has an open land border. The
common travel area with the Irish Republic is kind of like a
"Mini-Schengen". Part of the UK's immigration control is being
outsourced to another country, whose practices you have no control
over. And Brexit will not change that. The only actual full control
would involve introducing border controls between Northern Ireland and
the Irish Republic, and building a fence through the entire island on
top.

Or, more likely, putting the real border between NI and Britain.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:23:08 -0500, wrote:

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.

Do you really think that was because of the Brexit vote? So nothing to do with fact that Osborne's
creature at the Bank of England signalled even lower interest rates and more money-printing
(reminiscent of Weimar Germany)?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:50:43 -0500, wrote:

In article e.net,
(Mark Goodge) wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:20:09 -0000 (UTC), bob put
finger to keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA.
The benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal
(membership carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether
we then go for EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not
we can negotiate a suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with
the EU or whether the only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted
"leave" we're under the impression these were the things they were
voting to get rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

EEA membership requires acceptance of the "four freedoms", including
freedom of movement, across the whole of EFTA and the EU. EFTA membership
alone doesn't. Switzerland has a bilateral treaty with the EU which
includes freedom of movement, but it would be possible not to have it.

Not to have what? As the Swiss are currently finding out not having freedom
of movement is not an option.

So Switzerland has found that the EU is a bully. No surprise there. But UK is significantly larger
than the Alpine state and not landlocked.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
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.

This is one of the areas where we got back more than we put in. So Brexit
means we'll have to pay more for a lower quality of cooperation in future.


So, if they axe a grant, UK can pay it directly instead and deduct the amount
from what is given to Brussels.

Typical Brexiter lie.

UK's total receipts from EU is £10billion a year less than our contributions. No amount of lying by
Euro-fanatics can change that fact.