Optimist wrote:
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.

Many of the woes of the Club Med EU members are because of their membership
of the euro at unrealistic exchange rates, not the EU. The EU has probably
been widened a bit too much, but it is the Eurozone that has been extended
to far too many countries. If the rules for entry were more stringent, and
extremely strict, Italy, Spain and Greece, and maybe even France, would not
have been allowed, let alone forced, to join. So a Eurozone with perhaps
half a dozen Northern European members would probably have worked well, and
a few more EU countries might have been motivated to run their economies
better with the motivation to join. But there would never be 18 members.

One good thing Gordon Brown did was to keep us out of it, after our short,
unhappy stay in the ERM, the predecessor of the euro. If the £ couldn't
last long in the ERM, how could countries like Greece, Spain and Italy
survive a currency union with Germany?


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).

Plenty of EU citizens living in the UK earn much more than the minimum
wage. How would the NHS survive without them?

Optimist wrote:
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.


The pro EU people didn't lie about that figure. Nobody denied that,
overall, the UK makes a net contribution, as one would expect of a richer
member. It was the Brexiteers who lied, claiming that the contribution was
£350m a week, or £18bn a year:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7105546.html

There is no reason to expect an snap election in the next
few weeks. In my earlier post I said "at some stage." First,
the Fixed Term Parliament Act will have to be repealed.

The need for Mrs. May to call an election will eventually
dawn on political commentators and soon the idea will become
common political currency. When that happens, Tory activists
will concentrate their minds on what they need to do to make
sure their Government can shrug off the SNP and the LD and
work towards the result most of us want.

Optimist wrote:
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.


£8.5 billion actually. But this money is not necessarily available for the
government to use after Brexit. Some areas of the civil service will need
to be expanded to cover activities where we currently share the resources
of the EU (the UK currently has NO trade negotiators, for instance, because
currently all UK trade deals are done on an EU-wide basis). It is highly
likely that UK GDP will drop as a result of Brexit, thus there will be less
tax receipts available to make payments from. Also, the UK's credit rating
has already dropped as a result of the vote, and this is likely to make it
more expensive for the government to borrow, reducing further the amount of
money that the government could reallocate from EU contributions.

Focusing on research and development, I am aware of some research areas
where UK government (DTI) funding dried up in 2004, and it was only EU
funding that allowed this research and development to continue. Having a
second source of public funding is extremely useful to companies and
universities (because public funders don't pick the right areas to fund all
the time). Also, EU collaborative R&D funding provides access to areas of
expertise that are not available in UK companies or universities. There
are fields of science and engineering where UK universities are not at the
forefront of knowledge, and being able to access expertise available in
other EU countries is extremely important for the UK's future.

--
Jeremy Double

In message , at 12:03:38 on Sat, 16 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the single
market

so why did they vote to leave then?

what have they gained if we just sign straight back up to the single
market paying in 250 million pounds per week (and getting no
subsidies back)

Nothing. That's the tragedy.

so why did they vote that way then?

that was the question

I answered it on Friday:

Top reason for voting "leave" (49%) was to regain local control of
lawmaking, second (33%) was "regaining control of the borders" and third
(only 13%) was "dislike expansion of EU and its powers".

The majority of the 49% were seduced by talk of straight bananas, and
have little idea how many of the freedoms they enjoy today are courtesy
of the EU.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 08:47:16 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
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.


The pro EU people didn't lie about that figure. Nobody denied that,
overall, the UK makes a net contribution, as one would expect of a richer
member. It was the Brexiteers who lied, claiming that the contribution was
£350m a week, or £18bn a year:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7105546.html

That was by the official Vote Leave campaign. The Leave.EU condemned the claim.

On 17 Jul 2016 09:11:23 GMT, Jeremy Double wrote:

Optimist wrote:
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.


£8.5 billion actually.


According to ONS, the figure was £9.872 billion for 2014 and £11.271 billion for 2013.


But this money is not necessarily available for the
government to use after Brexit. Some areas of the civil service will need
to be expanded to cover activities where we currently share the resources
of the EU (the UK currently has NO trade negotiators, for instance, because
currently all UK trade deals are done on an EU-wide basis). It is highly
likely that UK GDP will drop as a result of Brexit, thus there will be less
tax receipts available to make payments from.

I do not accept that view, trade deals with the rest of the world should benefit the economy by
boosting exports and reducing the price of imports. This has been pointed out by economists such as
Minford.


Also, the UK's credit rating
has already dropped as a result of the vote, and this is likely to make it
more expensive for the government to borrow, reducing further the amount of
money that the government could reallocate from EU contributions.

But that is because of the Bank of England has been printing money and cutting interest rates.


Focusing on research and development, I am aware of some research areas
where UK government (DTI) funding dried up in 2004, and it was only EU
funding that allowed this research and development to continue. Having a
second source of public funding is extremely useful to companies and
universities (because public funders don't pick the right areas to fund all
the time). Also, EU collaborative R&D funding provides access to areas of
expertise that are not available in UK companies or universities. There
are fields of science and engineering where UK universities are not at the
forefront of knowledge, and being able to access expertise available in
other EU countries is extremely important for the UK's future.

But we already collaborate more with the USA than we do with the EU.

In any case, surely the future is worldwide co-operation, rather than just 28 countries with 7% of
the world's population?

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 08:45:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
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.

Many of the woes of the Club Med EU members are because of their membership
of the euro at unrealistic exchange rates, not the EU. The EU has probably
been widened a bit too much, but it is the Eurozone that has been extended
to far too many countries. If the rules for entry were more stringent, and
extremely strict, Italy, Spain and Greece, and maybe even France, would not
have been allowed, let alone forced, to join. So a Eurozone with perhaps
half a dozen Northern European members would probably have worked well, and
a few more EU countries might have been motivated to run their economies
better with the motivation to join. But there would never be 18 members.

One good thing Gordon Brown did was to keep us out of it, after our short,
unhappy stay in the ERM, the predecessor of the euro. If the £ couldn't
last long in the ERM, how could countries like Greece, Spain and Italy
survive a currency union with Germany?

Those three countries' economies have already gone down the tubes.



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).

Plenty of EU citizens living in the UK earn much more than the minimum
wage. How would the NHS survive without them?


Sure, migrant workers do an excellent job in the NHS and elsewhere. But there are thousands of
Btritish people denied the opportunity to train as health workers because the UK government has cut
training.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"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", 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.

I'm well aware of that

my point is that it doesn't matter

no-one is worried about people who come here to "see the sights",

They are worried about people who come here to work, live etc

We now have rules in place that are meant to counter that

Though whether they work or not is yet to be completely tested

tim

"At every possible turn?" Really? How about putting a rational
argument instead of just predicting doom in that silly, defeatist
way?

When the referendum campaign began, I was inclined to vote
"leave" but I knew there were arguments on both sides. I was
willing to be persuaded that staying in was the better option,
so I paid attention to the assertions of the "remain" campaigners.
I didn't hear a single worthwhile argument!

What I heard was a lot of racist nonsense about how we British
are a nation of no-talent losers, far less gifted than other nations,
and certainly not capable of making our own way in the world.
I heard how the EU would wrap us round their little fingers in any
negotiations, how other countries would not want to have anything
to do with us and about how British businesses could not compete
in world markets.

I also heard that the U. K. economy was doing well - despite all
evidence to the contrary - and that it was just a matter of time
before the EU reformed itself to an enormous degree - again,
despite all evidence to the contrary.

Oh yes: I also heard that people who wanted to remain were
more intelligent and better educated than those cretins who
wanted to leave. I didn't see any evidence of this superior
intelligence; indeed their failure to judge the mood of the
electorate suggests the "remainers" weren't quite as bright as
they thought they were.

Now the referendum is over and the bad losers are still fighting
the bad fight, the same failed tactics are being used. Still no
rational argument, still the racist assertion that the British are
uniquely incompetent and inadequate, still an ungracious sneer
in response to any sensible contention made anyone not alarmed
at the prospect of leaving the EU.

May I suggest that if you wish to continue campaigning against
leaving, you begin by asking why you lost the referendum.
As part of that, I also suggest you re-read this entire thread and
cross check every point made by a "remainer" against the points
I've just made: is this a racist generalisation? Is this an ungracious
sneer? Is this a rational argument or just a wild assertion?

You may find that educational.