On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:17:33 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 17:18:38 +0100, Optimist
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:01:25 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On 15 Jul 2016 18:20:48 GMT, Jeremy Double wrote:


Also, remember that companies, as well as universities, are partners in
collaborative projects funded by the EU. I have been involved in projects
where UK companies have benefitted from the expertise of partners
(companies and universities) from other EU countries. The UK will lose out
if it doesn't remain part of the European research funding system (as
non-EU-member Switzerland is).


Switzerland was excluded from the Erasmus student exchange programme when
they voted to restrict free movement of people two years ago. So there are
precedents for exclusion.

According to the Erasmus website participating countries include non-EU Iceland, Liechtenstein,
Macedonia, Norway & Turkey.


And there's no reason why the UK won't follow Switzerland's example.
Leaving the EU will save £10
billion a year net so lack of money need not be an issue.


I thought all of that was going to be spent on the NHS?

That will be the decision of the elected government

So the Brexiteers lied ?

The campaign was on the question Leave or Remain, it was not a general election which decides the
government.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:23:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:57:23 on
Sun, 17 Jul 2016, Optimist remarked:

Countries outside the "single market" sell into it all the time.

Of course they do, but have to deal with tariffs and quotas.

Unless they sign a free trade agreement. The EU has FTAs with many countries which do not involve
adhering to the EU's single market rules.

Optimist wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:23:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:57:23 on
Sun, 17 Jul 2016, Optimist remarked:

Countries outside the "single market" sell into it all the time.

Of course they do, but have to deal with tariffs and quotas.

Unless they sign a free trade agreement. The EU has FTAs with many
countries which do not involve
adhering to the EU's single market rules.

But that trade involves a lot more paperwork than trade within the single
market. So, although there aren't tariffs, the trade isn't frictionless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36083664

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:22:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...



I want us to be able to trade with our European neighbours. But I also
want us to have absolute control of our borders so we can limit the
numbers of non-UK people that we allow in

The UK is not in Schengen, so it has control over its borders already.

No we don't

in Schengen or otherwise, EU rules

EEA rules.

forbid us from excluding entry for
another EU citizen except in very exceptional circumstances. If someone
has
an EU passport,

Valid EEA ID card or passport.

they are in, end of.

The (usual) reasons for wanting to exclude someone:

Failing to produce the above.

Actually, failure to produce the relevant ID document is not a "usual"
reason for waning to exclude someone.

Whilst it is true that border control go to great lengths to ensure that
people without documentation don't actually turn up on their doorstep
(because it is expensive to deal with), if someone does manage it, then that
is not a prima facia reason to exclude them.

There are a (large) set of individuals who do have a, de facto, right to
enter the UK and if you can satisfy border control that you are such a
person they will let you in, lack of documentation notwithstanding.

tim

On 2016-07-17 08:45:12 +0000, Recliner said:

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.

TBH I think the Euro has run its course - cards are widely accepted and
money is easily converted - and I'm fairly strongly of the view that
the ability to devalue the Pound has saved us going the same way as
Greece on a number of occasions. I'm surprised it did survive the
Greek issue - but I doubt it will survive all that much longer, and nor
really should it.

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

On 2016-07-16 20:45:50 +0000, said:

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.

I wonder if UKIP will now slowly die off - it was still really a
single-issue party, and their main matter of campaign has been set in
motion.

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

On 2016-07-17 16:31:52 +0000, said:

It's not bullying to say that if you want the benefits of the single market
you can't choose to exclude part of it because of your xenophobia. Freedom
of movement is a bit inevitable for Switzerland with its land frontiers and
not being a police state.

Not believing that uncontrolled immigration is viable (for financial
reasons, say) is not "xenophobia", nor is a reciprocal freedom of trade
incompatible with some restrictions on freedom of movement for the
purposes of employment. (I don't think anyone is going to suggest
people will be stopped from holidaying in France - after all, your UK
passport will get you into many, many non-EU countries worldwide for a
holiday or a short-term business trip).

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

On 2016-07-18 07:42:41 +0000, Optimist said:

The campaign was on the question Leave or Remain, it was not a general
election which decides the
government.

Doesn't really answer the question.

There were many, many lies on both sides. The entire campaign was
utterly filthy - worse than a typical General Election one - and
everyone on both sides should be utterly ashamed of themselves for it.

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:33:07 -0500
wrote:
In article , (tim...)
wrote:
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?

Indeed. Isn't it a good thing India is part of the EU otherwise where would
all the cheap IT staff come from. Oh, wait...

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.

Where's my violin... Unless they're looking for the next Stephen Hawking, if
companies and organisations can't find suitable people out of a population of
65 million then they're doing something wrong. Having worked (and currently
working) in companies with a large number of foreign nationals I can safely say
that NONE of them have any skills I would consider unique or even rare in the
UK and in a number of cases they were ****ing useless and I wondered how they
ever got hired. However they are in the main prepared to work for lower
salaries which is probably not a coincidence.

--
Spud

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-07-17 08:45:12 +0000, Recliner said:

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.

TBH I think the Euro has run its course - cards are widely accepted and
money is easily converted - and I'm fairly strongly of the view that
the ability to devalue the Pound has saved us going the same way as
Greece on a number of occasions. I'm surprised it did survive the
Greek issue - but I doubt it will survive all that much longer, and nor
really should it.

The euro won't fade away just because of cashless retail activities. The
point of it is to lock countries into fixed exchange rates, which is
inherently unstable if they don't have converged economies. So a currency
zone with just Germany and its immediate neighbours might be stable in the
long term; one that combines Germany, Italy and Greece was obviously
unstable from the beginning, but the euro idealists forced it through
anyway.

There were quite a few such idealists in the UK, but luckily they were
frustrated in their moves to include us in the eurozone. So we, uniquely,
had the perfect form of EU membership, now discarded:

- Permanently out of the eurozone, with our interests safeguarded
- Permanently out of Schengen
- Reduced (rebated) membership fees
- But full membership of the single market nevertheless.

From
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Who-pays-for-the-EU-and-how-much-does-it-cost-the-UK-Disentangling-fact-from-fiction-in-the-EU-Budget-Professor-Iain-Begg.pdf

- Spending by the EU in 2014 was around 1% of the Gross National Income
(GNI) of the Union. In the same year, the US federal government spent some
twenty times as much.
- The UK is a major contributor to the EU budget because it is one of the
four largest economies in the EU, but has consistently paid less than
France (since 1985) and (latterly) Italy, let alone Germany.
- As a share of gross national income, the UK pays the least of all
Member States into the EU budget,principally because of the UK rebate,
implemented since 1985.