In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:02:14 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message

nal-september.org...
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

Though the argument is, that that friction is a price worth paying in
order to simplify our trade with ROW (and even intra-UK, for that matter)

Fully analysed, that pov might not be right, but Remainers can't simply
dismiss it as not existing (which is the generally the approach used so
far)

The rules apply both ways. It will cost EU countries also to sell to the
UK, and they sell to us far more than we buy from them. So in my view
they will want to do a deal. The Germans already do.

Ah! The old British Imperial arrogance! The EU has plenty of trading
opportunities without the UK and can afford to be hard bon us as we can
afford to be hard on them, nearly 10 times the size.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
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.

+1

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Optimist wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:02:14 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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


Though the argument is, that that friction is a price worth paying in
order
to simplify our trade with ROW (and even intra-UK, for that matter)

Fully analysed, that pov might not be right, but Remainers can't simply
dismiss it as not existing (which is the generally the approach used so
far)

tim



The rules apply both ways. It will cost EU countries also to sell to the
UK, and they sell to us far
more than we buy from them. So in my view they will want to do a deal.
The Germans already do.

Yes, business people in industries that sell a lot to us will certainly
want a free trade deal (eg, cars, trains, wine, food, etc). Of courses,
lobbyists representing their industries where we have a surplus will be
against a free trade deal (eg, banking, insurance, TV programmes, music,
etc). Making sure we get free trade in the areas where we have a surplus
in
return for them having free trade in their strong areas will take a lot of
negotiation.

doesn't mean that it will be impossible to achieve (which is the claim)

tim

"Optimist" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:24:32 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 08:48:05 on
Mon, 18 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.

That sounds a bit contradictory.

The EU has a free trade deal with Mexico. Does that mean Mexicans have
freedom to live and work in
the EU?

Roland's picking up on a different claim by the PP (one which they probably
made in error)

(You have to be really careful here, too many people interpret freedom of
movement to mean freedom of movement and answer accordingly, when it is
clear from the context that the poster means Freedom of Movement! - and
that's a simple mistake)

tim

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
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

at a 3% mark up

(YMMV - happy to be told where I, someone with irregular income, can get one
that doesn't)

and money is easily converted

At margins of up to 30% - yes I really did see people charging that much on
holiday last week

tim

wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:19:02 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
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.

Also now that Farage has gone they don't have anyone high profile left to
campaign. They said he quit because of threats but politicians get them
all
the time anyway. He's a smart cookie and I suspect he knew that once they
got
the referendum result UKIP raison d'etre pretty much vanished overnight.
However if for whatever reason Article 50 doesn't get enacted I expect to
see
him pop up again.

I don't think he will be quiet over the next 5 years whatever happens

tim

On 2016-07-18 11:32:04 +0000, said:

Ah! The old British Imperial arrogance! The EU has plenty of trading
opportunities without the UK and can afford to be hard bon us as we can
afford to be hard on them, nearly 10 times the size.

I voted Remain, but even given that, if they impose *punitive* tariffs
they are selfish idiots barely worse than a child throwing toys out of
their pram.

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

On 2016-07-18 11:57:12 +0000, tim... said:

at a 3% mark up

(YMMV - happy to be told where I, someone with irregular income, can
get one that doesn't)

Banks in "profitable business" shocker

At margins of up to 30% - yes I really did see people charging that
much on holiday last week

Only gullible people pay that. The best deal can usually be had by
either buying in advance or using your card in a cash dispenser.

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:01:24 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
put finger to keyboard and typed:

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.


The Swiss voted to restrict freedom of movement two years ago but haven't
yet found a way to implement it.

Indeed; they can't do that without renegotiating the treaties which include
it, because if they simply impose it then the treaties become invalid. That
doesn't mean it's impossible, simply that the other benefits of the treties
that would be lost are too important to simply give up on.

If we want the same benefits then we, too, would almost certainly need to
accept freedom of movement, either via EEA membership or a bilateral
treaty. But it's not entirely implausible that the UK, being a considerably
larger, richer and more populous country than Switzerland, can either do
without if that's what it takes, or negotiate a better deal to begin with.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

In message , at 12:21:02 on Mon, 18 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
And at least we had a significant say, and sometimes a veto, over other
rules that did affect us. They'll probably still affect us when we're
outside the EU, but now we have no say, and certainly no veto.

Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned
the sale of these instruments, then?

Do you approve of scrapping the ban on trading in ivory too?

That's completely different though, isn't

(It's a ridiculous comparison and you ought to fell ashamed making it)

It's every much the same sort of thing: banning a commodity because it's
harmful/unethical or whatever.

The reason I mentioned that one example (rather than say a pesticide) is
that sufficiently old examples have grandfather rights. Which you might
be suggesting doesn't apply to mercury instruments??

--
Roland Perry