On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 13:43:42 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

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??

Yet at the same time the EU was banning incandescent lightbulbs to promote compact fluorescent bulbs
which contain ..er.. toxic mercury!

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:41:26 +0100, tim... wrote:
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 have a source for that? The 2007 press
release I've found says antiques are exmpted:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...070706IPR08897

Is there a more recent ban?

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:56:24 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:02:51 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?

Who mentioned freedom to live and work?

That's the whole point of freedom of movement rules within the single market - anyone from an EU
country can go to another in order to work even if this undermines local wage agreements.

On 2016-07-18 13:18:09 +0000, Optimist said:

That's the whole point of freedom of movement rules within the single
market - anyone from an EU
country can go to another in order to work even if this undermines
local wage agreements.

Only for a short period. I think it's something like 90 working days
in any calendar year.

It then reverts to local arrangements, though there is not allowed to
be a quota of EU workers. Switzerland[1] requires a work permit to be
obtained, and there are wage controls - you aren't allowed to undercut
a Swiss worker.

I have personal experience of this.

[1] non EU, but does follow the "freedom of movement" stuff.

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:23:39 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2016-07-18 13:18:09 +0000, Optimist said:

That's the whole point of freedom of movement rules within the single
market - anyone from an EU
country can go to another in order to work even if this undermines
local wage agreements.

Only for a short period. I think it's something like 90 working days
in any calendar year.

It then reverts to local arrangements, though there is not allowed to
be a quota of EU workers. Switzerland[1] requires a work permit to be
obtained, and there are wage controls - you aren't allowed to undercut
a Swiss worker.

I have personal experience of this.

[1] non EU, but does follow the "freedom of movement" stuff.

Neil

Look up the Laval case in Sweden.

On 2016-07-18 13:41:18 +0000, Optimist said:

Look up the Laval case in Sweden.

What, this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_...arefo rbundet


That appears to relate to whether a union could obstruct people being
brought in for less money, not whether the law could restrict it.

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

On 18/07/2016 09:50, tim... wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:39:37 +0100, Optimist
wrote:

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

The RotW that already has established trade deals with others which
are going to be dropped to trade with part of an insignificant island
group off the coast of Europe ?

The UK is the 5th (6th) largest economy in the world.

If that is not large enough for County X to make a trade deal with, why
has Country X has already established trade deals with others who are
almost certainly going to be smaller?

This "we are too small" mantra is patent nonsense, proved by your own claim

tim



Maybe this answers the naysayers?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36818055

Colin

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:29:11 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:55:32 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

The money won't be spent on health in England, it will go into
supporting further privatisation of the NHS.

TTIP, which the EU wants to push through, will do that.

The EU TTIP negotiators keep telling us that TTIP will NOT allow public
services to be privatised if EU countries don't want that to happen. Are
you accusing them of lying?

If TTIP is do marvellous why are the details of it kept secret? See
the Youtube video by Irish
independent MEP Luke "Ming" Flanagan which the EU want taken down.

And why have the EU Commission published more about the TTIP deal being
negotiated than about any previous trade deal? Paranoia is a thing.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

There is a mile of difference between unethical and harmful, especially when
in normal use the item isn't harmful at all, it's only harmful if it's
abused.

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??

The grandfather rights to antique mercury based instruments apply to
unrepaired ones (whether still working or otherwise).

as soon as they (the mechanism) is newly repaired they have to follow the
same rules as newly made, which means that their sale is banned.

It's a nonsense

tim

"David Walters" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:41:26 +0100, tim...
wrote:
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 have a source for that? The 2007 press
release I've found says antiques are exmpted:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...070706IPR08897

Is there a more recent ban?

No, there isn't

the exception applies to items sold in their current state of working-ness
(sorry can't find a real word for that)

once they go wrong the rules forbid the mechanise from being repaired using
historic components, they have to be left not working or repaired with a
non-mercury based device.

who the hell wants the latter in an antique device?

tim