Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
 

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..." put
finger to keyboard and typed:

"Recliner" wrote in message

al-september.org...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between
several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style)
alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population
could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the
single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to
leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the
government to seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer us
the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3 than
options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which
could usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny
us any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU
or EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if
that's what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an
application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen. The
UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when we
joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real life,
we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance could
easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And, obviously,
if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's nothing the EU
could do about that either.

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.

Given the tussle currently ongoing between the EU and the Swiss on free
movement we sure ain't going to get that option without free movement to go
with free trade.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In article , (bob) wrote:

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..."
put finger to keyboard and typed:

"Recliner" wrote in message

l-september.org...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between
several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style)
alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population
could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the
single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to
leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the
government to seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer
us the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3
than options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios
which could usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny
us any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the
EU or EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if
that's what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto
an application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.
The UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when
we joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real
life, we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance
could easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And,
obviously, if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's
nothing the EU could do about that either.

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.

A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the single
market to 1 supporting the end of free movement.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

bob wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..." put
finger to keyboard and typed:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to
seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer us the
preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3 than
options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which could
usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny us
any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU or
EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if that's
what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an
application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen. The
UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when we
joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real life,
we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance could
easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And, obviously,
if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's nothing the EU
could do about that either.

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.

On the other hand, you only need a few of those who voted leave to be in
favour of EEA or EFTA membership to give an overall majority in favour of
such membership (given the reasonable assumption that those who voted
remain would be in favour of EEA or EFTA membership as the next best thing
to EU membership).

In any case, when they discover the realities of what can really be
negotiated with the EU and other countries (as opposed to the delusional
picture painted by the leave campaigners) a lot of people who voted leave
will be miffed anyway...

--
Jeremy Double

If, and unfortunately it's a big "if" with our new Prime Minister
and Chancellor Of The Exchequer, we take no free movement
combined with WTO tariffs, only the small number of free
movement fanatics will be miffed.

If, as I fear, Mrs. May is willing to accept free movement
in exchange for free access, a very large number of people
will be annoyed. In that situation, Mrs. May's career will
depend mainly on the Labour Party's complete lack of credibility.

Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement. She is unlikely to be able to
ignore them.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

In message e.net, at
21:06:21 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Mark Goodge
remarked:
There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3 than
options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which could
usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny us
any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU or
EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if that's
what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an
application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.

Also mindful that currently EFTA is a very small club: Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

One of the oft-overlooked aspects of the "Norway" mode is it doesn't
include free trade in fish/agriculture; nor does the Swiss" model
include freedom of movement of capital and services.

And of course 1&2 also require us to keep agreeing to freedom of
movement.

Here's a handy chart: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmwXJT8WcAA_LkB.jpg
--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

wrote in message
...
In article , (bob) wrote:

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..."
put finger to keyboard and typed:

"Recliner" wrote in message

l-september.org...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between
several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style)
alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population
could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the
single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to
leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the
government to seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer
us the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3
than options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios
which could usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot
deny
us any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the
EU or EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA
if
that's what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto
an application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to
happen.
The UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left
when
we joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real
life, we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that
assurance
could easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And,
obviously, if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's
nothing the EU could do about that either.

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.

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)

I smell a biased question

to 1 supporting the end of free movement.

tim

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

On 2016-07-14 20:56:47 +0000, said:

A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the single
market to 1 supporting the end of free movement.

Precisely - some will moan if freedom of movement remains, but they are
in the minority. I think it's fair to say all Remain voters supported
freedom of movement at least to some extent, as their vote would have
resulted in it certainly continuing. As only some Leave voters
supported ending it, there is not a majority in favour of ending it, so
if those people moan they can be ignored.

If necessary, another referendum could prove this conclusively.

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

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning SouthLondon Orange?
 

On 2016-07-15 08:29:59 +0000, Robin9 said:

Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement.

Whyever do you think that? Parliament is quite heavily pro-European.

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

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning SouthLondon Orange?
 

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

Jeremy Double;156812 Wrote:
bob wrote:-
Mark Goodge wrote:-
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..."
put
finger to keyboard and typed:
-

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between
several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style)
alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have
chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market,
etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to
leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to
seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer
us the
preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?-

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3
than
options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which
could
usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot
deny us
any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU
or
EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if
that's
what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an
application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.
The
UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when
we
joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real
life,
we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance
could
easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And,
obviously,
if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's nothing the
EU
could do about that either.

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.-

On the other hand, you only need a few of those who voted leave to be
in
favour of EEA or EFTA membership to give an overall majority in favour
of
such membership (given the reasonable assumption that those who voted
remain would be in favour of EEA or EFTA membership as the next best
thing
to EU membership).

In any case, when they discover the realities of what can really be
negotiated with the EU and other countries (as opposed to the
delusional
picture painted by the leave campaigners) a lot of people who voted
leave
will be miffed anyway...

--
Jeremy Double

If, and unfortunately it's a big "if" with our new Prime Minister
and Chancellor Of The Exchequer, we take no free movement
combined with WTO tariffs, only the small number of free
movement fanatics will be miffed.

If, as I fear, Mrs. May is willing to accept free movement
in exchange for free access,

ISTM that the team she has put in place will not accept this.

The EU really has its head in the sand over this. It really does seem to
think that we will roll over and ask to have our tummy tickled. The sooner
it gets to understand that we wont, the better it will be for everyone
(UK/EU/ROW). It really does need to offer sensible concessions on FoM or I
think that our negotiators really will walk away.

The situation has become intolerable for a large percentage of the
population.

a very large number of people
will be annoyed. In that situation, Mrs. May's career will
depend mainly on the Labour Party's complete lack of credibility.

Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement. She is unlikely to be able to
ignore them.

and the millions of voters who will switch to UKIP

tim

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning SouthLondon Orange?
 

In message , at 10:19:40 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
If, as I fear, Mrs. May is willing to accept free movement
in exchange for free access,

ISTM that the team she has put in place will not accept this.

The EU really has its head in the sand over this. It really does seem
to think that we will roll over and ask to have our tummy tickled. The
sooner it gets to understand that we wont, the better it will be for
everyone (UK/EU/ROW). It really does need to offer sensible
concessions on FoM or I think that our negotiators really will walk away.

In which case it's "hello WTO". Is that what you want?

The situation has become intolerable for a large percentage of the
population.

What situation?
--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

In message , at 09:54:57 on Thu, 14 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:

I think they thought "leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to
leave".

Only a small percentage are claiming that

It only takes 2% (swing).

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".

lordashcroftpolls.com
--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

In message , at 09:54:57 on Thu, 14 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
I didn't see the picture, so what?

I did see all the media coverage of it

how does that make me out of touch?

As I said before - one picture is worth 1000 words, and you are
clearly vastly underestimating its impact on the vote.

You have proof of that statement do you?

No, I thought not - you made it up.

I don't believe for one minute that one poster that was shown for one
day made a significant impact on the result.

It wasn't just one poster, although the press launch just had one on
show. And it was all over the media and the biggest story of the day
until Jo Cox got murdered.

--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

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.

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

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

On 14 Jul 2016 21:16:32 GMT, Jeremy Double put
finger to keyboard and typed:

bob wrote:
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.

On the other hand, you only need a few of those who voted leave to be in
favour of EEA or EFTA membership to give an overall majority in favour of
such membership (given the reasonable assumption that those who voted
remain would be in favour of EEA or EFTA membership as the next best thing
to EU membership).

Yes, I think that's a reasonable assumption. Given the narrowness of the
vote to leave the EU, it's quite likely that in a second vote where the two
options are in or out of the EEA, then in would win.

I also think that there would be a strong preference for EFTA membership
even among Leave voters. In many respects, EFTA is what a lot of Leavers
think the EEC should have remained - a simple free trade bloc that doesn't
involve any form of political union - rather than mutating into the EU.
There's a not entirely fanciful belief that, with the UK taking a strong
lead (we would easily be the most populous and richest EFTA member), EFTA
could attract some other EU countries to jump ship and join us, leaving the
rump EU as the future United States of Europe surrounded by a set of other
independent countries of which the UK would be the most significant.

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

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2andTurning South London Orange?
 

Mark Goodge wrote:
On 14 Jul 2016 21:16:32 GMT, Jeremy Double put
finger to keyboard and typed:

bob wrote:
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.

On the other hand, you only need a few of those who voted leave to be in
favour of EEA or EFTA membership to give an overall majority in favour of
such membership (given the reasonable assumption that those who voted
remain would be in favour of EEA or EFTA membership as the next best thing
to EU membership).

Yes, I think that's a reasonable assumption. Given the narrowness of the
vote to leave the EU, it's quite likely that in a second vote where the two
options are in or out of the EEA, then in would win.

I also think that there would be a strong preference for EFTA membership
even among Leave voters. In many respects, EFTA is what a lot of Leavers
think the EEC should have remained - a simple free trade bloc that doesn't
involve any form of political union - rather than mutating into the EU.
There's a not entirely fanciful belief that, with the UK taking a strong
lead (we would easily be the most populous and richest EFTA member), EFTA
could attract some other EU countries to jump ship and join us, leaving the
rump EU as the future United States of Europe surrounded by a set of other
independent countries of which the UK would be the most significant.

I'm sure you're right, which is exactly why the career Eurocrats would
fight tooth and nail to oppose it.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
house.net...
I also think that there would be a strong preference for EFTA membership
even among Leave voters. In many respects, EFTA is what a lot of Leavers
think the EEC should have remained - a simple free trade bloc that doesn't
involve any form of political union - rather than mutating into the EU.
There's a not entirely fanciful belief that, with the UK taking a strong
lead (we would easily be the most populous and richest EFTA member), EFTA
could attract some other EU countries to jump ship and join us, leaving
the
rump EU as the future United States of Europe surrounded by a set of other
independent countries of which the UK would be the most significant.

Yes. I passionately believe that the UK should remain part of Europe and
should continue to sell to and buy from them. But I also passionately
believe that the EU, in the form into which it has now mutated, is
dictatorial and looks after its own aims to become a United States of Europe
instead of democratically looking after the interests of its member states.
It also should have remained a union of Western European countries and
should not have allowed in the poorer Eastern European countries who are now
at the centre of the "economic migration to the UK" problems.

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 and can also stipulate where they come from
and what skills they have.

I would love to see the situation you suggest: many EU countries leaving the
EU to join the trade-but-without-political-union EFTA, causing the EU to
disappear up its own orifice.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

bob writes:

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.

But all we voted for was in/out. It was well known before the referendum
vote that should the vote be out, that the terms under which we leave
the EU and any subsequent negotiations with both the EU and the rest of
the world were unknown. Basically the vote to leave was a leap into the
unknown.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In message , at 10:12:20 on Fri, 15 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.
--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

In message , at
12:15:00 on Fri, 15 Jul 2016, NY remarked:
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 and can also stipulate where
they come from and what skills they have.

Good luck with that. The EU won't stand for it because it'll make more
countries leave.
--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:31:24 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:12:20 on Fri, 15 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.

Hopefully they'll forget all about the free trade area, we'll pay tarifs and
be done with it. I don't want any ties to that corrupt beaurocracy.

--
Spud

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:11:32 +0100
Graham Murray wrote:
writes:

Not to mention the dire warnings about the collapse of the pound. Which has
gone down a bit , but nothing like what some were suggesting. Also ironically
Osborne only last year was suggesting that perhaps it would be good if the
pound did drop to aid exports. That god he's gone, useless plank.

Did the dire warnings about the collapse of the pound indicate that this
would happen as a consequence of the leave vote or as consequence of
actually leaving? As many others pointed out, 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.

Sheep mentality rules on the financial markets. When one starts bleeting they
all start bleeting even if the "wolf" is actually a chihuahua. It really
matters not a jot what the pound does anyway - if it goes down our exports
benefit, if it goes up imports are cheaper. Six of one etc etc...

--
Spud

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning SouthLondon
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 10:19:40 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
If, as I fear, Mrs. May is willing to accept free movement
in exchange for free access,

ISTM that the team she has put in place will not accept this.

The EU really has its head in the sand over this. It really does seem
to think that we will roll over and ask to have our tummy tickled. The
sooner it gets to understand that we wont, the better it will be for
everyone (UK/EU/ROW). It really does need to offer sensible
concessions on FoM or I think that our negotiators really will walk away.

In which case it's "hello WTO". Is that what you want?

The British sense of imperial entitlement in the Leave campaign was as
breathtaking as it is totally unrealistic.

The situation has become intolerable for a large percentage of the
population.

What situation?

As they have no idea of reality it is hard to get that. People are blaming
the other, as ever in history, for the crimes of their own government.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London
 

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

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".
--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

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.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

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.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

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.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

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.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

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. So we spend more to get less. Another triumph for Brexit.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:04:13 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
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. So we spend more to get less. Another triumph for Brexit.

AFAIK EU research projects arn't resticted to EU nationals only.

--
Spud

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:04:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

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. So we spend more to get less. Another triumph for Brexit.

We can collaborate with other countries besides EU ones. EU is about 7% of world's population.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

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;

That is a sweeping statement that is incorrect in a significant number of
subject areas. There is a lot of important expertise in the universities
of other EU member states.

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).

--
Jeremy Double

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

Recliner wrote:
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. So we spend more to get less. Another triumph for Brexit.

I completely agree. The benefits of being involved in a European-wide
research collaboration are as much from the sharing of expertise as they
are from the funding. We will lose out massively if we don't negotiate
continuing participation in the EU Horizon 2020 programme. (Swiss
organisations can be partners in EU projects, despite Switzerland not being
an EU member, so there is a precedent).

--
Jeremy Double

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

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

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;

That is a sweeping statement that is incorrect in a significant number of
subject areas. There is a lot of important expertise in the universities
of other EU member states.

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).

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.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

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

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;

That is a sweeping statement that is incorrect in a significant number of
subject areas. There is a lot of important expertise in the universities
of other EU member states.

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).

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.

Quite possibly, but the current uncertainty is already causing damage.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:31:24 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:12:20 on Fri, 15 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.

Hopefully they'll forget all about the free trade area, we'll pay tarifs
and be done with it. I don't want any ties to that corrupt beaurocracy.

See you in the dole queue, then. It's TRADE that pays our wages and
pensions. The more the better.

If the UK loses bank passporting then half the London banking business will
go and with it the taxes that pay for our services.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
 

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.
--
Roland Perry

Because, with the Labour Party is its present state,
the Tories would win with a huge majority. Tory Party
activists will make quite sure that most new Members
will be opposed to free movement. The balance of power
in Parliament will be changed enormously.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
12:15:00 on Fri, 15 Jul 2016, NY remarked:
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 and can also stipulate where
they come from and what skills they have.

Good luck with that. The EU won't stand for it because it'll make more
countries leave.

but it's a perfectly simple option for us to choose and the EU can do
nothing to stop us

WTO rules.

How much of our EU trade will remain is anyone's guess, but (as has been
said ad infinitum) it would likely harm the EU as much as us so they have
every incentive to avoid it.

But I for one would be happy with the choice, the future is trading with the
developing world, not being tied to trading with ever decreasing in (trade)
importance EU.

tim