|
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
wrote in message ... In article , (Colin Reeves) wrote: On 16/07/2016 07:32, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote: The UK is not in Schengen, so it has control over its borders already. If it doesn't use that, it's not the EU's fault. Only in respect of non-EU nationals - the UK has no border controls for EU nationals. Yes it does, even if most are entitled to entry, they are still subject to control. but we have almost no control over who is allowed in from the EU the only control that we have is to check that they have a valid identity document (and aren't on a terrorist list) this isn't what most people mean when they refer to control (and pretending that it is is disingenuous) 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. Of course we wouldn't have this problem if we checked at point of use that people were "entitled" but I think that is an argument that is long lost tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
"JohnD" wrote in message ... "tim..." wrote in message ... But fighting this unnecessary "war" harms the very people above that you seem to care about (that's people in general, not anyone specific) If you are personally disinterested than that's fine, but don't disadvantage others by fighting a war that you don't care about ======================================== Who said I don't care? you more or less said it And persisting in shooting the messenger doesn't help anybody. I care passionately as it happens - I really do not want to see this country destroyed, so work with what we have then calling people who think differently from you names and refusing to co-operate with them, helps nobody which is effectively the aim of the Brexiteers, What nonsense Many of the people who campaigned/voted for Brexit have well founded claims that it will be better for Britian('s economy) in the longer term. You may not agree with those claims, but insulting the people that have them doesn't win you the argument. You have to engage in the discussion. You're not God, your personal opinion isn't Gospel, it's worth no more than any one other individual person and behaving like it is is downright arrogant. whether they realise it or not. More insults Personally I regard the main Brexiteer fraudsters as guilty of high treason - I'd have them in the Tower now if I had my way. Even more insults So I will personally be fighting the war at every possible turn, more shooting the messenger with no willingness to engage in finding the best solution whether that requires financial support or whatever. It's an existential crisis for the UK and I'll do my utmost to try to ensure that it survives in a viable state. So work with the decision that's been made. (It seems that) you aren't going to change that and working simply to trip up the people that made it in some stupid attempt to prove that you are right and they are wrong is just silly and if everybody did it would be bound to be worse for the country (which you claim is the state that you don't want, but your actions belie that claim) tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
wrote in message ... In article , (tim...) wrote: as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top 5 destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you think that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best I'm sorry to tell you that, following the Brexit vote and fall in the value of sterling, the British economy fell to 6th largest economy in the world. Like that makes an overall difference Clutching at straws tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
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. 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). |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
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. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"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. 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. Or, more likely, putting the real border between NI and Britain. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:23:08 -0500, wrote:
In article , (tim...) wrote: as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top 5 destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you think that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best I'm sorry to tell you that, following the Brexit vote and fall in the value of sterling, the British economy fell to 6th largest economy in the world. Do you really think that was because of the Brexit vote? So nothing to do with fact that Osborne's creature at the Bank of England signalled even lower interest rates and more money-printing (reminiscent of Weimar Germany)? |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London
|
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
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. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London
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? |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
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. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
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 |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
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 |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
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. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
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? |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
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. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
"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 |
Quote:
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. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:47:29 +0200
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote: wrote in : Also ironically Osborne only last year was suggesting that perhaps it would be good if the pound did drop to aid exports. It's not as simple, there are winners and losers. A drop of your local currency is good for companies who sell abroad, but bad for conumsers. Its about time a brake was put on consumer society. People by way too much crap they don't need, most of which eventually ends up in landfill. Poverty is fine because it reduces landfills? That's one of the dafter things one could say. Poverty? There isn't much real poverty in the UK and thats unlikely to change anytime soon barring some major natural disaster. Not having quite enough cash to be able to upgrade to the latest iToy or buy some overpriced cloth in Next isn't what I'd call poverty. -- Spud |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
In message , at 10:39:37 on
Sun, 17 Jul 2016, Optimist remarked: 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. Or in fact cut the funding for people undergoing training. The short term issue is that if you can poach trained staff from the EU free of charge, why would you spend £20-30K subsidising each Brit to get qualified instead? How many hip replacements would each £30k fund? -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning SouthLondon Orange?
Robin9 wrote:
tim...;156926 Wrote: "Robin9" wrote in message ...- Neil Williams;156835 Wrote:- 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.- 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.- If there is a snap election "tomorrow" I doubt that Tory members will have any influence at all over the chosen candidates, there simply isn't the time - The balance of power in Parliament will be changed enormously.- You may be right. Personally I can't see too many of these seats that Labour are likely to lose changing hands to the Tories. UKIP are going to sweep them up. Though I suspect my prediction is not going to be tested (it's only for valid now, don't extrapolate it to 2020 - yet. A week is a long time in politics a lot will change by then, for good or bad). tim 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 to 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. There's no need to repeal the act to hold an election before 2020. There can be either a vote of no confidence or the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". The SNP and LDs would presumably support the motion, but some Labour members would also have to do so to get 434 votes. With the deep split in Labour, one or other of the parliamentary Labour parties would probably be happy to do so. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2andTurning South London Orange?
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. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
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: 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. 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? ;) Anna Noyd-Dryver |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
Nobody wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 19:34:09 +0100, Graham Murray wrote: "tim..." writes: as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top 5 destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you think that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best Prof X (of foreign university) applies for UK visa. Home Office: Sorry Prof X, we have filled our quota of workers of your category, and we do not consider you a special case. http://www.burnabynow.com/news/educa...eave-1.2297619 404. Incidentally, I've no idea where Burnaby is, but I've just voted in favour of a gondola up Burnaby Mountain :) Anna Noyd-Dryver |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
Optimist wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 00:07:48 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote: 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. So, if they axe a grant, UK can pay it directly instead They could, yes. But will they? Hmmm... Anna Noyd-Dryver |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
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 |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
In article ,
(Optimist) wrote: *Subject:* Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:50:43 -0500, wrote: 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. So Switzerland has found that the EU is a bully. No surprise there. But UK is significantly larger than the Alpine state and not landlocked. 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. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
In article ,
(Optimist) wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:23:08 -0500, wrote: In article , (tim...) wrote: as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top 5 destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you think that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best I'm sorry to tell you that, following the Brexit vote and fall in the value of sterling, the British economy fell to 6th largest economy in the world. Do you really think that was because of the Brexit vote? So nothing to do with fact that Osborne's creature at the Bank of England signalled even lower interest rates and more money-printing (reminiscent of Weimar Germany)? The truth hurts the Brexiters I see. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:31:52 -0500, wrote:
In article , (Optimist) wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:23:08 -0500, wrote: In article , (tim...) wrote: as the 5th largest economy in the world, with the second best range of universities in the world (and the best in Europe) with one of the top 5 destinations in the world that "elites" want to live in, why do you think that we wont easily be able to employ the world's best I'm sorry to tell you that, following the Brexit vote and fall in the value of sterling, the British economy fell to 6th largest economy in the world. Do you really think that was because of the Brexit vote? So nothing to do with fact that Osborne's creature at the Bank of England signalled even lower interest rates and more money-printing (reminiscent of Weimar Germany)? The truth hurts the Brexiters I see. These Remainiacs just don't understand the way the world works. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:31:52 -0500, wrote:
In article , (Optimist) wrote: *Subject:* Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:50:43 -0500, wrote: 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. So Switzerland has found that the EU is a bully. No surprise there. But UK is significantly larger than the Alpine state and not landlocked. 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. Countries outside the "single market" sell into it all the time. Look at the goods in the shops and read the labels to see where they come from. Businesses sell services across the world as well. In the 1970s I was working for a company selling data in several countries, some of them now in the EU, some not. Believe it or not we could travel across frontiers and sell things before the EU existed. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
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. we don't think that you have sufficient means to support yourself whilst here or you are a habitual criminal Not so simple. The first on the list [Border Force Operations Manual 4.1] is "Public policy and security" which would allow exclusion (e.g. for extremists whether political or religious) without a criminal record being required or disallow exclusion (even for "habitual" criminals) if the action would be disproportionate. To balance this, the UK's own habitual criminals have to be suffered by the rest of the EEA. are not exceptional reasons If it doesn't use that, it's not the EU's fault. It doesn't use it because the right doesn't exist. tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:27:13 +0100, "tim..."
wrote: "Graham Murray" wrote in message ... 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. As was the vote to remain Basically the vote to leave was a leap into the unknown. As a vote to remain would be The status quo is unknown ? |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:14:51 +0100, 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. Regarding NHS expenditure, our EU contributions currently exceed our rebates and grants from the EU by nearly £10billion a year (see section 9.9 of the "pink book" on the ONS website) so when we leave the elected government can decide to spend this as it sees fit, e.g. on the NHS. The money won't be spent on health in England, it will go into supporting further privatisation of the NHS. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
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 ? 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. Ah, yes. Polaris, Trident, illegal wars, and "Jump!-How High?". In any case, surely the future is worldwide co-operation, rather than just 28 countries with 7% of the world's population? So 4 countries (maybe soon to be 3) with 1% has more clout ? |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
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 ? |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London
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. -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
In message , at 17:18:38 on
Sun, 17 Jul 2016, Optimist remarked: 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. EEA and accession states. -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:55:32 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:14:51 +0100, 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. Regarding NHS expenditure, our EU contributions currently exceed our rebates and grants from the EU by nearly £10billion a year (see section 9.9 of the "pink book" on the ONS website) so when we leave the elected government can decide to spend this as it sees fit, e.g. on the NHS. 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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk