Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In article
-septembe
r.org, (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/educatio...ding-hit-by-br
exit-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.

And it's not just money. Much of the benefit to research flows from the free
movement of people with the ideas. Brexiters are too clueless to realise the
damage they have already done with worse to come.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:31:53 -0500, wrote:

In article
-septembe
r.org, (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/educatio...ding-hit-by-br
exit-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.

And it's not just money. Much of the benefit to research flows from the free
movement of people with the ideas. Brexiters are too clueless to realise the
damage they have already done with worse to come.

People with ideas travel all over the world today, as they did prior to 1973 within Europe.

Get real.

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:31:53 -0500,
wrote:

In article
-
september.org, (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/educatio...ding-hit-by-br
exit-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.

And it's not just money. Much of the benefit to research flows from the
free movement of people with the ideas. Brexiters are too clueless to
realise the damage they have already done with worse to come.

People with ideas travel all over the world today, as they did prior
to 1973 within Europe.

Get real.

Have you compared the numbers? They've risen sharply in Cambridge.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

wrote in message
...
In article
-septembe
r.org, (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/educatio...ding-hit-by-br
exit-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.

And it's not just money. Much of the benefit to research flows from the
free
movement of people with the ideas. Brexiters are too clueless to realise
the
damage they have already done with worse to come.

Look,

I have already told you:

People voted for Brexit on the basis of how it affects THEIR lives/world.

You have absolutely no right at all to expect them to vote on the basis of
how it affects YOURS, unless you are undertaking to equally share all the
benefits that accrue by that decision.

And the reality is that the people who benefit by remaining in the EU had
absolutely no intention of doing that, that wanted the downtrodden to vote
to remain so that that could keep all the extra jam it created for
themselves. - Greedy *******s!

tim

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

On 2016-07-17 16:31:53 +0000, said:

And it's not just money. Much of the benefit to research flows from the free
movement of people with the ideas. Brexiters are too clueless to realise the
damage they have already done with worse to come.

You can have free movement of researchers between universities, with
contracts in place, without having free movement of unemployed people
looking to be bus drivers, plumbers or whatever. It isn't[1] all or
nothing.

[1] It might be in the EU, and there are many arguments for it, but
overall the concepts are not.

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

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In message , at 09:25:55 on Mon, 18
Jul 2016, Neil Williams remarked:

You can have free movement of researchers between universities, with
contracts in place, without having free movement of unemployed people
looking to be bus drivers, plumbers or whatever. It isn't[1] all or
nothing.

You can't have a scheme like that without being policed by visas, work
permits, or whatever. At which point it's not "free movement" in the
normal EU sense.

--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article
-s
eptember.org, (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/educatio...ding-hit-by-br
exit-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.

And it's not just money. Much of the benefit to research flows from the
free movement of people with the ideas. Brexiters are too clueless to
realise the damage they have already done with worse to come.

Look,

I have already told you:

People voted for Brexit on the basis of how it affects THEIR
lives/world.

How they were told it would affect their lives, not the reality. They
refused to believe what they were told in this post-truth world of politics.
See Cornwall and Wales asking to keep their EU subsidies just after they
voted to lose them, for example.

You have absolutely no right at all to expect them to vote on the
basis of how it affects YOURS, unless you are undertaking to equally
share all the benefits that accrue by that decision.

I'm not. I'm expecting them not to vote for national suicide.

And the reality is that the people who benefit by remaining in the EU
had absolutely no intention of doing that, that wanted the
downtrodden to vote to remain so that that could keep all the extra
jam it created for themselves. - Greedy *******s!

The whole country will be worse off if we leave the EU. It is already worse
off in anticipation of that happening.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 09:25:55 on Mon, 18
Jul 2016, Neil Williams remarked:

You can have free movement of researchers between universities, with
contracts in place, without having free movement of unemployed people
looking to be bus drivers, plumbers or whatever. It isn't[1] all or
nothing.

You can't have a scheme like that without being policed by visas,
work permits, or whatever. At which point it's not "free movement" in
the normal EU sense.

Or in the "getting on with the business without loads of government
bureaucracy' sense either.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

On 2016-07-18 09:33:25 +0000, Roland Perry said:

You can't have a scheme like that without being policed by visas, work
permits, or whatever. At which point it's not "free movement" in the
normal EU sense.

A work permit is still required to work in Switzerland for more than a
few months, despite it being part of the freedom of movement treaties
(for now).

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

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

On 2016-07-18 10:29:12 +0000, said:

Or in the "getting on with the business without loads of government
bureaucracy' sense either.

They can make it as bureaucratic (or not bureaucratic) as they want.
For instance, the US wanted to pre-check people going there. ESTA is
not particularly bureaucratic - they could have instead chosen proper
visas, which would have been.

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

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

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




I have already told you:

People voted for Brexit on the basis of how it affects THEIR
lives/world.

How they were told it would affect their lives, not the reality. They
refused to believe what they were told in this post-truth world of
politics.

because the views were exaggerated

please stop persisting in the fiction that they were not.

See Cornwall and Wales asking to keep their EU subsidies just after they
voted to lose them, for example.

You have absolutely no right at all to expect them to vote on the
basis of how it affects YOURS, unless you are undertaking to equally
share all the benefits that accrue by that decision.

I'm not. I'm expecting them not to vote for national suicide.

but they don't see it that way

why should they?


And the reality is that the people who benefit by remaining in the EU
had absolutely no intention of doing that, that wanted the
downtrodden to vote to remain so that that could keep all the extra
jam it created for themselves. - Greedy *******s!

The whole country will be worse off if we leave the EU.

perhaps it will be

but if my little part of the world is better off by leaving, just why is it
that I should vote for all the rest to be better off if it makes me
worse-off (that's a hypothetical me, BTW)

You really have no right to expect that

It is already worse
off in anticipation of that happening.

As I said ad infinitum before the vote, an avoidable self-fulfilling
prophecy which Remainers choose not to avoid.

tim

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

In message , at 12:22:26 on Mon, 18
Jul 2016, Neil Williams remarked:
Or in the "getting on with the business without loads of government
bureaucracy' sense either.

They can make it as bureaucratic (or not bureaucratic) as they want.
For instance, the US wanted to pre-check people going there. ESTA is
not particularly bureaucratic - they could have instead chosen proper
visas, which would have been.

I disagree. Having had a USA business visa before they were scrapped,
all I had to do to get one was lend my passport to a central London
travel agent for a day. Since Visa Waiver I must have spent a total of
dozens of hours filling in forms and having them checked at the border,
rather than just being in effect "waved through".
--
Roland Perry

Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
 

"Neil Williams" wrote

On 2016-07-18 09:33:25 +0000, Roland Perry said:

You can't have a scheme like that without being policed by visas, work
permits, or whatever. At which point it's not "free movement" in the
normal EU sense.

A work permit is still required to work in Switzerland for more than a
few months, despite it being part of the freedom of movement treaties (for
now).


Same for Belgium I understand, but it's just a matter of applying and them
keeping track, ie the sort of thing the UK government doesn't care to do.

--
Mike D