In message , at 16:54:42 on
Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than the EU has.

So you don't know.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.
--
Roland Perry