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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.