"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 forbid us from excluding entry for
another EU citizen except in very exceptional circumstances. If someone has
an EU passport, they are in, end of.

The (usual) reasons for wanting to exclude someone:

we don't think that you have sufficient means to support yourself whilst
here

or

you are a habitual criminal

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

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

I did see all the media coverage of it

how does that make me out of touch?

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

You have proof of that statement do you?

No, I thought not - you made it up.

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

It wasn't just one poster,

it was one poster (obviously there were more than one copy of it), but it
was single event within the campaign

although the press launch just had one on show. And it was all over the
media and the biggest story of the day until Jo Cox got murdered.

I have already told you that I saw the press stories

you cannot make the extrapolation that I didn't understand the issue because
none of the news items that I saw included the poster

tim

"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

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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?

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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?

as per my earlier post:

The threat of that solution should make the EU see some sense, as they have
as much to lose from that solution as we do.

This mantra that they cry "free trade requires free movement" is patent
nonsense as they have agreed a free trade agreement with Canada that doesn't
have free movement. They are not intrinsically linked in any way at all
except in the minds of a few ideological nutcases.

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

What situation?

Influx of immigrants.

tim

wrote in message
...
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.

I challenge you to come back here in 10 year's time and see if you can still
say that

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

What situation?

As they have no idea of reality

Who has no idea of reality?

For most people their day to day life is realty.

They don't care if voting out harms the "city", it isn't their world and
they see no connection with it. There is no trickle down to them (as is
claimed). All they see is a bunch of over paid ponces taking an unfair share
of the cake. As Gove said in his leadership campaign speech (something
like) "the rich have taken far too much of the EU wealth", he sees it (and I
think so does May).

If the "rich" and the city twerps who are now going to be harmed by leaving
wanted to avoid that possibility they should have damned well made sure that
the wealth was better spread out in the past in order not to find themselves
in the position that they now do. But oh no, the greedy buggers just kept
it to themselves, demanded that we do what was in their interest, and then
complain and insult us because we didn't obey them.

As a LD I am really surprised at you can't see that is why it happened that
way (even if do you have genuine "Liberal" reasons for wanting to stay in)

it is hard to get that.

It's hard to get what?

People are blaming
the other, as ever in history, for the crimes of their own government.

So government should have solved the problem then shouldn't it?

None of the three parties of power over the past 20 years are innocent here

They all conspired in the "keep the bosses happy, **** on the workers"
roadmap

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

so why did they vote that way then?

that was the question

tim

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:31:24 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:12:20 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the
single market

so why did they vote to leave then?

what have they gained if we just sign straight back up to the single
market paying in 250 million pounds per week (and getting no subsidies
back)

Nothing. That's the tragedy.

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

See you in the dole queue, then.

I thought you were retired (or close enough for it not to matter)

It's TRADE that pays our wages and
pensions. The more the better.

The EU is an ever diminishing percentage of World trade.

Yes, it's easier to trade with the EU, but it's a dead-end street.

To get growth we need to trade with ROW and the vested interests of 27 other
counties make signing up trade deals glacial.

It won't happen overnight, but the long term trading prospects for the UK
should be better off outside, there are plenty of business people on the
Leave camp who see it that way, just not the economists who are incapable of
looking outside of the model that they have constructed that doesn't model
the real business opportunities of leaving (because no-one has done it so
there is no data to make the model with).

If the UK loses bank passporting then half the London banking business
will
go

Ah, shame!

(good to see you admit that it's only half, there are many claiming all,
which is utter nonsense)

and with it the taxes that pay for our services.

well we'll just have to cut down on vanity projects then, wont we?

(FTAOD, that includes the unaffordable ever increasing nil-band tax rate,
which however socially desirable is a fiscal nonsense)

tim

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.

"Optimist" wrote in message
...

Leaving the EU will save £10 billion a year net so lack of money need not
be an issue.

How does that work then? On the assumption that joining eg EFTA will not
require a considerable annual contribution from the UK? Seriously?

This, in a nutshell, is the outright lie that too many gullible would-be
Brexiteers have been sold. If the UK were to have a Norway-style
relationship to the EU then the likely annual contribution (on an equivalent
per capita basis) would be ca £8B, even assuming that the UK wasn't required
to pay some punitive rate. (Plus accepting most, if not all, of the 4
freedoms.)

Forgetting about EFTA altogether and regressing to plain WTO arrangements
really isn't a viable option either, for anyone with enough patience and
interest see eg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...sury-committee

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...sury-committee