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.

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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 ?

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 ?

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

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

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.