"Robin9" wrote in message
...

tim...;156926 Wrote:
"Robin9" wrote in message
...-

Neil Williams;156835 Wrote:-
On 2016-07-15 08:29:59 +0000, Robin9 said:
-
Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement.-

Whyever do you think that? Parliament is quite heavily pro-European.

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

Because, with the Labour Party is its present state,
the Tories would win with a huge majority. Tory Party
activists will make quite sure that most new Members
will be opposed to free movement.-

If there is a snap election "tomorrow" I doubt that Tory members will
have
any influence at all over the chosen candidates, there simply isn't the
time
-
The balance of power
in Parliament will be changed enormously.-

You may be right. Personally I can't see too many of these seats that
Labour are likely to lose changing hands to the Tories. UKIP are going
to
sweep them up.

Though I suspect my prediction is not going to be tested (it's only for

valid now, don't extrapolate it to 2020 - yet. A week is a long time in

politics a lot will change by then, for good or bad).

tim

There is no reason to expect an snap election in the next
few weeks. In my earlier post I said "at some stage." First,
the Fixed Term Parliament Act will have to be repealed.

ISTM there is a small window of opportunity (in terms of the justification)

either she calls one "now", on the basis that she is the new broom and needs
a new mandate

or she waits until the parliament naturally ends

there is no "moral" justification for calling on in 2 years time.

The need to for Mrs. May to call an election will eventually
dawn on political commentators and soon the idea will become
common political currency.

It already is.

It will dies down once the window of opportunity has closed

When that happens, Tory activists
will concentrate their minds on what they need to do to make
sure their Government can shrug off the SNP and the LD and
work towards the result most of us want.

A new collation :-)

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:

tim...;156926 Wrote:
"Robin9" wrote in message
...-

Neil Williams;156835 Wrote:-
On 2016-07-15 08:29:59 +0000, Robin9 said:
-
Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement.-

Whyever do you think that? Parliament is quite heavily pro-European.

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

Because, with the Labour Party is its present state,
the Tories would win with a huge majority. Tory Party
activists will make quite sure that most new Members
will be opposed to free movement.-

If there is a snap election "tomorrow" I doubt that Tory members will
have
any influence at all over the chosen candidates, there simply isn't the
time
-
The balance of power
in Parliament will be changed enormously.-

You may be right. Personally I can't see too many of these seats that
Labour are likely to lose changing hands to the Tories. UKIP are going
to
sweep them up.

Though I suspect my prediction is not going to be tested (it's only for

valid now, don't extrapolate it to 2020 - yet. A week is a long time in

politics a lot will change by then, for good or bad).

tim

There is no reason to expect an snap election in the next
few weeks. In my earlier post I said "at some stage." First,
the Fixed Term Parliament Act will have to be repealed.

The need to for Mrs. May to call an election will eventually
dawn on political commentators and soon the idea will become
common political currency. When that happens, Tory activists
will concentrate their minds on what they need to do to make
sure their Government can shrug off the SNP and the LD and
work towards the result most of us want.

There's no need to repeal the act to hold an election before 2020. There
can be either a vote of no confidence or the House of Commons, with the
support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats),
resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

The SNP and LDs would presumably support the motion,

why?

neither are in any state to afford to fight another election

The LD's are broke generally and the SNP have just had to pay for three.

but some Labour
members would also have to do so to get 434 votes. With the deep split in
Labour, one or other of the parliamentary Labour parties would probably be
happy to do so.

why, what's in it for them?

tim

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
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 ?

They were optimistic.

The campaign didn't make any promises, just suggestions

That you were supposed to (and did) take them as promises is another matter

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

where's Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia (and possibly Albania) then?

tim

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:30:57 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Yes, Turkey, due to accede in 1,000 years or 10 years, depending on whether you listen to Cameron or
Major.

In any case, why limit it to Europe, why not a scheme for the whole the world?

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
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 ?

why is that a question?

The status quo is most definitely unknown, that's the problem with Remain.

Obviously it's not unknown in the grammatical sense, but in referendum
terms, it is - no one knows what rules the EU is going to impose on us next,
or indeed what the next Euro crisis is going to inflict upon members.

But history suggests that whatever these new rules are they will not, in the
main, be ones that benefit the UK.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:19:02 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-07-16 20:45:50 +0000, said:

Unlike the SNP, it seems that UKIP is in no shape on the ground to pick up
the Labour seats. Look at the pattern of local government byelection results
I post each week in uk.politics.electoral. UKIP's vote has been falling with
Labour winning their safe seats by default, even though they are losing a
few more marginal seats to the Tories. UKIP often can't find candidates to
defend their seats. One of this week's four Lib Dem gains was a gain in such
a seat.

I wonder if UKIP will now slowly die off - it was still really a
single-issue party, and their main matter of campaign has been set in
motion.

Also now that Farage has gone they don't have anyone high profile left to
campaign. They said he quit because of threats but politicians get them all
the time anyway. He's a smart cookie and I suspect he knew that once they got
the referendum result UKIP raison d'etre pretty much vanished overnight.
However if for whatever reason Article 50 doesn't get enacted I expect to see
him pop up again.

--
Spud

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
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 ?

The UK is the 5th (6th) largest economy in the world.

If that is not large enough for County X to make a trade deal with, why has
Country X has already established trade deals with others who are almost
certainly going to be smaller?

This "we are too small" mantra is patent nonsense, proved by your own claim

tim

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:21:57 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-07-17 16:31:52 +0000, said:

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.

Not believing that uncontrolled immigration is viable (for financial
reasons, say) is not "xenophobia", nor is a reciprocal freedom of trade

Ignore Rosenstiel. He's just another hysterical Guardianista and paid up member
of the Liberal Authoritarian Religion who likes to equate any controls on
immigration with that of a fascist state. The irony of course being that the
ruthless stamping down on discussing the issue of immigration and the
vilification of those who did (or frankly anyone who disagreed with their
orthodoxy in any way) over the last few decades by so called "liberals" has
all the hallmarks of a repressive regime. Sadly most of them them are too
blind and/or stupid to realise it.

--
Spud

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:24:31 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2016-07-18 07:42:41 +0000, Optimist said:

The campaign was on the question Leave or Remain, it was not a general
election which decides the
government.

Doesn't really answer the question.

There were many, many lies on both sides. The entire campaign was
utterly filthy - worse than a typical General Election one - and
everyone on both sides should be utterly ashamed of themselves for it.

Neil

Point is that the Leave side were not in a position to say how the money WOULD be spent, just how it
COULD be spent.