On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:57:02 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:23:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Unless they sign a free trade agreement. The EU has FTAs with many
countries which do not involve
adhering to the EU's single market rules.

But that trade involves a lot more paperwork than trade within the single
market. So, although there aren't tariffs, the trade isn't frictionless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36083664

That would affect EU states more than the UK, as we import more from EU than we export.

Another advantage of being outside the EU is that we no longer have to apply tariffs against non-EU
imports, hence so many countries are keen to get FTAs with the UK.

I view the single market as being like a lavatory. We need access to it, but not to be locked into
it.

wrote in message
...
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.

"Passport Free" travel and Freedom of Movement are not the same thing.

The fact that people need (and are given the right) to freely drive across a
country (CH in this case) to reach a country on the other side has
absolutely nothing at all to do with the right to live/work there. They are
completely separate entities within the EU "charter".

Why do people persist in trying to make this linkage that doesn't exist?

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Optimist wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:23:19 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

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.

Unless they sign a free trade agreement. The EU has FTAs with many
countries which do not involve
adhering to the EU's single market rules.

But that trade involves a lot more paperwork than trade within the single
market. So, although there aren't tariffs, the trade isn't frictionless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36083664


Though the argument is, that that friction is a price worth paying in order
to simplify our trade with ROW (and even intra-UK, for that matter)

Fully analysed, that pov might not be right, but Remainers can't simply
dismiss it as not existing (which is the generally the approach used so far)

tim

On 2016-07-18 08:53:10 +0000, Optimist said:

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.

Correct, but that was not how they portrayed it. You could call it
twisting the truth, but whatever you call it it was dishonest.

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

wrote in message
...
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.

The problem was that there was too much made up rubbish for the average
person to work out what was the truth and what was the reality, so they
(quite reasonably) ignored it all.

If everything that the treasury told us was true, where's the punishment
budget?

I assume that I don't need to explain the story of Peter and the Wolf to
you?

tim

tim... wrote:

"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.

In fact, history suggests that most of the new EU rules wouldn't affect
the UK at all. Most of the EU rule changes are to try and make the
struggling eurozone and Schengen zone work better, and so didn't affect us.
And at least we had a significant say, and sometimes a veto, over other
rules that did affect us. They'll probably still affect us when we're
outside the EU, but now we have no say, and certainly no veto.

In message , at 08:48:05 on
Mon, 18 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.

Unless they sign a free trade agreement. The EU has FTAs with many countries which do not involve
adhering to the EU's single market rules.

That sounds a bit contradictory.
--
Roland Perry

tim... wrote:

"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.

The LDs think they'd win back some seats in pro-EU areas, and they're
probably right. The SNP would make a new independence referendum to stay in
the EU their main theme. And they'd win without spending very much.


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?

The Corbynistas would see it as a way of dislodging the hated 'Blairite'
anti-Corbyn MPs. And they think they'd win, too.

Optimist wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:17:33 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote:

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 ?

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

Although, funnily enough, with or without a general election, it has
completely changed the government. More cabinet ministers have changed
following the referendum than did after the election of the new Tory
government replacing the coalition last year.

In message , at 09:41:18 on Mon, 18 Jul
2016, tim... 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?

In what context? Erasmus, or something else.
--
Roland Perry