In message , at 09:42:13 on
Mon, 18 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?

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Erasmus to be able to answer that.
--
Roland Perry

Optimist wrote:
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.

On that analogy, it's a public lavatory that you have to pay to use, as
we'll lose our Radar key.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:13:18 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:

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


The taxpayer-funded booklet sent to every household at the start of the campaign stated quite
clearly that this was a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU.

It said "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

It was not a consultation on what the alternatives could be.

In a general election the parties will set out their stalls.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:46:08 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

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.

Farage is going to see his term out in the European parliament. If the government haven't got us
out of the EU by 2019 you never know he might stand again!

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:02:14 +0100, "tim..." wrote:


"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



The rules apply both ways. It will cost EU countries also to sell to the UK, and they sell to us far
more than we buy from them. So in my view they will want to do a deal. The Germans already do.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:24:32 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

The EU has a free trade deal with Mexico. Does that mean Mexicans have freedom to live and work in
the EU?

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:50:37 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

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.

+1

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:55:32 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

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.

The EU TTIP negotiators keep telling us that TTIP will NOT allow public
services to be privatised if EU countries don't want that to happen. Are you
accusing them of lying?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

accession states

(You introduced the term, no-one else did)

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:42:13 on
Mon, 18 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?

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Erasmus to be able to answer that.
--
Roland Perry

quote from wonkypedia:

"There are currently more than 4,000 higher institutions participating in
Erasmus across the 33 countries involved in the Erasmus programme and by
2013..."

as 33 is 5 more than the number of countries in the EU, it is clear that
being a member of the EU is not a pre-requisite to being within Erasmus, so
all those claiming that it is, are lying

tim