"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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.

Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned the
sale of these instruments, then?

tim

Optimist wrote:
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.

Yes, business people in industries that sell a lot to us will certainly
want a free trade deal (eg, cars, trains, wine, food, etc). Of courses,
lobbyists representing their industries where we have a surplus will be
against a free trade deal (eg, banking, insurance, TV programmes, music,
etc). Making sure we get free trade in the areas where we have a surplus in
return for them having free trade in their strong areas will take a lot of
negotiation.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:29:11 -0500, wrote:

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?

If TTIP is do marvellous why are the details of it kept secret? See the Youtube video by Irish
independent MEP Luke "Ming" Flanagan which the EU want taken down.

In message , at 11:02:51 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?

Who mentioned freedom to live and work?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:41:26 on Mon, 18 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
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.

Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned
the sale of these instruments, then?

Do you approve of scrapping the ban on trading in ivory too?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:34:42 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)

Yes, as a reason why *some* (not all) of them might be in the Erasmus
programme.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:38:46 on Mon, 18 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
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

Who are these "people" who are "all claiming" that? Iceland is EEA, not
EU.
--
Roland Perry

tim... wrote:

"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


I said it was about free movement of people, not about EU membership.
Anyhow, I've done a few seconds of research rather than relying on
remembering news reports from two years ago, and found this:

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/updates/20140128-participation-switzerland-erasmus-plus_en


Anna Noyd-Dryver

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:41:26 on Mon, 18 Jul 2016,
tim... remarked:
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.

Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned the
sale of these instruments, then?

Do you approve of scrapping the ban on trading in ivory too?

That's completely different though, isn't

(It's a ridiculous comparison and you ought to fell ashamed making it)

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news
In message , at 11:38:46 on Mon, 18 Jul 2016,
tim... remarked:
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

Who are these "people" who are "all claiming" that? Iceland is EEA, not
EU.

I've seen it at least three times

perhaps not in this thread

tim