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.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

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

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.

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
incompatible with some restrictions on freedom of movement for the
purposes of employment. (I don't think anyone is going to suggest
people will be stopped from holidaying in France - after all, your UK
passport will get you into many, many non-EU countries worldwide for a
holiday or a short-term business trip).

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

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 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