On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:04:13 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Same answer - fund our OWN universities from the amount we pay in EU
contributions.

Which will cost us more, and exclude us from multi-national EU research
projects. So we spend more to get less. Another triumph for Brexit.

AFAIK EU research projects arn't resticted to EU nationals only.

--
Spud

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:04:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:46:28 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:29:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:11:32 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, Graham Murray remarked:

irrespective of the vote the UK will remain a member of the EU for at
least 2 years and until we actually leave we will continue to enjoy the
benefits, and endure the downsides, of EU membership.

I don't think we'll continue to have the benefit of influencing any
future EU legislation, including those which will affect us for ever in
a "Norway solution".

Yes, from now and till the end of 2018 we will continue to bear all the
costs of EU membership, but the benefits will dwindle. For example, our
participation in new EU funded research projects has already fizzled out,
where we were previously disproportionately represented.

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.

Which will cost us more, and exclude us from multi-national EU research
projects. So we spend more to get less. Another triumph for Brexit.

We can collaborate with other countries besides EU ones. EU is about 7% of world's population.

Recliner wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:29:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:11:32 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, Graham Murray remarked:

irrespective of the vote the UK will remain a member of the EU for at
least 2 years and until we actually leave we will continue to enjoy the
benefits, and endure the downsides, of EU membership.

I don't think we'll continue to have the benefit of influencing any
future EU legislation, including those which will affect us for ever in
a "Norway solution".

Yes, from now and till the end of 2018 we will continue to bear all the
costs of EU membership, but the benefits will dwindle. For example, our
participation in new EU funded research projects has already fizzled out,
where we were previously disproportionately represented.

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;

That is a sweeping statement that is incorrect in a significant number of
subject areas. There is a lot of important expertise in the universities
of other EU member states.

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).

--
Jeremy Double

Recliner wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:46:28 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:29:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:11:32 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, Graham Murray remarked:

irrespective of the vote the UK will remain a member of the EU for at
least 2 years and until we actually leave we will continue to enjoy the
benefits, and endure the downsides, of EU membership.

I don't think we'll continue to have the benefit of influencing any
future EU legislation, including those which will affect us for ever in
a "Norway solution".

Yes, from now and till the end of 2018 we will continue to bear all the
costs of EU membership, but the benefits will dwindle. For example, our
participation in new EU funded research projects has already fizzled out,
where we were previously disproportionately represented.

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.

Which will cost us more, and exclude us from multi-national EU research
projects. So we spend more to get less. Another triumph for Brexit.

I completely agree. The benefits of being involved in a European-wide
research collaboration are as much from the sharing of expertise as they
are from the funding. We will lose out massively if we don't negotiate
continuing participation in the EU Horizon 2020 programme. (Swiss
organisations can be partners in EU projects, despite Switzerland not being
an EU member, so there is a precedent).

--
Jeremy Double

On 15 Jul 2016 18:20:48 GMT, Jeremy Double wrote:

Recliner wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:29:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:11:32 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, Graham Murray remarked:

irrespective of the vote the UK will remain a member of the EU for at
least 2 years and until we actually leave we will continue to enjoy the
benefits, and endure the downsides, of EU membership.

I don't think we'll continue to have the benefit of influencing any
future EU legislation, including those which will affect us for ever in
a "Norway solution".

Yes, from now and till the end of 2018 we will continue to bear all the
costs of EU membership, but the benefits will dwindle. For example, our
participation in new EU funded research projects has already fizzled out,
where we were previously disproportionately represented.

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;

That is a sweeping statement that is incorrect in a significant number of
subject areas. There is a lot of important expertise in the universities
of other EU member states.

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).

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.

Optimist wrote:
On 15 Jul 2016 18:20:48 GMT, Jeremy Double wrote:

Recliner wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:29:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:11:32 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, Graham Murray remarked:

irrespective of the vote the UK will remain a member of the EU for at
least 2 years and until we actually leave we will continue to enjoy the
benefits, and endure the downsides, of EU membership.

I don't think we'll continue to have the benefit of influencing any
future EU legislation, including those which will affect us for ever in
a "Norway solution".

Yes, from now and till the end of 2018 we will continue to bear all the
costs of EU membership, but the benefits will dwindle. For example, our
participation in new EU funded research projects has already fizzled out,
where we were previously disproportionately represented.

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;

That is a sweeping statement that is incorrect in a significant number of
subject areas. There is a lot of important expertise in the universities
of other EU member states.

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).

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.

Quite possibly, but the current uncertainty is already causing damage.

In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:31:24 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:12:20 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the
single market

so why did they vote to leave then?

what have they gained if we just sign straight back up to the single
market paying in 250 million pounds per week (and getting no subsidies
back)

Nothing. That's the tragedy.

Hopefully they'll forget all about the free trade area, we'll pay tarifs
and be done with it. I don't want any ties to that corrupt beaurocracy.

See you in the dole queue, then. It's TRADE that pays our wages and
pensions. The more the better.

If the UK loses bank passporting then half the London banking business will
go and with it the taxes that pay for our services.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.
--
Roland Perry

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. The balance of power
in Parliament will be changed enormously.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
12:15:00 on Fri, 15 Jul 2016, NY remarked:
I want us to be able to trade with our European neighbours. But I also
want us to have absolute control of our borders so we can limit the
numbers of non-UK people that we allow in and can also stipulate where
they come from and what skills they have.

Good luck with that. The EU won't stand for it because it'll make more
countries leave.

but it's a perfectly simple option for us to choose and the EU can do
nothing to stop us

WTO rules.

How much of our EU trade will remain is anyone's guess, but (as has been
said ad infinitum) it would likely harm the EU as much as us so they have
every incentive to avoid it.

But I for one would be happy with the choice, the future is trading with the
developing world, not being tied to trading with ever decreasing in (trade)
importance EU.

tim