In message , at 14:18:37 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 09:34:40 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:10:00 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Er, no.

Directives are instructions from EU to member states to legislate, so
their provisions are already
law.

But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Regulations are laws brought in directly by EU bypassing national
parliaments entirely. It is these
laws which will need to formally brought into UK law before we leave,
otherwise laws would disappear
overnight. Afterwards laws can be reviewed in normal way.

Will the Regulations be redrafted in UK-speak (the way transpositions of
Directives are), or what?

I imagine there would be a blanket clause just to state that
regulations in force on dd/mm/yyyy are
brought into UK law. But I'm not a lawyer. Check with the Brexit department.

I hope you took this all into account when you voted.

New trade deals are being discussed now.

And the results may be known in ten years time.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

No-one is saying we won't able to trade, but the outcome (if we leave
the single market in any sense) will be tariffs and barriers which will
hurt us more than them.

No, quite the reverse. UK is EU's biggest market.

Are you suggesting some kind of apparatus where the UK's import and
export tariffs are revenue neutral? It's hard to make quotas neutral.

Switzerland has signed up trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has, and UK is a bigger
opportunity for business than Switzerland is.

And how long did it take them? Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

I am old enough to remember politics before we went into the EC.
Contrary to the alarmist reports
of some, we had human rights, equal pay, maternity pay etc. We had a
health service (the NHS came
into existence when I was a few months old).

Yes, but a great deal of today's consumer/employee protection has been
added on top of that rather low base by the EU.

No-one is saying we get rid of everything the EU introduced - some of
it undoubtedly UK policy. It just means that UK will be responsible in
the future.

It'll be interesting to see how Westminster deals with the workload,
when so much new legislation will have to be fought out locally hand-to-
hand, rather than rubber-stamping something from Brussels.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Actually trade barriers are far lower today than fory-odd years ago.
Even if we don't get an FTA with the EU, tariffs under MFN/WTO rules
cost us less than the present cost of membership.

Tariffs are only one (of many) financial consequences of leaving.

our own regional policy (no need for regions to lobby in Brussels
against each other for a small slice of the money we pay into the EU)

It's far easier to get that sort of money from the EU than from
Westminster.

But Westminster will have more money (see above).

But more difficult to extract money from. EU grants are a bit like
applying for a mortgage, you have to present a financial case and tick
all the boxes. The money then arrive relatively painlessly. In
Westminster they'll also be asking you "why exactly do you need four
bedrooms and what's wrong with your current house".

So put pressure on MPs.

They don't make these decisions. Ministers and their unelected civil
servants do.

If they don't deal with it, chuck them out.

How do you do that?

By voting in elections. You go into a booth and put a cross on a piece
of paper against the name of the candidate of your choice.

And why do you think that a single-issue such as that will dominate an
election campaign?

That's democratic accountability.

The man in the street won't have much visibility of the EU grants issue.

See above.

I can't see anything above that leads me to think that the man on the
Clapham Omnibus will be doing an analysis of the economic impact of EU
vs Westminster grants. cf the £350m for the NHS - they didn't even get
the figure right.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:08:48 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:18:37 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 09:34:40 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:10:00 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Er, no.

Directives are instructions from EU to member states to legislate, so
their provisions are already
law.

But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.


Regulations are laws brought in directly by EU bypassing national
parliaments entirely. It is these
laws which will need to formally brought into UK law before we leave,
otherwise laws would disappear
overnight. Afterwards laws can be reviewed in normal way.

Will the Regulations be redrafted in UK-speak (the way transpositions of
Directives are), or what?

I imagine there would be a blanket clause just to state that
regulations in force on dd/mm/yyyy are
brought into UK law. But I'm not a lawyer. Check with the Brexit department.

I hope you took this all into account when you voted.

New trade deals are being discussed now.

And the results may be known in ten years time.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.


No-one is saying we won't able to trade, but the outcome (if we leave
the single market in any sense) will be tariffs and barriers which will
hurt us more than them.

No, quite the reverse. UK is EU's biggest market.

Are you suggesting some kind of apparatus where the UK's import and
export tariffs are revenue neutral? It's hard to make quotas neutral.

Switzerland has signed up trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has, and UK is a bigger
opportunity for business than Switzerland is.

And how long did it take them? Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than the EU has.


I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

I am old enough to remember politics before we went into the EC.
Contrary to the alarmist reports
of some, we had human rights, equal pay, maternity pay etc. We had a
health service (the NHS came
into existence when I was a few months old).

Yes, but a great deal of today's consumer/employee protection has been
added on top of that rather low base by the EU.

No-one is saying we get rid of everything the EU introduced - some of
it undoubtedly UK policy. It just means that UK will be responsible in
the future.

It'll be interesting to see how Westminster deals with the workload,
when so much new legislation will have to be fought out locally hand-to-
hand, rather than rubber-stamping something from Brussels.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.


Actually trade barriers are far lower today than fory-odd years ago.
Even if we don't get an FTA with the EU, tariffs under MFN/WTO rules
cost us less than the present cost of membership.

Tariffs are only one (of many) financial consequences of leaving.

our own regional policy (no need for regions to lobby in Brussels
against each other for a small slice of the money we pay into the EU)

It's far easier to get that sort of money from the EU than from
Westminster.

But Westminster will have more money (see above).

But more difficult to extract money from. EU grants are a bit like
applying for a mortgage, you have to present a financial case and tick
all the boxes. The money then arrive relatively painlessly. In
Westminster they'll also be asking you "why exactly do you need four
bedrooms and what's wrong with your current house".

So put pressure on MPs.

They don't make these decisions. Ministers and their unelected civil
servants do.

If they don't deal with it, chuck them out.

How do you do that?

By voting in elections. You go into a booth and put a cross on a piece
of paper against the name of the candidate of your choice.

And why do you think that a single-issue such as that will dominate an
election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.


That's democratic accountability.

The man in the street won't have much visibility of the EU grants issue.

See above.

I can't see anything above that leads me to think that the man on the
Clapham Omnibus will be doing an analysis of the economic impact of EU
vs Westminster grants. cf the £350m for the NHS - they didn't even get
the figure right.

Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

In message , at 16:54:42 on
Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than the EU has.

So you don't know.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:12:34 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:54:42 on
Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?


What are you on about?


Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

So what future trade deals will the EU negotiate? Will there be a deal with Australia? You don't
know that, do you?

It's very difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.


Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than the EU has.

So you don't know.

Will the awful TTIP deal being pushed by the EU go ahead?


We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

USA has competition in telecoms as well. Last time I checked USA not in EU.


And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

You don't understand democratic politics, do you? That figures, you support unaccountable
government and taxation.


Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.

Yes, out from under a corrupt empire.

In message , at 09:54:55 on
Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:12:34 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:54:42 on
Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?


What are you on about?

Trying to understand why you think a truism answers my original
question.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

So what future trade deals will the EU negotiate? Will there be a deal
with Australia? You don't know that, do you?

It's the time it takes, not the countries you are negotiating which
matters.

It's very difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.

The time it takes to negotiate is fairly well understood. For example,
the ITU works on a four-year cycle. And within that there are meetings
going on almost every week of the year.

Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has.

So you don't know.

Will the awful TTIP deal being pushed by the EU go ahead?

It's being pushed by the USA. How many years in are we now - ah yes...
five years and counting since it got properly started.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

USA has competition in telecoms as well. Last time I checked USA not in EU.

Irrelevant. It's not the fact of having competition, but the thousands
of lines of law required to regulate the market.

And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

You don't understand democratic politics, do you?

One things for sure, you aren't the only person here who doesn't
understand representative democracy.

That figures, you support unaccountable government and taxation.

No, because they *are* accountable.

Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.

Yes, out from under a corrupt empire.

Economies of scale, mainly.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:18:28 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:54:55 on
Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:12:34 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:54:42 on
Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?


What are you on about?

Trying to understand why you think a truism answers my original
question.


I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

So what future trade deals will the EU negotiate? Will there be a deal
with Australia? You don't know that, do you?

It's the time it takes, not the countries you are negotiating which
matters.

You still don't say why it should take so long.


It's very difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.

The time it takes to negotiate is fairly well understood. For example,
the ITU works on a four-year cycle. And within that there are meetings
going on almost every week of the year.

Counries can negotiate bilaterally.


Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has.

So you don't know.

Will the awful TTIP deal being pushed by the EU go ahead?

It's being pushed by the USA. How many years in are we now - ah yes...
five years and counting since it got properly started.

Eaxactly. It's not really a free trade deal at all but to give control to big business. That's why
it's doomed.


We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

USA has competition in telecoms as well. Last time I checked USA not in EU.

Irrelevant. It's not the fact of having competition, but the thousands
of lines of law required to regulate the market.

Rubbish


And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

You don't understand democratic politics, do you?

One things for sure, you aren't the only person here who doesn't
understand representative democracy.

That figures, you support unaccountable government and taxation.

No, because they *are* accountable.

Yawn


Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.

Yes, out from under a corrupt empire.

Economies of scale, mainly.

The people now see where economies can be made, now that the scales have fallen from their eyes.

In message , at 12:31:49 on
Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?


What are you on about?

Trying to understand why you think a truism answers my original
question.


I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

Why would a lawyer know whether or not a truism can be construed as an
answer?

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

So what future trade deals will the EU negotiate? Will there be a deal
with Australia? You don't know that, do you?

It's the time it takes, not the countries you are negotiating which
matters.

You still don't say why it should take so long.

Because those kinds of negotiations always do.

It's very difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.

The time it takes to negotiate is fairly well understood. For example,
the ITU works on a four-year cycle. And within that there are meetings
going on almost every week of the year.

Counries can negotiate bilaterally.

That, of itself, won't speed things up.

Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has.

So you don't know.

Will the awful TTIP deal being pushed by the EU go ahead?

It's being pushed by the USA. How many years in are we now - ah yes...
five years and counting since it got properly started.

Eaxactly. It's not really a free trade deal at all but to give control
to big business. That's why it's doomed.

Oddly enough, a lot of international trade is B2B.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

USA has competition in telecoms as well. Last time I checked USA not in EU.

Irrelevant. It's not the fact of having competition, but the thousands
of lines of law required to regulate the market.

Rubbish

What is. Have you actually read the various telecoms directives?

And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

You don't understand democratic politics, do you?

One things for sure, you aren't the only person here who doesn't
understand representative democracy.

That figures, you support unaccountable government and taxation.

No, because they *are* accountable.

Yawn


Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.

Yes, out from under a corrupt empire.

Economies of scale, mainly.

The people now see where economies can be made, now that the scales
have fallen from their eyes.

Unfortunately, they are wrong.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:54:42 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:08:48 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:18:37 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 09:34:40 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:10:00 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Er, no.

Directives are instructions from EU to member states to legislate, so
their provisions are already
law.

But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

If it is case law then it remains in force until superseded by later
case law or relevant legislation/regulations. A great deal of case law
in domestic jurisdiction turns not on what has been decided locally
but in other courts around the world thus even if we do leave the EU
we can still be affected by following EU decisions.


Regulations are laws brought in directly by EU bypassing national
parliaments entirely. It is these
laws which will need to formally brought into UK law before we leave,
otherwise laws would disappear
overnight. Afterwards laws can be reviewed in normal way.

Will the Regulations be redrafted in UK-speak (the way transpositions of
Directives are), or what?

I imagine there would be a blanket clause just to state that
regulations in force on dd/mm/yyyy are
brought into UK law. But I'm not a lawyer. Check with the Brexit department.

I hope you took this all into account when you voted.

New trade deals are being discussed now.

And the results may be known in ten years time.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.


No-one is saying we won't able to trade, but the outcome (if we leave
the single market in any sense) will be tariffs and barriers which will
hurt us more than them.

No, quite the reverse. UK is EU's biggest market.

Are you suggesting some kind of apparatus where the UK's import and
export tariffs are revenue neutral? It's hard to make quotas neutral.

Switzerland has signed up trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has, and UK is a bigger
opportunity for business than Switzerland is.

And how long did it take them? Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than the EU has.


I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

I am old enough to remember politics before we went into the EC.
Contrary to the alarmist reports
of some, we had human rights, equal pay, maternity pay etc. We had a
health service (the NHS came
into existence when I was a few months old).

Yes, but a great deal of today's consumer/employee protection has been
added on top of that rather low base by the EU.

No-one is saying we get rid of everything the EU introduced - some of
it undoubtedly UK policy. It just means that UK will be responsible in
the future.

It'll be interesting to see how Westminster deals with the workload,
when so much new legislation will have to be fought out locally hand-to-
hand, rather than rubber-stamping something from Brussels.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.


Actually trade barriers are far lower today than fory-odd years ago.
Even if we don't get an FTA with the EU, tariffs under MFN/WTO rules
cost us less than the present cost of membership.

Tariffs are only one (of many) financial consequences of leaving.

our own regional policy (no need for regions to lobby in Brussels
against each other for a small slice of the money we pay into the EU)

It's far easier to get that sort of money from the EU than from
Westminster.

But Westminster will have more money (see above).

But more difficult to extract money from. EU grants are a bit like
applying for a mortgage, you have to present a financial case and tick
all the boxes. The money then arrive relatively painlessly. In
Westminster they'll also be asking you "why exactly do you need four
bedrooms and what's wrong with your current house".

So put pressure on MPs.

They don't make these decisions. Ministers and their unelected civil
servants do.

If they don't deal with it, chuck them out.

How do you do that?

By voting in elections. You go into a booth and put a cross on a piece
of paper against the name of the candidate of your choice.

And why do you think that a single-issue such as that will dominate an
election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.


That's democratic accountability.

The man in the street won't have much visibility of the EU grants issue.

See above.

I can't see anything above that leads me to think that the man on the
Clapham Omnibus will be doing an analysis of the economic impact of EU
vs Westminster grants. cf the £350m for the NHS - they didn't even get
the figure right.

Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.