On 26/06/2017 18:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/06/17 15:01, Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Odd our negotiators don't seem to know that.


They're confiding in you? I had no idea you were so influential.

You really think they've be talking about how much we have to pay the EU
after leaving if there were no legal reasons for this?

If you think you know what they're talking about, and why, all you
have to do is post your inside information here. And post the legal
reasons for it. Nobody I've asked has yet done so.

At a guess I would say our negotiators talking about things like "If
the UK wants to continue to be part of the European Medicines Agency,
we'll have to sort out the financial side of that." But that's very
different from "We've got to pay them EUR100m to leave!"

No. In essence almost none of these pan European institutions are
actually part of the EU.

Membership of e.g. CERN will be unaffected.

Brexit is quite simple. No more overarching legal powers by the EU in
Britain, no more ECHR no more uncontrolled immigration.

That's all people want. And control of our traditional seas would be
nice too.

Spot on, though I do feel the EHCR is there to stop government excesses.

If it costs us free trade and ability to get into the EU without a
passport - hang on I had a passport last time I went to France anyway -
so what? 5% on French wine means we get New Zealand cheaper.