On 05/07/16 21:19, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

pamela wrote:

For an Article 50 declaration to be interpreted as a serious
statement of intent, it will first be necessary in the case of
the UK, in accordance with her own constitutional requirements,
for her Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

The constitutional requirement was satisfied by having a referendum
duly authorised by Parliament.

Besides, if we repeal the 1972 act, doesn't that immediately spring us
out?

Yes, but it leaves us with no deal at all with the EU.

Whilst not a disaster, being a bit more polite may possibly be slightly
better.

Everything else I've read says we only repeal it at the end of the
2 year process.


If we go that route. That's the 'seamless transition' way.




--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

michael adams wrote:

For an Article 50 declaration to be interpreted as a serious
statement of intent, it will first be necessary in the case of
the UK, in accordance with her own constitutional requirements,
for her Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

if we repeal the 1972 act, doesn't that immediately spring us out?

Yes, but it leaves us with no deal at all with the EU.

That's what I thought, so it seems arse about face to say repealing it
is a requirement for invoking article 50.

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

On 06/07/16 10:40, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

michael adams wrote:

For an Article 50 declaration to be interpreted as a serious
statement of intent, it will first be necessary in the case of
the UK, in accordance with her own constitutional requirements,
for her Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

if we repeal the 1972 act, doesn't that immediately spring us out?

Yes, but it leaves us with no deal at all with the EU.

That's what I thought, so it seems arse about face to say repealing it
is a requirement for invoking article 50.

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

If they do we might as well repeal the act now.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from
last week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have
a trade deal

If they do we might as well repeal the act now.

Given that the Conservative leadership race will be down to two horses
by tomorrow, wonder if they'll pull the members' vote sooner than September?

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:40:26 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

If not trade, then what do they want to spend the 2 years chatting
about? Whether existing migrants can stay here and on the Costa del Sol,
fair enough. Whether the EU will pay Nige's pension in a few years
time? What else?

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

We can, it will add import duties on both sides, which the German car
manufacturers aren't keen on, presumably our phama companies also.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

michael adams wrote:

For an Article 50 declaration to be interpreted as a serious
statement of intent, it will first be necessary in the case of
the UK, in accordance with her own constitutional requirements,
for her Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

if we repeal the 1972 act, doesn't that immediately spring us out?

Yes, but it leaves us with no deal at all with the EU.

That's what I thought, so it seems arse about face to say repealing it is
a requirement for invoking article 50.

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade deal
with them, but we can start talking about it.

That was never their position at the end of last week.

Hector wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade deal
with them, but we can start talking about it.

That was never their position at the end of last week.

Oh?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

On 06/07/16 11:32, Hector wrote:


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

michael adams wrote:

For an Article 50 declaration to be interpreted as a serious
statement of intent, it will first be necessary in the case of
the UK, in accordance with her own constitutional requirements,
for her Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

if we repeal the 1972 act, doesn't that immediately spring us out?

Yes, but it leaves us with no deal at all with the EU.

That's what I thought, so it seems arse about face to say repealing it
is a requirement for invoking article 50.

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

That was never their position at the end of last week.

Well the EU is not as monolithic and entity as it tries to make out.
Hollande took that position, lefty**** that he is.

And there are signs that it will be the 27 member states who are
negotiating, not the council or whatever its called.

AS with the economic crisis and the migrant crisis, brexit is a crisis
the EU appears unable to deal with coherently, either.



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:24:53 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

If not trade, then what do they want to spend the 2 years chatting
about?

The million other things that are involved I'm guessing (that few of
the great unwashed have considered).

Whether existing migrants can stay here and on the Costa del Sol,
fair enough.

Yup, that as well.

Whether the EU will pay Nige's pension in a few years
time? What else?

Like I said, I think there are millions of rules, allowances,
understandings etc which have been built in minute detail over the
last 40 years.

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

We can, it will add import duties on both sides, which the German car
manufacturers aren't keen on, presumably our phama companies also.

Again, I'm sure the list of things that will be impacted haven't yet
be fully revealed and certainly not known about or understood by most
of the people who voted for it all.

Cheers, T i m

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Hector wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal
with them, but we can start talking about it.

That was never their position at the end of last week.

Oh?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

That is one commissioner, not 'the EU' and she is wrong too.

Hector wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

That is one commissioner, not 'the EU' and she is wrong too.

Deserves to be sacked then, oh wait ...

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:40:26 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

The reason for joining the EU was to get the free trade bit. Ie, better
than WTO conditions. And don't think anyone wanted out of the free trade
bit. Apart from some utter nutcases - rather than the partial nutcases on
here.

But you can say goodbye to that. And hello to WTO conditions. For many
many years.

--
*OK, so what's the speed of dark? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Hector wrote:
I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

That was never their position at the end of last week.

Yes it was Wodney. I do realise it takes weeks for the film of such things
to reach your third world country, though.

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
The reason for joining the EU was to get the free trade bit. Ie, better
than WTO conditions. And don't think anyone wanted out of the free trade
bit. Apart from some utter nutcases - rather than the partial nutcases on
here.

No, we want the free trade of the Common Market which is what we signed up
to when we voted for it in 1975. We did *not* want the
free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with Maasctricht, and it is that
which most people have opted out of in voting for Brexit.

What I can't work out is why all the other countries of the EU aren't making
as much of a stink about this as we are, and why they are not collectively
lobbying the EU to do what the majority (I presume) of their citizens want.

It seems a fundamental right of any country to be able to decide how many
immigrants and from which countries and with what skills they will allow in,
as Australia does.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:23:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:40:26 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

The reason for joining the EU was to get the free trade bit. Ie, better
than WTO conditions.

So, as people have said, back to the dark ages. ;-(

And don't think anyone wanted out of the free trade
bit. Apart from some utter nutcases - rather than the partial nutcases on
here.

Yup, the 'Brexit Kamikaze Squad'.


But you can say goodbye to that. And hello to WTO conditions. For many
many years.

Well, assuming it all goes though and I'm still not convinced.

As I've said elsewhere, this could just be like phoning cancellations
on yer broadband contract and seeing what offer they can come up with
to stop you actually leaving. Those people (in retention's) have
better negotiating power than the sales staff and they know (think)
you are serious.

DC negotiated with sales. We (our government) can now talk to
retention's. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:33:08 +0100, NY wrote:

We did *not* want the free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with
Maasctricht

Define "we"?

There was rebellion in the House of Commons over the treaty, yes - but
that was actually over the opt-out that Major had gained for the UK over
the social chapter. Nothing whatsoever to do with free movement.

There was a definite majority in favour of the treaty being ratified.
What did NOT get widespread approval was the UK's watering-down of the
protection of worker's rights that the treaty should have provided. The
relatively small Eurosceptic Tory right ( voted with the Labour and LibDem
MPs - who were strongly in favour of Maastricht, but wanted it to come
with the social chapter - in a back-door attempt to stall ratification.

But don't forget that one HELL of a lot of British people have taken
advantage of the Maastricht freedom of movement, and that people were
free to move across the EC for work even before Maastricht. Did you never
watch "Auf Wiedersehn, Pet" in the 1980s?

In article ,
NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
The reason for joining the EU was to get the free trade bit. Ie,
better than WTO conditions. And don't think anyone wanted out of the
free trade bit. Apart from some utter nutcases - rather than the
partial nutcases on here.

No, we want the free trade of the Common Market which is what we signed
up to when we voted for it in 1975. We did *not* want the
free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with Maasctricht,

Which will be why we signed up for that bit too, then.

and it is
that which most people have opted out of in voting for Brexit.

Not most, IMHO. But enough to sway things to a majority in a referendum.

Because many do realise the vast majority of EU immigrants come here to
work. Often to do jobs that the English won't. You don't have to look too
far to see this.

What I can't work out is why all the other countries of the EU aren't
making as much of a stink about this as we are, and why they are not
collectively lobbying the EU to do what the majority (I presume) of
their citizens want.

Perhaps their countries have made sure the infrastructure can cope with
the entire population - unlike the UK?

It seems a fundamental right of any country to be able to decide how
many immigrants and from which countries and with what skills they will
allow in, as Australia does.

Why, then, did the UK do nothing to control the approximately 50% of
immigration that didn't come from the EU? Which the UK had *total* control
over? Or do you just want to blame the EU for the lot?

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
But you can say goodbye to that. And hello to WTO conditions. For many
many years.

Well, assuming it all goes though and I'm still not convinced.

As I've said elsewhere, this could just be like phoning cancellations
on yer broadband contract and seeing what offer they can come up with
to stop you actually leaving. Those people (in retention's) have
better negotiating power than the sales staff and they know (think)
you are serious.

Nice thought. But if the EU gave into this sort of blackmail from the UK,
wouldn't other countries in the EU simply follow suit? Or even just those
who are outside the EU but have an agreement with it - like Norway?

I do realise there are many who not only wanted the Uk to leave the EU,
but actively want the EU to fail. And the EU isn't stupid. It's not going
to let that happen without a fight.

--
*Cover me. I'm changing lanes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Andy Burns
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

michael adams wrote:

For an Article 50 declaration to be interpreted as a serious
statement of intent, it will first be necessary in the case of
the UK, in accordance with her own constitutional requirements,
for her Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

if we repeal the 1972 act, doesn't that immediately spring us out?

Yes, but it leaves us with no deal at all with the EU.

That's what I thought, so it seems arse about face to say repealing it
is a requirement for invoking article 50.

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

Let's say their position is maturing after the initial outbursts from
Junckers.
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:40:26 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

Two years is the specified maximum under A50
I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

Cheers, T i m



--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:33:08 +0100, NY wrote:

We did *not* want the free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with
Maasctricht

Define "we"?

There was rebellion in the House of Commons over the treaty, yes - but
that was actually over the opt-out that Major had gained for the UK over
the social chapter. Nothing whatsoever to do with free movement.

There was a definite majority in favour of the treaty being ratified.
What did NOT get widespread approval was the UK's watering-down of the
protection of worker's rights that the treaty should have provided. The
relatively small Eurosceptic Tory right ( voted with the Labour and LibDem
MPs - who were strongly in favour of Maastricht, but wanted it to come
with the social chapter - in a back-door attempt to stall ratification.

^here was no referendum on this or Lisbon. The Lib-Dems held the balance
of power on Lisbon but were afraid of losing and so came up with the
feeble excuse that any referendum would have become a de facto in-out
decision. Of course the EU should have held a referendum in every member
state on the same day instead of trying to create a snowball effect
which backfired rather spectacularly.
But don't forget that one HELL of a lot of British people have taken
advantage of the Maastricht freedom of movement, and that people were
free to move across the EC for work even before Maastricht. Did you never
watch "Auf Wiedersehn, Pet" in the 1980s?
So Freedom Of Movement isn't that necessary after all.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
The reason for joining the EU was to get the free trade bit. Ie,
better than WTO conditions. And don't think anyone wanted out of the
free trade bit. Apart from some utter nutcases - rather than the
partial nutcases on here.

No, we want the free trade of the Common Market which is what we signed
up to when we voted for it in 1975. We did *not* want the
free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with Maasctricht,

Which will be why we signed up for that bit too, then.

and it is
that which most people have opted out of in voting for Brexit.

Not most, IMHO. But enough to sway things to a majority in a referendum.

Because many do realise the vast majority of EU immigrants come here to
work. Often to do jobs that the English won't. You don't have to look too
far to see this.

What I can't work out is why all the other countries of the EU aren't
making as much of a stink about this as we are, and why they are not
collectively lobbying the EU to do what the majority (I presume) of
their citizens want.

Perhaps their countries have made sure the infrastructure can cope with
the entire population - unlike the UK?
So you are in favour of HS2 and covering the rest oft eh country with 8
lane motorways? Compare the population density of say England and
France.

It seems a fundamental right of any country to be able to decide how
many immigrants and from which countries and with what skills they will
allow in, as Australia does.

Why, then, did the UK do nothing to control the approximately 50% of
immigration that didn't come from the EU? Which the UK had *total* control
over? Or do you just want to blame the EU for the lot?

Because any attempts to discuss the issue over the past 40 years have
always been howled down by the self righteous Islington socialists.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
But you can say goodbye to that. And hello to WTO conditions. For many
many years.

Well, assuming it all goes though and I'm still not convinced.

As I've said elsewhere, this could just be like phoning cancellations
on yer broadband contract and seeing what offer they can come up with
to stop you actually leaving. Those people (in retention's) have
better negotiating power than the sales staff and they know (think)
you are serious.

Nice thought. But if the EU gave into this sort of blackmail from the UK,
wouldn't other countries in the EU simply follow suit? Or even just those
who are outside the EU but have an agreement with it - like Norway?

But if the EU is so brilliant why would others want to leave?
I do realise there are many who not only wanted the Uk to leave the EU,
but actively want the EU to fail. And the EU isn't stupid. It's not going
to let that happen without a fight.

But if the EU is so brilliant why should they worry about it failing?
--
bert

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:32:39 +0100, bert wrote:

We did *not* want the free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with
Maasctricht

Define "we"?

There was rebellion in the House of Commons over the treaty, yes - but
that was actually over the opt-out that Major had gained for the UK over
the social chapter. Nothing whatsoever to do with free movement.

There was a definite majority in favour of the treaty being ratified.
What did NOT get widespread approval was the UK's watering-down of the
protection of worker's rights that the treaty should have provided. The
relatively small Eurosceptic Tory right ( voted with the Labour and
LibDem MPs - who were strongly in favour of Maastricht, but wanted it to
come with the social chapter - in a back-door attempt to stall
ratification.

^here was no referendum on this or Lisbon.

True, there wasn't. Nor was one required.

So the only guide we have to what "we" wanted is what our elected
representatives believed at the time.

Of course the EU should have held a referendum in every member state on
the same day instead of trying to create a snowball effect which
backfired rather spectacularly.

"The EU" can't hold referenda anywhere.

If a referendum had been held, it would have been entirely the choice of
that member state to do so, as it has been whenever they've been held
anywhere. Whether any referendum would be legally binding or not would be
entirely down to that member state, too.

Each member country decides whether to ratify any treaty by whatever
means it deems fit.

But don't forget that one HELL of a lot of British people have taken
advantage of the Maastricht freedom of movement, and that people were
free to move across the EC for work even before Maastricht. Did you
never watch "Auf Wiedersehn, Pet" in the 1980s?

So Freedom Of Movement isn't that necessary after all.

Tell that to all the "non-workers" who've used it to move from the UK to
France or Spain or Italy or... That's the difference that Maastricht
made. The plumbers didn't need it. The retired did.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
T i m wrote

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but have
no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

The reason for joining the EU was to get the free trade bit. Ie, better
than
WTO conditions. And don't think anyone wanted out of the free trade bit.
Apart from some utter nutcases - rather than the partial nutcases on here.

But you can say goodbye to that. And hello to WTO conditions.

Which works fine for all of the USA, Japan, China, Taiwan, India,
Canada, Australia etc etc etc. Why wouldn’t it work just as well
for Britain too ? And Britain wouldn’t have to pay duty/tariffs
on what it imports from the rest of the world either.

For many many years.

For less time than it would have to if it stayed in the EU,
essentially because negotiations on a free trade area with
the EU is much harder than with Britain alone, essentially
because every single country in the EU can veto any bit of
the attempted agreement with the EU.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:27:17 +0100, bert wrote:

snip

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

Two years is the specified maximum under A50

Ok, so it could be done a lot quicker (officially)?

NY wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

The reason for joining the EU was to get the free trade bit. Ie, better
than WTO conditions. And don't think anyone wanted out of the free trade
bit. Apart from some utter nutcases - rather than the partial nutcases on
here.

No, we want the free trade of the Common Market which is what we signed up
to when we voted for it in 1975. We did *not* want the
free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with Maasctricht, and it is
that which most people have opted out of in voting for Brexit.

What I can't work out is why all the other countries of the EU aren't
making as much of a stink about this as we are,

Very few of them have as successful and economy as Britain
does and so hardly any of them have anything like the same
number of EU citizens wanting to move to their country.

Just one, Germany, has anything like that, and they have such
a massive demographic problem that they actually want lots
of people to show up in Germany and are even prepared to
accept well over a million 'refugees' from the worst of the
middle east because their need is so desperate. And they
have had that problem for almost half a century now and
were previously prepared to accept turkish 'guest workers'
for the same reason.

France took a different approach and encouraged
hordes from their ex colonys to show up in France,
and Britain did the same thing just after the war too.

Others like Sweden and Denmark have always been
much freer about the movement of people than most.

and why they are not collectively lobbying the EU to do what the majority
(I presume) of their citizens want.

Because they have noticed that that is a very fundamental
part of the EU philosophy that the EU isnt going to change.

It seems a fundamental right of any country to be able to decide how many
immigrants and from which countries and with what skills they will allow
in, as Australia does.

But the EU since Maastricht has been about the opposite.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
NY wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

The reason for joining the EU was to get the free trade bit.
Ie, better than WTO conditions. And don't think anyone
wanted out of the free trade bit. Apart from some utter
nutcases - rather than the partial nutcases on here.

No, we want the free trade of the Common Market which is what
we signed up to when we voted for it in 1975. We did *not* want
the free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with Maasctricht,

Which will be why we signed up for that bit too, then.

Didn’t have any choice on that if Britain wanted to stay in the EU.

and it is that which most people have opted out of in voting for Brexit.

Not most, IMHO.

Why have you got horrible opinions ? Because you are a lefty**** ?

It was actually why most did vote to leave,
because they don’t like all those immigrants.

But enough to sway things to a majority in a referendum.

Because many do realise the vast majority
of EU immigrants come here to work.

Doesn’t mean that they don’t mind that happening tho.

Often to do jobs that the English won't.

Not all that often in fact.

You don't have to look too far to see this.

You don’t have to look to far to see that maybe a majority
think that there is too high a level of immigration.

What I can't work out is why all the other countries of the
EU aren't making as much of a stink about this as we are,
and why they are not collectively lobbying the EU to do
what the majority (I presume) of their citizens want.

Perhaps their countries have made sure the infrastructure
can cope with the entire population - unlike the UK?

Nope, because places like Poland and Romania don’t get anything
like the same number of EU citizens moving to their country.

It seems a fundamental right of any country to be able
to decide how many immigrants and from which countries
and with what skills they will allow in, as Australia does.

Why, then, did the UK do nothing to control the approximately
50% of immigration that didn't come from the EU?

It has in fact done plenty. Just after the war not only was any
commonwealth citizen free to move to Britain, they were actively
encouraged by Britain to do that. Nothing like that now.

Which the UK had *total* control over? Or
do you just want to blame the EU for the lot?

Corse he doesn’t. He and even Farage and the turnip just want
Britain to be able to have the same say on who can move to
Britain with EU citizens as it currently has with non EU citizens
instead of complete open slather with JUST EU citizens.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
T i m wrote

But you can say goodbye to that. And hello
to WTO conditions. For many many years.

Well, assuming it all goes though and I'm still not convinced.

As I've said elsewhere, this could just be like phoning cancellations
on yer broadband contract and seeing what offer they can come up
with to stop you actually leaving. Those people (in retention's) have
better negotiating power than the sales staff and they know (think)
you are serious.

Nice thought. But if the EU gave into this sort of blackmail from the UK,

It is nothing even remotely like blackmail.

wouldn't other countries in the EU simply follow suit?

Not unless they also don’t want free movement of EU
citizens and don’t like the EU forcing policy on EU countrys.

Or even just those who are outside the EU
but have an agreement with it - like Norway?

Or like all but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

I do realise there are many who not only wanted the
Uk to leave the EU, but actively want the EU to fail.

I don’t believe that all that many want the EU to fail.

And the EU isn't stupid. It's not going
to let that happen without a fight.

How odd that it did with all but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , T i m
writes
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:40:26 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

Two years is the specified maximum under A50

Not with a new trade deal. Article 50 is silent on those.

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

Cheers, T i m



--
bert

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:27:17 +0100, bert wrote:

snip

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

Two years is the specified maximum under A50

Ok, so it could be done a lot quicker (officially)?

Yes, but only when agreement happens and that isnt going to happen.

On 06/07/2016 13:44, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:33:08 +0100, NY wrote:

We did *not* want the free-movement-of-EU-citizens bit that came with
Maasctricht

Define "we"?

There was rebellion in the House of Commons over the treaty, yes - but
that was actually over the opt-out that Major had gained for the UK over
the social chapter. Nothing whatsoever to do with free movement.

There was a definite majority in favour of the treaty being ratified.
What did NOT get widespread approval was the UK's watering-down of the
protection of worker's rights that the treaty should have provided. The
relatively small Eurosceptic Tory right ( voted with the Labour and LibDem
MPs - who were strongly in favour of Maastricht, but wanted it to come
with the social chapter - in a back-door attempt to stall ratification.

But don't forget that one HELL of a lot of British people have taken
advantage of the Maastricht freedom of movement, and that people were
free to move across the EC for work even before Maastricht. Did you never
watch "Auf Wiedersehn, Pet" in the 1980s?

Free movement of *labour* existed before Masstricht, free movement of
people came with it and the creation of the EU.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 23:59:45 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

But don't forget that one HELL of a lot of British people have taken
advantage of the Maastricht freedom of movement, and that people were
free to move across the EC for work even before Maastricht. Did you
never watch "Auf Wiedersehn, Pet" in the 1980s?

Free movement of *labour* existed before Masstricht, free movement of
people came with it and the creation of the EU.

Yes, I know. Re-read what I wrote.

In article , Hector
writes


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:27:17 +0100, bert wrote:

snip

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

Two years is the specified maximum under A50

Ok, so it could be done a lot quicker (officially)?

Yes, but only when agreement happens and that isnt going to happen.
It can be extended by mutual agreement. No agreement then membership
automatically lapses after 2 years. There's no provision for change of
mind.
--
bert

In article , Hector
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , T i m
writes
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:40:26 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

I've not heard whether the EU are sticking to their position from last
week that even at the end of the 2 year process we won't have a trade
deal with them, but we can start talking about it.

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

Two years is the specified maximum under A50

Not with a new trade deal. Article 50 is silent on those.
New trade deal is irrelevant. It's "agreement" that matters with or
without any trade deal.

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

Cheers, T i m



-- bert


--
bert

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:24:59 AM UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

If not trade, then what do they want to spend the 2 years chatting
about? Whether existing migrants can stay here and on the Costa del Sol,
fair enough. Whether the EU will pay Nige's pension in a few years
time? What else?

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules but
have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all goods /
services).

We can, it will add import duties on both sides, which the German car
manufacturers aren't keen on, presumably our phama companies also.


Goods attract a tariffs, which are smaller than they used to be, so that might not be too bad. But the City of London can't go on selling financial services inside the EEA if the people doing the transactions are not physically inside the EEA - at least that's how it's portrayed.

RobertL wrote:

the City of London can't go on selling financial services inside the
EEA if the people doing the transactions are not physically inside
the EEA

IoM seems to manage ...

On 07/07/16 15:01, RobertL wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:24:59 AM UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50
leave (work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years
to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that
we used to deal with as a member of the EU.

If not trade, then what do they want to spend the 2 years chatting
about? Whether existing migrants can stay here and on the Costa del
Sol, fair enough. Whether the EU will pay Nige's pension in a few
years time? What else?

I believe we can continue actually trading under the WTO rules
but have no idea how good or restrictive that will be (across all
goods / services).

We can, it will add import duties on both sides, which the German
car manufacturers aren't keen on, presumably our phama companies
also.


Goods attract a tariffs, which are smaller than they used to be, so
that might not be too bad. But the City of London can't go on
selling financial services inside the EEA if the people doing the
transactions are not physically inside the EEA - at least that's how
it's portrayed.


AIUI its not quite like that.

Its just they wont automatically be qualified to do so.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hector
writes


"T i m" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:27:17 +0100, bert wrote:

snip

I thought it will take 2 years from the filing of Article 50 leave
(work as usual until that point) and 'typically' 10 years to negotiate
a new trade deal with the EU *and* any country that we used to deal
with as a member of the EU.

Two years is the specified maximum under A50

Ok, so it could be done a lot quicker (officially)?

Yes, but only when agreement happens and that isnt going to happen.

It can be extended by mutual agreement.

And that isn't going to happen given that the EU wants
Britain out of the EU as quickly as possible now that
Britain has decided to leave. That's why Junker etc have
been demanding Britain invoke Article 50 immediately,
to get Britain out as quickly as possible.

No agreement then membership automatically lapses after 2 years.

Yes.

There's no provision for change of mind.

That's a lie. Britain is free to change its mind and decide
that it doesn't want to leave and not ever invoke Article 50.