EU demands 44 billion to start trade negotiations

[darmstadt]

So, again - why do they NEED to be moved?

“The United Kingdom submitted on 29 March 2017 the notification of its
intention to withdraw from the Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This
means that unless the withdrawal agreement establishes another date or the period is extended by
the European Council in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, all Union
primary and secondary law ceases to apply to the United Kingdom from 30 March 2019, 00:00h
(CET). The United Kingdom will then become a 'third country'.”

There is actually no law stating that the EBA and EMA cannot remain in the UK apart from the fact that Prime Minister Theresa May’s insistence that the U.K. would leave the single market and EU jurisdiction removed any doubt because membership of the agencies is governed by EU laws and that is why they have to leave the UK (ECJ jurisdiction also comes into play haere too.)

[Stevie Wonder Boy]

There is actually no law stating that the EBA and EMA cannot remain in the UK apart from the fact that Prime Minister Theresa May’s insistence that the U.K. would leave the single market and EU jurisdiction removed any doubt because membership of the agencies is governed by EU laws and that is why they have to leave the UK (ECJ jurisdiction also comes into play haere too.)

Agree that there is no law, but it wouldn't make much sense to headquarter a EU institution outside the EU. Plus the added inconvenience that said institution could be carrying out a function or future regulation that would be illegal in the UK, but perfectly legal in the EU.

Basically on this point it is utter non-sense to suggest the EU has any other option than to move them to a EU country.

[AtW]

So, again - why do they NEED to be moved?

Well, for starters EU workers are likely to need work permit in UK, and maybe visitors will also need to get a visa (even if it's visa-light like ESTA in USA), why have this hassle for everybody?

Plus, EU agency needs to be in EU member state, that's common sense.

Who should pay unexpected unnecessary costs? Whoever initiated this bulltulip - UK.

[Bean]

Based on you choosing Embassies, then you'd need to refer to the Vienna Convention.
Firstly, there's no such thing as a UK Embassy, they are called British Embassies
Secondly, any embassy is actually considered an extension of the country the embassy belongs to, and not the host country the embassy is contained within.
So, you're wrong.

Next, you are going to spin it to say "well why can't the EU bodies situated in the UK be made into little bits of the EU on foreign soil?
Well, simple put because the Vienna Convention covers embassies, but doesn't cover government bodies.

Back to you.

So, you missed the point about a country (e.g. UK) carrying out business (Embassy), for that country (UK) - in a different country (e.g. Russia) - with workers from the UK......proving it does happen in the real world at the moment.... (and VISA is the reply for any Vienna convention diplomatic travel queries)

Glad you've accepted that foreign workers have access to mechanisms to work abroad, like visas, that allow them to work in different countries - so that isn't a stumbling block wrt 'Need'. We're getting there, slowly.

Back to you.

There is actually no law stating that the EBA and EMA cannot remain in the UK apart from the fact that Prime Minister Theresa May’s insistence that the U.K. would leave the single market and EU jurisdiction removed any doubt because membership of the agencies is governed by EU laws and that is why they have to leave the UK (ECJ jurisdiction also comes into play here too.)

The EU doesn't mention anything about jurisdiction etc like you do, only that "it is necessary", still no real WHY.
Source: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media...relocation.pdf

Agree that there is no law, but it wouldn't make much sense to headquarter a EU institution outside the EU. Plus the added inconvenience that said institution could be carrying out a function or future regulation that would be illegal in the UK, but perfectly legal in the EU.

Basically on this point it is utter non-sense to suggest the EU has any other option than to move them to a EU country.

Not sure how you think they would be performing 'illegal work', given the facts that we're going to be transcribing EU laws into UK law soon and also, because the UK will want to know about novel medicines too....quid pro quo eh.

Also, the 2-3 years minimum recovery time to full operational capacity (see source) may have some affect on their mission statement to;

"The Agency’s work is vital to providing EU citizens with effective, safe and high-quality medicines and to maintain a regulatory environment that fosters innovation and the development of new medicines."

- which may have gave them reason to pause for thought, given they'll lose skilled professionals when they move....but no.
Source: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/...C500235516.pdf

Well, for starters EU workers are likely to need work permit in UK, and maybe visitors will also need to get a visa (even if it's visa-light like ESTA in USA), why have this hassle for everybody?

Plus, EU agency needs to be in EU member state, that's common sense.

Who should pay unexpected unnecessary costs? Whoever initiated this bulltulip - UK.

Everyone keeps using the word 'NEED' without proving why.

Tried using the embassy example of business undertakings in a foreign country, but the point flew over WTFH's head

Article 50 exists, so how can it be unexpected? Unnecessary?, only if they move and who is saying they 'need' to move again, without stating clearly why? The EU.

[sasguru]

More dribble from the CUK's dull, thick, ignorant pedant.
.

The EMA is moving, like it or not.
HEOR is my area of expertise, it's a small industry, I know people in EMA.
It's a big loss to this country's life sciences industry.

Only a completely loony, cock-eyed, slack-jawed Brexit cretin would seriously argue that European agencies would stay here after we leave.

[WTFH]

Tried using the embassy example of business undertakings in a foreign country, but the point flew over WTFH's head

No, your understanding failed. You then either ignored or twisted words and changed your argument rather than accepting that you are wrong.

The British Embassy in any country is considered to be British territory. Once you are inside the gates of the Embassy, you are under British jurisdiction.
Diplomatic visas are required because if a diplomat leaves the Embassy compound, he has then entered the foreign country and requires the right to travel there. Rather than having a passport control on the gates of each Embassy, the diplomats have visas.

Now, how does the Vienna Convention apply to regulatory bodies of one government being run in a foreign country, because you might WANT it to, but the convention NEEDS to be changed if it's to apply to your confused ideas.

[Bean]

The EMA is moving, like it or not.
HEOR is my area of expertise, it's a small industry, I know people in EMA.
It's a big loss to this country's life sciences industry.

Only a completely loony, cock-eyed, slack-jawed Brexit cretin would seriously argue that European agencies would stay here after we leave.

If you'd read the post, I said "when they move" so I'm aware they are moving.... - still, my post had long words in it, so I shouldn't have expected you to read it should I?

I'm asking why they NEED to move, not why they WANT to.

I'm asking why should the UK pay (and if it's fair), when the EU WANTS them to move but doesn't necessarily NEED them to move.

Just keep posting the ad-hominems - it's easier for you, than addressing the points made - as usual

[WTFH]

Article 50 exists, so how can it be unexpected? Unnecessary?, only if they move and who is saying they 'need' to move again, without stating clearly why? The EU.

The EU government bodies NEED to move from the UK because the UK WANTS to leave the EU.
If the UK had not involved article 50 then there would be no need to relocate an EU body as it would still be in the EU.

If the UK does not want to exit the EU and all the EU bodies that the UK currently belongs to, then there would be no need for anyone to go anywhere, but since the UK is supposed to be leaving, then the UK has created the need for those bodies to remain within the EU.

You don't seem to understand what the UK decision actually means.

[WTFH]

If you'd read the post, I said "when they move" so I'm aware they are moving.... - still, my post had long words in it, so I shouldn't have expected you to read it should I?

I'm asking why they NEED to move, not why they WANT to.

I'm asking why should the UK pay (and if it's fair), when the EU WANTS them to move but doesn't necessarily NEED them to move.

Just keep posting the ad-hominems - it's easier for you, than addressing the points made - as usual

No, the UK wants them to move. The UK wants to leave the EU. The EU needs to continue functioning and can't rely on a foreign country.

It's not the EU that voted to leave the UK, it's the other way round.

You need to understand that, even though I know you don't want to.

[Bean]

No, your understanding failed. You then either ignored or twisted words and changed your argument rather than accepting that you are wrong.

The British Embassy in any country is considered to be British territory. Once you are inside the gates of the Embassy, you are under British jurisdiction.
Diplomatic visas are required because if a diplomat leaves the Embassy compound, he has then entered the foreign country and requires the right to travel there. Rather than having a passport control on the gates of each Embassy, the diplomats have visas.

Now, how does the Vienna Convention apply to regulatory bodies of one government being run in a foreign country, because you might WANT it to, but the convention NEEDS to be changed if it's to apply to your confused ideas.

It doesn't and I haven't posited as such. (The EU is not a government, it is a supra-national political union. HTH)

Glad you've finally agreed that;
Foreign workers are able to work abroad.
Foreign business is able to be undertaken on foreign soil (yes, I see the semantics of Vienna wrt 'soil', but once the door is closed - you can just work is my point on that)

Here's the important part, which you have repeatedly missed:
Apply these concepts to the EMA/EBA in London

Jeez, you are superbly hard work.