EU demands 44 billion to start trade negotiations

[northernladyuk]

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.

But the UK can have its cake and eat it or it won't buy any BMWs.

[BlasterBates]

The EU bullies New Zealand

If the EU can bully New Zealand on the other side of the world with tenuous EU links just imagine the fun they will have with the UK.

[WTFH]

Glad you've finally agreed that;

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.

No, you are hard work. I do not agree with you, neither does international law.

The Vienna Convention applies only to embassies. It's not about semantics, it's the law.
To apply the Vienna Convention as you have suggested would require a change to international law.

The various European Agencies are not embassies.
There is no such thing as a European embassy.

[Bean]

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.

You don't seem to understand, that you're conjuring a 'need' out of thin air. That's a 'want'.

There is nothing crucially preventing them from continuing their work in their current location.

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.

Care to source that? As I've provided links showing the UK wants them to stay - or are you just writing fluff to meet your own ends?

Tell me, do, for example, international corporations rely on the host country of their office(s) - or just get on with their work behind closed doors regardless?

Could it be, that the agencies could continue BAU behind closed doors, regardless of the political upheaval between the UK & EU? (I.e. send/receive results, hold tele-conf meetings etc)

[Bean]

No, you are hard work. I do not agree with you, neither does international law.

The Vienna Convention applies only to embassies. It's not about semantics, it's the law.
To apply the Vienna Convention as you have suggested would require a change to international law.

The various European Agencies are not embassies.
There is no such thing as a European embassy.

The only reason I mentioned embassies in the first place, was to create a relatively simple analogy that you might understand and then you could apply to the situation of EBA/EMA.

I.e. That (EU) workers can be physically located (in London) and perform business (EBA/EMA work) in the foreign country (UK), despite being employed and paid by organisation(s) (EU) outside of the location (London)

Jeez, you are hard work

[sasguru]

I.e. That (EU) workers can be physically located (in London) and perform business (EBA/EMA work) in the foreign country (UK), despite being employed and paid by organisation(s) (EU) outside of the location (London)

Jeez, you are hard work

Jeez you're thick as mince.
The cities in which the agencies are physically located matter since benefits accrue to those locations e.g. business conferences, support jobs, economic ecosystems based around them etc.
For example the EMA with which I'm familiar attracts loads of pharma conferences to London every year + consultancies like to be be close to the center of the regulatory body of the industry.

Now that the UK is a 3rd country, of course the EU wants those benefits for themselves.
Countries(cities actually) are eagerly bidding for both agencies because it's not just the jobs they bring (which are quite small in number, although highly paid and influential) but the intangible and tangible business benefits they'll bring, and we'll lose.

[darmstadt]

Direct from the EU:

Why do the two agencies have to be relocated?
European Union agencies must be based in the European Union. As the United Kingdom has notified the European Council under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union of its intention to leave the Union, it is necessary to move the two United Kingdom-based Agencies to other locations within the Union's territory. Agencies cannot be located outside the territory to which their competences apply. The United Kingdom will have no say when it comes to the location of the EU Agencies.

[Bean]

Jeez you're thick as mince.
The cities in which the agencies are physically located matter since benefits accrue to those locations e.g. business conferences, support jobs, economic ecosystems based around them etc.
For example the EMA with which I'm familiar attracts loads of pharma conferences to London every year + consultancies like to be be close to the center of the regulatory body of the industry.

Now that the UK is a 3rd country, of course the EU wants those benefits for themselves.
Countries(cities actually) are eagerly bidding for both agencies because it's not just the jobs they bring (which are quite small in number, although highly paid and influential) but the intangible and tangible business benefits they'll bring, and we'll lose.

Ding ding ding - we have a winner

Jeez, you can't read or understand simple words & questions can you?

Have a read of posts #55 & #67 again

NEED, not want

and you have the cheek to say I'm thick as mince

at least you're trying to address the points (badly) whilst directing ad-hominems, it's almost like you're evolving

[northernladyuk]

Ding ding ding - we have a winner

Jeez, you can't read or understand simple words & questions can you?

Have a read of posts #55 & #67 again

NEED, not want

and you have the cheek to say I'm thick as mince

at least you're trying to address the points (badly) whilst directing ad-hominems, it's almost like you're evolving

See above.

European Union agencies must be based in the European Union. As the United Kingdom has notified the European Council under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union of its intention to leave the Union, it is necessary to move the two United Kingdom-based Agencies to other locations within the Union's territory. Agencies cannot be located outside the territory to which their competences apply. The United Kingdom will have no say when it comes to the location of the EU Agencies.

[Bean]

Direct from the EU:

Finally, someone gives a reason why they NEED to move.....

However, when I search for that exact phrase ("European Union agencies must be based in the European Union"), it only appears once - and only on 30 Sep 2017 - a cynical fellow may suggest the EU have written a new rule post-brexit, in order to create a need eh? (but that's a different argument I suppose)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe....0.P5Lyw-3trgY