Email proves UK boffins axed from EU research in Brexit aftermath Following anecdotes of British scientists being axed from EU-funded projects, one academic has revealed actual evidence of UK boffins being dumped from Euro research efforts in the Brexit aftermath. Paul Crowther, interim head of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Sheffield, today leaked an email confirming colleagues …
Given the uncertainty of when, if and what will happen over our membership of the EU its hardly surprising is it?
As for an investigation, that's a waste of resources as it's clear it's happening and why so what purpose will it serve apart from to show that those pesky experts that the rubbery faced shitgibbon Gove derided got it right (again).
It's ok though we can use the £350,000,000 to cover it......
This post has been deleted by its author
IIRC roughly 2008-2015 the UK put £5.5Bn in the Science & Research pot for the EU.
They got out £8.8Bn out.
But hey maybe the UK Govt will increase that chunk of it's Science & Research budget 60% to compensate.
There's nothing petty about it . Britons seem to fundamentally misunderstand the consequences of their actions . It's not business as usual until brexit formalities are done . Try telling your workplace you've specifically planned to leave at some future time that you intend to negotiate to your benefit. You'll be excluded from every future project, regardless of the lack of any plan to leave right away.
"There's nothing petty about it . Britons seem to fundamentally misunderstand the consequences of their actions . It's not business as usual until brexit formalities are done . Try telling your workplace you've specifically planned to leave at some future time that you intend to negotiate to your benefit. You'll be excluded from every future project, regardless of the lack of any plan to leave right away."
Except, the UK is still paying for it, so if we are out, you can stuff your bill up your arse, Brussels. I personally voted Remain, but if the EU wants to half throw us out before we are out then we should stop paying half of the bill.
"if the EU wants to half throw us out before we are out". No, it's you who half throw yourself out. The reaction is common sense among individuals like with what happened to the sterling. So get on with it now, or skip it now. Don't fuck around with that Article 50 forever, it's no good for anybody.
Some commentard seemed to be so happy with the fact that now it's the UK who decides when to "activate" the article. Quite funny, every EU member state has that right when ever they decide to, and no referendum is required in the rules.
Actually you seem to 'fundamentally' misunderstand what freedom is.
Just because someone gives you cash with one hand then strips you of your freedoms with the other does not make it a benefit.
You seem to completely gloss over the fact that the EU is being run by businesses by a bunch of totally unelected cronies, who's only goal is to completely strip each member state of any self-determination of their own future.
Breath taking arrogance. A majority of people in Britain voted to leave the EU and they 'fundamentally misunderstand the consequence of their actions'. You mean they fundamentally disagree with you. There is a difference.
This notion that Britain put in 5.5Bn and get 8.5Bn back is not relevant on its own. If British researchers are justifying the extra cash then they will continue to receive it. If it was just incentive money then its not a good use of capital and is unjustified. But does it seem likely that EU institutions are providing British researchers so much extra money for no good reason or is it because those researchers are able to provide an excellence and expertise needed by European research bodies? I like to think its because they are able to offer excellence and that, as with every other walk of life, excellence will continue to be required.
As a software vendor selling the majority of our software to European buyers we've seen a 20% increase in revenue since the vote. 15% of that is because of currency movement. But the other 5%? Certainly not because buyers discriminate against Britain or British companies.
Will there be losers as a result of Brexit? Yes, we hear lots of noise from those who stand to lose from the change in the status quo. But we don't hear from those taking advantage of the changes that are happening.
"But the other 5%?"
The other 5% are people buying now rather than later. Because of afore-mentioned "currency movement" (nice euphemism you have there for the pound having crashed) , and because they don't know what other taxes/duties/red tape they'll have to negotiate once the UK leaves the EU.
Your anecdotal figures demonstrate nothing because at present the UK is still a member of the EU, with all the benefits that still brings. They prove nothing about how it'll be once the UK leaves. Come back in 5 years time and tell us how great it all looks then.
Hardly surprising is it?
All sorts of businesses will benefit during the transition, initially due to the currency, (but eventually that will become the norm as the increased costs find their way through.)
As the actual exit comes nearer, people will be taking their last chance to get goods and services before everything gets more complex.
Visitors who want to come one day will come before we leave rather than after, because things will be more complex after.
Lots of EU headquarters will relocate back to the EU, creating work.
Of course after it actually happens the economy will take a hit, but that will most likely be after the next election with the current government being re-elected on the strength of the temporary boom.
Could this be one reason for the procrastination over article 50? Aligning the next election to arrive just before the pain arrives?
(Note all this assumes leaving the EEA. If that doesn't happen, then everything will quickly return to normal once it is actually decided.)
> "I like to think its because they are able to offer excellence and that, as with every other walk of life, excellence will continue to be required."
At the moment the UK receives a considerable amount of the EU's research funding (more than anyone else - Germany is 2nd). The concern is that if the effective 40% "funding top-up" currently being received from the EU is removed, that the UK government won't replace it (it's not an emotive subject for a large proportion of the population), with there being a historical under-investment in science by the government (I believe the UK has historically had the lowest spending on science & research of any of the G7 by a fair way).
" It's not business as usual until brexit formalities are done "
If we are to be denied the benefits while still members and so entitled to fair treatment then the only rational response is for the UK to cease making the UK's financial contribution. It's effectively a breach of contract on the part of the EC.
Mr AC writes: "It's effectively a breach of contract on the part of the EC."
I'm afraid not. The rules of this funding vehicle require a group of academics to form a "consortium" to bid for the grant. Because of the lack of clarity about free-movement post-Brexit, potential partners elsewhere in the EU are necessarily sceptical about inviting UK participants to join. It is a right PITA to dump someone part way through a grant.
So, nothing about what is happening is the fault of the EU. Instead, it is an understandable reaction of individual academics throughout the rest of the EU.
It just proves to me how arbitrary and undemocratic the EU is. And why we are best out of it.
Either we are entitled to the funding or not according to some rules. And these rules should be respected and enforced.
How come some unelected, unknown someone just decide off their own backs where the money goes. This is the core of the EU problem - unelected, unaccountable, not sticking to the rules even if there are any. This is what has lead to the massive EU corruption and waste - as non-democratic processes always will.
So much concentrated cluelessness. The 'unelected' are the ones asking for funding who noticed the uk fuckwits handling brexit are deliberately doing nothing to guarantee uk participation will continue. They've made the sane choice to avoid risk until the uk stops using them as a negotiating chip. FFS the uk refuses to even guarantee EU citizens in these collaborations can work in the uk, what kind of fool would sign up for that?
Brexiters would do well to remember how eager most governments are to grease the wheels of immigration for scientists. Play nice now or have your whining ignored when your scientists leave.
You do realise that this 'consortium', is a research collaboration between university research groups: they work together on projects and to obtaining funding. They decided they didn't want to bother with the headaches of the brexit, and they therefor decided to kick the UK-based scientists out of their collaboration.
So this isn't about EU funding tiself and some 'unelected' bureaucrat deciding that the UK doesn't get funding. It is about researchers deciding they no longer want to work together with researchers in the UK because of the uncertainty of the timeline and the effects on the cooperation and funding.
It's worth adding that the probability of getting these projects funded is very small in the first place (3-10%) so a group would not want to reduce their chances by building in any problems i.e. a UK group that the reviewers may not like. Also, theses proposals are very long documents (80 pages) and can take a significant amount of time to write so the head scientist probably just want's to make sure he is not wasting his time/effort.
Rod,
I have applied for one of these Marie-Curie PhD Training Networks before, and as you say they are "competitive".
The real reason that I'd avoid a UK partner at the moment is the enormous question mark over free-movement. The whole idea is that a PhD student from one country is taught in another. If the UK cannot guarantee that the students and there supervisors have the right to free movement for the next four years, then there seems little point in a UK partner.
(You might note that Switzerland is not permitted to be part of these actions due to restrictions on the free movement of EU citizens from Slovenia.)
It is all right for you to retire so that you get back to having a life, but your lies have ruined the lives of thousands of others. Thank you also Gove, Johnson etc.
Even if the government finds a way to ensure that funding continues until Article 50 is completed, this is a pointer to how UK science will be suffering within 3 years.
As Moedas said: "As long as the UK is a member of the European Union, EU law continues to apply and the UK retains all rights and obligations of a member state." My guess would be that Moedas regards funding as a privilege and not a right.
"As Moedas said: "As long as the UK is a member of the European Union, EU law continues to apply and the UK retains all rights and obligations of a member state." My guess would be that Moedas regards funding as a privilege and not a right."
That is somewhat unfair, I think. Institutions deciding they don't want to make a joint application with a British partner is not something you can legislate for. You can only treat the bids you receive equally.
then we should stop paying ,,, simple and transfer funding to uk institutions immediately, we pay more than we get back so are in a position to invest more in ourselves.. the chicken little idiots blaming brexit for this action should perhaps take a moment to recognise that this is the typical abuse of our good faith that has lead to us telling them and their three passport operators at dover on the busiest day of the year that we have had enough, pay for yourselves, stop fishing in our waters, and you are welcome to come here as long as you can pay for yourselves and add to our inclusive multicultural society .
Bollocks
This is perfectly foreseeable outcome.
If you were to employ a building company to construct your house and you happen to know that one of them is likely to go out of business halfway through the works, would you employ that one or one of their competitors?
The EU scientists don't want to partner with our scientists because they don't know whether we will able to be reliable partners.
Also although we pay more nor to the EU bureaucracy than it pays us bag, our EU membership let's us lever far more economic growth and trade benefits than we would otherwise have, and pays us back many times over the money we pay in- this is the whole point of EU membership.
actionism wrote:
" the chicken little idiots blaming brexit for this action "
I wonder, did you miss the line in the email:
The main reason of this decision concerns the Brexit and all the incertitude it brings.
The chicken little idiots blaming brexit are the chicken little idiots who decide who is in the consortium and who gets the money. Anyone with the most basic sense of intuition will have been able to predict that things are going to be royally fucked up by a leave vote.
Those liars involved in the campaign need to face criminal charges.
"Maybe at this stage we ought to clear the air a little and establish our respective facts. Could you please state exactly what "lies" you are referring to?"
How about the £350M/week "wasted" on the EU that could be spent on the NHS? That lie barely lasted 24 hours after the result, before Brexit's cheerleaders were denying they ever said it and that it was all a misunderstanding...
Like many (perhaps most) claims made by politicians when votes are at stake, the £350 million/week claim was exaggerated and unrealistic. However, a look at https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ - which apparently is trying to simplify the matter as much as possible - reveals how wildly complicated the figures can get. Like everything connected with the EU, it seems that there are facts behind facts, and figures within figures, and almost everything can be challenged, reinterpreted, or denied. (Unsurprisingly for an organization whose accounts, I believe, have never yet been audited and signed off).
In principle, it's fairly simple. The UK has been paying a gross contribution - that's where the £350 million/week came from - although in reality this is reduced by the rebate. With the rebate, the net contribution is about £260 million/week (still an amount I would rather have than not have).
If you then allow for the average payments the EU is said to make back to the EU, the net contribution drops again to something like £170 million/week (which would build a new hospital, by the way).
Please note from the Fullfact.org page:
"The claim that the UK’s membership fee is £55 million a day comes from the £20 billion annual UK payment to EU institutions listed in the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Pink Book.
"The ONS told us this isn’t the correct figure to use. It has another set of figures which actually represent official government payments, although this isn’t clear from the release".
I wouldn't say that this supports the claim that £350 million/week is a deliberate lie. Rather, it looks as if even the official government figures released to the public were admittedly unclear and confusing.
Moreover, while the figure of £350 million/week is certainly not accurate, in principle it is true that the UK pays a hell of a lot of money to the EU, and gets a very uncertain and arbitrary return on those payments. Of course, those who are receiving such payments from the EU are naturally unhappy about the prospect that they might cease. But I think the UK is better off with £170 million/week (£8.5 billion a year) than with nothing.
@Archtech. While it's not uncomplicated to work out the costs it's much harder to estimate benefits. If we assume it's £170 million/week then that is just about 1% of the UK GDP. So does the EU membership contribute more than that 1%. I think so.
However, from the very beginning the richer members have paid more than they receive while the poorer countries have got more than they have contributed with. "All for one and one for all" and things like that, in the best British historical tradition, a British virtue if you like. To hope that every country was on the receiving side would indicate a belief in Father Christmas even as an adult.
I also live in a country that contributes, and for reasons you will have to work out all by yourself, if you can, I like that state to continue.
A well reasoned reply that neatly side-steps the majority of the issue.
The Brexit campaign were told repeatedly that the £350 million figure was inaccurate and misleading. Yet they stuck with it right up to the day after the vote. Is that not dishonest?
The suggestion that the mythical £350 million would become available as free cash to put into the NHS was always a lie, right from the start. And the Brexit campaign knew it was a lie (if we are to credit them with not being completely clueless). Yet they decided to make that a strap line on a principle campaign slogan. Is that not dishonest?
And you can throw into the mix the total lie about Turkey being right in line for EU membership, at which point they were all heading here. Always a lie, and always nasty scare-mongering.
"The Brexit campaign were told repeatedly that the £350 million figure was inaccurate and misleading. Yet they stuck with it right up to the day after the vote. Is that not dishonest?"
I suspect they were strapped for cash and it would have cost too much to repaint the bus.
I note you set no money aside for paying for access to the EU single market in the future.
Was this more brexit miscalculation, or is it official brexit policy to say goodbye to a market where 40% of our exports currently go?
There is no reasonable defence of the headline 'savings' claimed by the brexit campaign, which is why no brexit leaders have tried to defend it. Instead, they just withdrew this 'mistake'.
How many people genuinely believed in this windfall? Decent, honest, people, when lied to by people they trust, may end up making the wrong decision, no?
actioniom
we pay more than we get back so are in a position to invest more in ourselves.. the chicken little idiots blaming brexit for this action should perhaps take a moment to recognise that...
we have taken way more out of the research budget than we pay in, and anyone who knows anything about british politicians knows full well that any and all windfalls from no longer making contributions to the EU is to be spent on tax cuts for the wealthy, the NHS, farmers and scientists cal all go fuck themselves.
And maybe brexiteer idiots should at least try to get a fact right every now and again, who knows if they had done that in the first instance we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
It won't be the 'institutions' either, just a single scientist leading the group. I'm certainly not going for any UK funding at the moment as seems like a big waste of time. You only need 1 reviewer to write a grump review of your proposal and it's finished even in good times, and now the chance of getting that 1 grump reviewer would seem to have significantly increased. EU money is hard to get anyway, with loads of beurocratic strings attached.
forget your thank you Mr Farage, in a democracy the will of the majority is sacrosanct, the majority voted, accept it. move on, and fight for a better deal for britain rather than talking the country down. We pay more than we receive, its not too tricky to work out we can divert some of that cash to ourselves and if the eu are breaking their own rules we need to stop paying now.
@ smartypants
"Yes, thank you for lying to the public to get their vote, then fucking off as soon as it was won and the lie was admitted."
I hope you will fire shots at the remain campaign for their excessive lies and it was the honesty of Farage that got us the vote promised to us for over a decade. And he didnt fuck off. He is still an MEP which is the only place he can be to be involved.
Well it depends how you see it, with Farage
If his purpose was to put the country in massive uncertainty, then bugger off to work for the union he is againts and take their money - 17 yrs at what 60K a year, nice profit there. Plus the expenses he cheerfully ripped. Then you are right he did a very god job. He will have a nice retirment somewhere.
If however you tend to be of the mind of your broke it you pay for it, and clearing your own messes up. Then he is a twat who fucked off as soon as he should have been showing responsobilty for the mess he has made.
I epxect more from someone who has been sucking at the public teat for so long.
@ Triggerfish
"If his purpose was to put the country in massive uncertainty"
And you attribute nothing to Cameron, Osborne, Carney, the IMF? The IMF are already on the naughty step for helping to damage Greece and propping up the Eurozone. Cameron claimed we would be fine if we left (pre-referendum), then doom. But he will stay to negotiate, until he resigned right after losing. Or Osborne arguing against little England, until the result then arguing for Great Britain. Threatening an emergency budget and promising to do damage if we vote wrong. Or Carney who sees the huge threat that is the EU/Eurozone, until the referendum then it has no flaws and we will be doomed.
The remain campaign existed on how doomed and screwed we would be if we vote out. We dont have the damage they talked about but we do have a reduction of confidence. Not hard to see why.
"then bugger off to work for the union he is against and take their money"
He was already doing this. He quit as UKIP leader since his small party finally got us the referendum. He is still an MEP until we leave. Which is right.
"If however you tend to be of the mind of your broke it you pay for it, and clearing your own messes up"
Should he by default become PM? He was actively frozen out of the negotiations yet UKIP are the ones who intended to leave the EU. So as MEP he is using the only role he has available to help see this through. What do you think he should do? Overthrow the gov?
Well generally I suspect most politicians are shits, so that covers Cameron and Osborne. ;)
But yes actually maybe they should also be standing up Mr Cameron included. Frankly I had little trust of Osborne once he revelaed he was suprised the rich avoided taxes, thats either stupid or duplicitous. Plus shows little understanding of the company his family runs which never makes profit, but manages to pay out 300K in dividends.
Carney I dunno, I thought he warned aginst it didn't he?
Can't say on the IMF don't know enough.
Farage, yes he should have stayed on in UKIP and explained how he the lies he helped perpetrate are actually facts. Lets be honest I do not have much appracietion of UKIP. But I would say their party at least deserved a leader who after bringing them to this, stood up a bit or at least saw it through the interim period where at they are at the moment.
Now as I have said he has been paid by the taxpayer and I believe he should answer some of the questions about his bullshit that helped bring the country to this state. But he didn't he fucked off sharpish to avoid any direct questions, didn't he?
Why should he take the EU money, why has he not retired from there, job done? After all surely he is not beholden to European taxpayers more than the UK ones. Is it because he is getting something like 85K plus expenses, and he won't have so many awkward questions to answer from people in the UK he has been playing demagouge to? Don't get me wrong as I said he is not singled out, Boris Johnson for example if he drops dead I can't see it being a loss. But I still stand by my original statement.
Nigel Farage is a twat.
@ Triggerfish
"Well generally I suspect most politicians are shits, so that covers Cameron and Osborne. ;)"
You got an upvote from me on that one.
"Carney I dunno, I thought he warned aginst it didn't he?"
He started out complaining about the economic threat that is the Eurozone and I think he even pointed at problems with the EU laws (that may not have been him). Yet when reporting for the referendum he refused to talk down the EU or Eurozone and instead made a fantasy story of how wonderful it was. He got called out for his massive political bias by Jacob Rees-Mogg. And the IMF have been accused of abandoning all economic rules to prop up the Euro and EU contributing to the damage of Greece. Of course Osborne shamelessly pushed his punishment budget. Basically the story between the IMF, Osborne and Carney was so similar and exceptionally one sided that it was unreliable political rubbish and all 3 are taking a backlash for it.
Basically the uncertainty may partly due to the up and coming brexit but for the most part it seems to be a confidence issue from the repeating claims of coming doom. Do that in any country and it will knock the economy.
"But he didn't he fucked off sharpish to avoid any direct questions, didn't he?"
I am not as convinced by this. I think he did answer questions and has been doing constantly for his views of leaving. Everything he says is twisted before reporting and then he is attacked for that. Even on QT he was honest to the point of contradicting the leave campaign. Some people like him, others dont but he has given the UK the one vote he and we insisted on (and have been constantly promised) and now he has done it he has left. Even if he remained leading UKIP he has no power in the UK and has done what he intended to do.
He also only gets paid by the EU for as long as we are in it and they want him out (he holds them to account). However I dont know the guy so he might also be a twat.
Well I'll have to check up on Carney and the IMF.
Only thing I know about Carney with reference to the campaign was he was for staying in and predicted some of this trouble. As far as I knew JRM criticisms were tied in with the fact he was commenting rather than staying out of it, like you would expect with a internal political campaign. Personally I have little issue with that, note also JRM was on the brexit side. Struck me as linked to Goves we shouldn't listen to experts.
In fact I was fascinated by the whole we should not listen to experts things touted by some, I am looking forward to the day a binman does Mr Goves surgery, or flys him to holiday, because after all you do not want people who have studied medicine for surgery, or pilots for flying doing that, noooo no experts at all please.
He hasn't answered questions such as the £350 million, he has nicely pointed out that it wasn't him, while completly letting it be part of a advertising campaign. Likewise he has ridden on the coattails of simialr bull, he basically is a demagouge.
I'm not sure we can call him for that liar for some of this, but I am remided of a saying that starts "Oh what a tangled web we weave....."
So why did he not retire from the EU, as job done? Why does he see no responsobilty for what he brought about.
It is literally like shitting in someones room, and going job done, someone else can clean it up.
"I hope you will fire shots at the remain campaign for their excessive lies"
Well why not bring up some examples, and we can discuss this.
"it was the honesty of Farage that got us the vote promised to us for over a decade"
Farage isn't an honest man. He was happy to lead a campaign designed to make people think the NHS was going to receive a huge windfall. What got us to this idiotic referendum was a crisis in the tory party which he helped to bring to a head. It didn't help that the timing of the vote coincided with a labour leader who still has wet dreams about Clause Four, which the EU is utterly incompatible with.
"He is still an MEP which is the only place he can be to be involved."
Well what do we get from the £6 grand a month* salary of Nigel Farage? The only person with a lower voting record as an MEP than Nigel Farage is Brian Cowley from Ireland, who has never voted at all. He's almost as bad as Gordon Brown!
(*before very considerable expenses)
@ smartypants
"Well why not bring up some examples, and we can discuss this."
WW3, emergency budget, we will be fine outside the EU/we will be doomed, Eurozone is a huge economic problem/only mentioning down sides for leaving. Those are the most memorable.
"Farage isn't an honest man. He was happy to lead a campaign designed to make people think the NHS was going to receive a huge windfall."
That was the official campaigns claim, not Farage. I think the closest link the papers managed to make (that I saw) was he rode one of their buses at one point (after they did everything to try and keep him from campaigning).
"Well what do we get from the £6 grand a month* salary of Nigel Farage?"
He represents 52% of the voters on the EU. We want out.
codejunky, your remain campaign 'lies'... Could you please come up with something a bit more concrete? Perhaps a link to who claimed what?
"I think the closest link the papers managed to make (between Farage and the NHS claim) was he rode one of their buses at one point"
You are in denial aren't you? Let me help you. On question time, weeks before the vote he said, talking about using the money supposedly saved by not paying the EU:
"Can we just get to the truth of this - £350 million a week is wrong, it’s higher than that,”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html
"He represents 52% of the voters on the EU"... but just over a 3rd of the voting public. That might do for a general election, but not a huge constitutional change. And I think the number would be far less today, given the lies that he and the rest of the brexit campaign made.
An honest man indeed.
@ smartypants
"codejunky, your remain campaign 'lies'... Could you please come up with something a bit more concrete? Perhaps a link to who claimed what?"
I am going to assume wilful ignorance now. Cameron claimed WW3 if we leave. Cameron said we would be fine to leave, then when campaigning during the referendum made insane claims of doom. Carney complained about the Eurozone and EU pre referendum, but during would only speak of our doom. Osborne promised an emergency budget which was labelled a punishment budget as it existed for no reason but to threaten against the wrong result. The IMF have been publicly shamed recently for abandoning economic knowledge and breaking the standard rules to prop up the eurozone. What part of any of this did you miss? Hell on the same day the metro had one article of Cameron stating he will stay to negotiate as he is in the best position etc and one of him resigning because he lost.
"You are in denial aren't you? Let me help you. On question time, weeks before the vote he said, talking about using the money supposedly saved by not paying the EU"
Not denial. I read that article. What is wrong with it? Or did you only read the little bit without actually reading the rest around it?
"but just over a 3rd of the voting public"
What is greater (basic math) 52% or 48%? That is of those who voted in one of the highest turn outs for a vote in the UK. As for that not being enough for constitutional change, 0% voted to join the EU because Blair kept promising a vote but did as he pleased regardless. So even after all this time in the EU to be shown the wonder and awesomeness the EU didnt get strong constitutional changing support nor did it even manage a basic and simple majority.
You may not like the result but that does not change the result.
@codejunky
Weren't you the one spouting lies on here about billions of Turks waiting to enter Britain and settle in the event of a Brexit failure?
I suggest you pop off down to Newport and get yourself in line for your new blue passport instead of wasting everyone's time on here.
@ Dr_N
"Weren't you the one spouting lies on here about billions of Turks waiting to enter Britain and settle in the event of a Brexit failure?"
Not that I know of. I do believe I mentioned the blackmail Turkey was using to great effect on the EU although his recent actions did cause one of the members to state that the EU must not allow Turkey to blackmail the EU after the recent incident.
"I suggest you pop off down to Newport and get yourself in line for your new blue passport instead of wasting everyone's time on here."
Thanks for your advice but I am happy here thanks. And surely the time wasted is voluntary as you dont have to read my comments nor respond.
Ah, the very amateur attempts at misdirection coming thick and fast.
In real life it's completely possible for Carney & the BOE to identify problems with the EU and point out leaving would be even worse than those problems, they aren't opposites and there's no U-turn on advice. Given the choice of believing professional politicians (AKA liars and opportunists), amateurs like Farage & Gove (too stupid to know if they're lying, even sleazier opportunists) or a bunch of independent of politicking economists, I'm going with the experts (even though it's more witchcraft than science).
And all those predictions of doom you claim haven't come true. There's a missing 'yet' in that because you haven't left yet, haven't even started to leave. And are carefully ignoring any sign that things are starting to unravel while everyone waits for you to grow balls and leave.
@ Paul Shirley
"In real life it's completely possible for Carney & the BOE to identify problems with the EU and point out leaving would be even worse than those problems, they aren't opposites and there's no U-turn on advice"
Well said. That is why it seemed odd that the EU was in such bad shape... but then suddenly that part of the discussion vanishes as the EU is the only reason this little island is still part of the world. The idea it was suddenly all roses and no downsides to talk about (the very ones they had been talking about previously) was strange.
"or a bunch of independent of politicking economists, I'm going with the experts "
Spot on about politicians and Gove (I expect he didn know he was lying) but the independent economists bit is the problem. The IMF have already been publicly shamed for not being independent and having abandoned the economic rules for the eurozone. And as discussing with another already, Carney was not independent. He was called out for it.
"There's a missing 'yet' in that because you haven't left yet"
Well said. So the emergency budget that was immediate of a leave vote vanished. That is an immediate and promised doom. That was to counter the immediate effects of doom, that didnt happen. That possibly because the effects were long term 'claims' that Osborne then tried to insist would be immediate. And we were told nobody would want to trade with us but on the leave vote we have a queue.
"And are carefully ignoring any sign that things are starting to unravel"
Like what? The currency was already set to fall before the referendum. Things are actually still looking pretty good. Except of course certain small confidence problems which funny enough will happen in any country that keeps claiming it is doomed.
" I read that article. What is wrong with it? "
Codejunky, my assertion is that Farage actively duped people into believing our EU contribution would be redirected to the NHS. You seemed to be unaware of this, so I provided evidence that shows he was no active bystander on this claim but was happy to promote it... something which 2 hours after the vote he decided was a 'mistake' after all.
So now we're clear ok? He is not an honest man. He lied to people like my parents and convinced them that a brexit vote would redirect billions into an organisation they care deeply about.
You say Cameron lied when he said he would stick around if the vote didn't go his way. Who cares about that? Not a single vote would have been different had people known it was a lie.
The lies in the brexit campaign *matter* because it affects the strength the outcome should have on the future direction of the country.
@ smartypants
"So now we're clear ok? He is not an honest man."
If that is your beliefs I am not going to waste my time trying to change your mind. I dont really care that much (dont know the guy personally).
"You say Cameron lied when he said he would stick around if the vote didn't go his way. Who cares about that? Not a single vote would have been different had people known it was a lie."
You again pick and choose. Cameron and crew lied consistently only pausing to breathe. The official remain and leave campaigns did so. If Brexit lies manipulated voters then the Bremain (god I hate those words) lies manipulated voters. Also it is important to note what was said. We have a little economic confidence problem, the economy is doing fine but some people are a little concerned or expecting problems. Now which campaign consistently claimed apocalyptic doom? The remain campaign. And if a country tells its people and investors that it is doomed those people will start to wonder. Any country. Which is why this statement is massively debatable-
"The lies in the brexit campaign *matter* because it affects the strength the outcome should have on the future direction of the country."
Because the economic uncertainty can be very much attributable to not only brexit in the future, some point 2 yrs after invoking the right to leave whenever that is. But also the campaign insisting the country will be doomed from the result day onwards.
" We pay more than we receive, its not too tricky to work out we can divert some of that cash to ourselves and if the eu are breaking their own rules we need to stop paying now."
That endlessly repeated mantra of "we put more in than we get out, that's unfair" cracks me up. As if every single member country in the EU could get more out than they put in. How exactly would that work? From what I can see Germany and France pay more than the UK but I don't see us fighting their corner.
It's like someone with a well-paid job complaining about their Income Tax, while pointing at those with low-paid jobs who receive more in Benefit than they pay in Tax, and saying "why can't we all get out more than we put in?"
My guess would be that Moedas regards funding as a privilege and not a right.
Erm, are you suggesting he was less than sincere?
All he can do is (re)state EU policy. He can't micromanage individual decisions by individual teams. He can't even hear appeals: that would ultimately be for a court, not a civil servant.
Academics are concerned with planning their projects. One element of that is to deal with risks. Those risks have just changed, and we shouldn't be surprised if that affects planning decisions. Nor if those adversely affected are unhappy.
It wasn't the person giving the grant that dropped the Sheffield group it was the person from the collaborating university in europe. They were jointly applying for the grant and the other groups felt that if in 3years when it was granted the UK was no longer a member then they (the europeans ) wouldn't get it.
It's like bidding on a massive multi-year civil engineering project with a dodgy 3rd world country that you think is about to be taken over by communist rebels - you might think twice before committing yourself.
> Even if the government finds a way to ensure that funding continues until Article 50 is completed, this is a pointer to how UK science will be suffering within 3 years.
Sorry, that's a non-sequitur: if you're talking about *funding* that could continue just the same, we'd just have to direct the same amount of our previous EU membership fees into it.
OTOH, *collaboration* might be an issue. Except that there is already collaboration going on between EU members and non-EU members, based on who was the expertise.
We are still paying our fees, and eligible to apply for grants, and the same will be true until the finalisation of article 50.
The problem is that to apply for a grant you need to collaborate with teams in other EU states, and none of them want to join us in collaboration any more because of Brexit (because they don't know whether their collaboration with us will be affected by Brexit)
We take more out of the EU science pot than we put in, so science does stand to loose from Brexit. The EU also provides a handy mechanism to fund science which crosses EU borders, because the funding comes from a single organisation. So, we will need some new mechanism to deal with that in post-EU UK. Science also makes extensive use of the freedom to travel and relocate within the EU.
All of it is possible, but unfortunately, there is no plan. We're looking at a 10% shortfall, for the length of time it takes to come up with an alternative. This is in an industry where too many staff are on 2-3 year contracts.
There is a reason that the vast majority (about 90% I think) of scientists wanted to remain. This is, of course, 90% of scientists with a vote. 15% of scientists working in the UK are not British, but EU. No one let them vote at the ballot box, but they can still vote with their feet.
No, the situation us much simpler: Research groups in the UK remain eligible for EU funding, but they don't have a legal right to get funded. Just like all those other research groups throughout the EU who happen to not get included in a EU funded project.
UK researcher used to be among the first choice partners for EU projects (everybody likes a reliable British partner). Now they dropped a few places - you just don't know if they'll be along to do their share of the work. A lot of eastern-EU countries had that problem all along (uncertainties due to political instability), so welcome I the club of Romania, Bulgaria, etc.
Looked at the web site: seems to be offering free money to any "research" based only on the criterion that there are two or three collaborators in different European institutions*: Public Teat - Suck Here.
I think I'd prefer my EU taxes spaffed on something a bit more targeted - you know, to something potentially useful? Or maybe spent locally and not sent to the EU at all?
*NB: it specifies EU "or associated" countries - so you can be an EEA state (not in the EU), or one of dozens of others (see their list) and still get to suck on that teat, if that's your academic income stream.
So, Brexit not to blame, just petty politics ;-)
No Brexit actually is exactly to blame.
Once Brexit is executed then things may be able to go back to normal (depending on the nature of Brexit) if we still qualify to apply to Horizon2020 (which you note you can be accessed even if you are not an EU member), but until we know what the hell we are doing with Brexit this won't be known and we will not be able to be reliable research partners for collaboration groups applying for Horizon2020 funding.
It may also be that we will not qualify to apply to Horizo2020.
So: you are exactly wrong. Brexit is causing problems right now, and whilst the in the future these problems might go away once Brexit is finally executed... they might not.
One of the many risks that was previously highlighted. Doubtful if every single risks highlighted will actually be realised as a real issue, but there are enough of them, and they are of enough impact that we will be badly effected by them. On the other side the potential benefits of Brexit are few enough, vague enough and face enough risks of not being realisable that although some benefits will actually be realised, not enough of them will to compensate for all the issues that we will actually face. Unless your objective was to make the UK only into an impoverished history theme park, with tourism as it's only industry (and I'm not even going to say growth here because we have to compete with places with more spectacular landscapes and longer histories)
Once Brexit is executed then things may be able to go back to normal
With one little problem, it will require Britain to accept some form of free movement and it's hard to believe Europe will accept a highly diluted version. Collaborative projects don't make much sense if scientists can't freely travel and work.
...but any uk gov that does that will have some hard explaining to 52% of the population. Given the way foreigners are already being made unwelcome by the rabid minority brexit empowered we may never get back to normal, if scientists simply don't want to risk coming here.
"No Brexit actually is exactly to blame"
It is the implementation of Brexit which is to blame, and the blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of Cameron et al. Who far too short sighted to envision the possibility that the referendum could go the other way and plan accordingly.
Ilmarinen
I think I'd prefer my EU taxes spaffed on something a bit more targeted - you know, to something potentially useful? Or maybe spent locally and not sent to the EU at all?
So I take it you are ditching everything electronic in your life?
typical brexiteer shortsighted beyond all comprehension
The sterling fell with the Brexit regardless if Blighty had formally leaved or not. There is nothing the UK or the EU can do about it. The same goes for individuals in the science community. I am afraid that eventually everything and anything causing problems in the UK will be blamed on the EU. Much like the responsibility for the refugee problem so totally ignored by the UK. Not a nice picture and that makes me a bit sad.
> . I am afraid that eventually everything and anything causing problems in the UK will be blamed on the EU.
That has been the poison-drip from the Murdoch press, especially the Daily Mail, for twenty years. UKIP was not an accident. Unfortunately enough people (37% of the electorate) believed the various Brexiteer lies to tip the balance. This particular bad consequence is just one of the many bad consequences predicted before the vote, dismissed as "Project Fear" by the Brexit campaign, and proved to be fact soon afterwards.
Fortunately there's a way back from this mess. The referendum has no force of law. Parliament can decide to ignore the bogus result. If you're a UK voter, write to your MP requesting him/her to vote down every attempt to invoke Article 50.
That has been the poison-drip from the Murdoch press
Successive governments have been to blame for this and they've allowed the press to fan the flames. Over many years, the blame for anything that could be seen as unpopular (regardless of the issue) has been placed with the EU., "It's not us, guv.. those forriners are making us pass these laws"
A case in point (one of many) is in food hygiene. At some point in the past, the UK gov passed laws forcing butchers to store cooked and fresh meat in separate coolers. This cost businesses a fair amount of money to implemented and caused a fair amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The presence of the law was blamed firmly on the EU. As France hadn't yet enacted such laws, some butchers were up in arms about how unfair and unbalanced the EU clearly was.
So... forcing you to reduce the risk of poisoning your customers is a bad thing., and of course you are going to lose business as your customer walking down the high street is going to see the price increase needed to pay for this in your shop (and all your local competition) and then therefore go over to France to get some bacon.
If past governments had grown some balls and pointed out that many of these rules (I'm not saying that this applies to every rule made over the channel) are a good idea and explain why it won't put most people at a disadvantage instead of weaselling out of it then we probably wouldn't have the strength of anti-EU feeling that has lead us to this.
I also blame the public lack of engagement with the EU. MEP elections pass with barely a murmur. A lot of people not only don't know who their MEP is - they don't even know they have more than one. One bloke I spoke to when I tried to explain and tell him how to find out who his MEPs were said "why would I want to know anything about a bunch of foreign politicians".
"Because MEPs have no power, they are just expensive democratic whitewash covering up a thoroughly anti-democratic institution."
MEPs have power similar to MPs. Of course if you have MEPs like Farage who are not interested to actually do their job but to show their naked arse to the non-British MEPs, you can't expect them to achieve anything.
Inmypjs: "they are just expensive democratic whitewash covering up a thoroughly anti-democratic institution"
Then we shoüld start by saying those MEPs who took the EU's schilling yet campaigned for exit should be required to pay back every penny they have cost us - or perhaps, as a start, simply admit the 350 million lies and hypocrisy.
As for "whitewash", it's worse: my manager, who is very sharp but not the most political of animals, actually said he would vote for leave, as he had heard during the campaign thaf unelected officials were spending our money, with only MEPs able to exercise control, and he didn't think he even had an MEP ???
If you're a UK voter, write to your MP requesting him/her to vote down every attempt to invoke Article 50.
That would be a very dangerous precedent to set.
In the 2015 General Election the conservatives got 37% of the vote on a 66% turnout, and 53% of the seats. That entitled them to form a government.
In the Brexit referendum the "Leave" camp got 52% of the vote on a 72% turnout, and carried 68% of the regions that voted. That certainly entitles the vote to be regarded as valid.
For any MP to vote against the result of the referendum on the grounds that it was "bogus" would be to admit that their own status in Parliament was even more bogus.
You don't like the result, fine. Don't try to justify overturning it on the basis that some of the people who voted were wrong/stupid/racist/etc. You could make the same claims for any election.
> That would be a very dangerous precedent to set.
What, asserting the primacy of Parliament? I think you will find that this principle is entirely unaffected by precedent.
> That certainly entitles the vote to be regarded as valid.
The vote is valid. However, completely unlike a general election, it is not binding. I really don't understand what part of the word "advisory" is causing so many people difficulty.
Countries that make a habit of putting constitutional matters to referendum invariably include some requirement for supermajority (as did Britain for the 1979 Scottish devolution vote). Of course, it would have been rather silly setting out the conditions for "winning" a consultation exercise.
-A.
The vote is valid. However, completely unlike a general election, it is not binding. I really don't understand what part of the word "advisory" is causing so many people difficulty.
Very little, but "advisory" doesn't mean "ignore it if the people who don't like it shout loud enough". It means "we recommend you do this", and any MP that chooses to ignore the recommendations of their electorate tends to find themselves looking for a new job.
"we recommend you do this"
A 2% 'win' is not by any stretch of the imagination "the british recommending X". It is, instead, a result which shows the country split roughly down the middle. The margin is easily one which today or tomorrow could be negated, let alone in 20 years, especially now that the lies have unravelled and the brexit leaders run off. The brexit camp understood that a narrow margin of failure would not be "the end of the road". After all, they did start the campaign for a second referendum on the government website.
Ordinarily, changes to a country of this significance are required to jump a far higher bar than a simple majority of the voters on the day. The 1975 referendum is a good example.
Why did this not happen this time? I don't know to be honest, but it was wrong. It would have been wrong even if I had supported brexit.
People bring up support for general election victors. This is not the same thing at all. A government can be changed in 5 years (or less!). The change wrought by brexit will last one or two generations, and demands a far higher support for that reason.
Those generations strongly favour remaining in the EU.
Ordinarily, changes to a country of this significance are required to jump a far higher bar than a simple majority of the voters on the day.
Although I agree with you in principle, none of the referendums for entry to the EU required such a "supermajority", for the obvious reason that in many cases the politicians knew they wouldn't get one. It would be hard to justify such a condition for leaving the EU when no such condition was required to join.
Then again, we (in the UK) had no choice about joining the EU at all since neither John Major (Maastricht) or Tony Blair (Lisbon) offered one, despite Bliar promising to do so. I'd have been quite happy with a supermajority condition for joining/extending the EU in both those cases...
The 1975 referendum is a good example.
Not really,it only required a simple majority (although it got a 67% one).
Those generations strongly favour remaining in the EU.
So did the similar generation in 1975, yet that is exactly the generation which has now voted to leave. We have learned from the past, others seem not to have done so.
The referendum was advisory.
It's not legally possible to leave the EU without an act of parliament.
this will be debated, and voted upon. Taking the advice of the 37% of the population that cannot read without moving their lips into account, i am sure.
but an MP's job (if they are doing it right) is a bit more complex.
"Taking the advice of the 37% of the population that cannot read without moving their lips into account, i am sure."
Obnoxious prick, that 37% included 158 of your precious MPs (and likely a few more that publicly towed party line).
That's the trouble with butt hurt remainers - no idea what goes on outside the echo chambers they live in.
My MP is Therese May.
She's notorious for not changing her mind, also for stating Brexit means Brexit, which is a nice tautology that does not define anything.
Perhaps Brexit means Brexit means wool over eyes. Or possibly claim we executed Brexit whilst we actually do something less suicidal for the country. The Tories certainly have little enough respect for the people of this country in order to actually try and convince then that they have done one thing whilst they actually do another, instead of really outlining what they can do and offering it to the country...
Incredibly, incredibly dangerous.
If the will of the people is not followed then there will pretty much definitely be bad consequences. 1.2 million more people voted leave then voted remain - that's a huge number of people.
We discussed it to death, we had debates, newspapers were full of little else. Then we the people decided - and we voted to leave.
Leave was a democratic decision - and democracy is precious. The sight of a Prime Minister peacefully leaving No 10 after losing an election is something to be incredibly proud of. The sight of ministers standing in draughty church halls hoping that we the people have voted for them is special. Not enough votes, then don't get in your ministerial car, you're not wanted anymore, go home. We want someone new and fresh doing the job instead.
What you are proposing is to block the democratic process. What? Would you like the army to step in to stop Brexit? Or a coup d'etat by Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg (who were the only really pro remain politicians).
And this is something you may have missed about the EU - it is not just a project to create a Federal superstate of Europe - it is to be an unelected, unaccountable dictatorship of cronies and eurocrats. Just look up the quotes from JC Juncker - and that is just the public quotes!
One day the scale of the near miss - and how we've just avoided disaster by voting leave will become clear. Either the EU will seriously reform, backtrack on it's empire building, get more democratic etc. Or it will continue on it's current empire building path, and implode due to the inherent waste and inefficiency which is directly caused by its lack of democratic values.
You may think that you're 'right' and that millions of others were 'wrong'. I happen to think that I'm 'right' and you are 'wrong'. So we have a disagreement. So, in a democracy we debate it, then we vote, then we follow the will of the people.
And before you think of all the Leave voters as inherently stupid or naive please think about it. Is everyone who disagrees with you stupid by definition? Hmmm.
Personally I have spoken to Remain people and they have no clue about the EU referendums of 2005, about which countries voted etc. How we were told we didn't need a vote by president Blaire. And how the referendum votes in France and Holland against the vast EU expansion of sovereignty were completely ignored by the EU and enacted anyway as the Lisbon treaty. How can they say others are stupid when they don't this basic bit of EU history?
"Leave was a democratic decision - and democracy is precious".
That is where you and I differ from many of the people who voted to Remain - and, of course, from the fundamental principles of the EU. The whole purpose of the EU has always been to neuter democracy, while retaining just enough of its outward appearance to pacify the "common people".
It is all very well to complain about the disruption caused by Brexit, but what is rarely mentioned (or even admitted) is that we took the only possible "exit" on a trip that was intentionally designed to have no exits at all. In 1975 British voters chose quite decisively to remain in the "European Economic Community" or the "Common Market" as it was more widely known at the time. I myself voted to Remain at that time - to remain one of the nine members of an almost entirely economic community. The name "Common Market", which was generally used at the time, makes it very clear that to the average voter the EEC was purely a matter of trade.
In the intervening 41 years we have had no chance to deviate significantly from the trajectory plotted for us by the EU's architects. We were loaded into the firing chamber in 1973 and locked in place in 1975. From then on, in theory, the only way for us to go was straight down the barrel at increasing speed. If we had decided to Remain, soon enough we would have lost our remaining powers of independent legislation, our independent armed forces, and eventually our national police. With EU armed forces having replaced ours, and EU Gendarmes strategically positioned throughout the country, we would never have had any further chance to "secede" (as it would be put).
We were all victims of a very sophisticated, cynical, long-term shell game. We voted to stay in the Common Market, but then they gradually began changing the rules, the membership, the purpose, and the EU's powers while taking great care to hide all those changes from the British people. Just as corporations exploit their customers' naivete by smuggling all kinds of unfair (and often actually illegal) provisions into the small print of contracts, what we voted for in 1975 was by no means what we got. And one of the most pernicious aspects of the whole thing is that anyone younger than 40, 50 or even 55 (depending on how old you are when you become politically aware) takes the EU for granted, having lived within it virtually all their life. They literally have no memory or experience of what it is like to live in an independent Britain - although it has a proud and highly successful history stretching back at least 1,000 years.
So why complain at the disruption caused by voting to Leave in 2016? Would you criticize someone apparently trapped in a vehicle hurtling towards a cliff edge, if they somehow manage to wrench open a door and jump out? Just so, it was "now or never" for the UK if it was to remain a sovereign state.
A propos "We were all victims of a very sophisticated, cynical, long-term shell game".
See http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/07/dark-patterns-are-designed-to-trick-you-and-theyre-all-over-the-web/
In particular the section headlined, "You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave". We got a heaven-sent chance to leave, and we were intelligent and brave enough to grab it with both hands.
Leave Holland out of it. A large number of dutch people who voted didn't have a clue what the Ukrain referendum was really about. First they didn't understand that it was actually a trade treaty and cooperation with the Ukraine. Total turnout of voters was only 32.28% of which 61% was against. So NO it was definitely not the majority of dutch voters. We all know that in these cases the no-voters turn-out the most. Specially if you see which political parties were against.
No I thhink we should invoke it.
As soon as every reason the Brexiters voted for can be proved to be met.
#So no Syrians and Egyptians refugees coming into the country. (is it us or the Eu that negotiates with the UN on that one? since I think thats actually International law on refuggees).
#Full free trade with Europe, but without having to pay any fees.
#Full Eu benefits without having to pay for it.
#No regulations on things like manufacturing quality, but still being allowed to sell our goods in Europe where they make a nice exception for us to do so.
#Full free trade with Europe with restrictions on free movement from Europeans.
#A new hospital every week. (plus the money for running them of course, otherwise at the end of the year we will end up with 52 empty large buildings).
#Absolutely excellent trade agreements with the US, China etc. (For me excellent would be not TTIP, and pretty sure because that effects soverignty that many brexitters will also insist on that).
#Oh do we get the 'man in Brussels' to finally show up so we can all jeer as well.
Did I miss any other unicorns?
So yeah when we get all the reasons they voted for fine.
"Fortunately there's a way back from this mess. The referendum has no force of law. Parliament can decide to ignore the bogus result. If you're a UK voter, write to your MP requesting him/her to vote down every attempt to invoke Article 50."
I did exactly that. Unfortunately even though my MP (Erewash) was a Remain supporter, I got a standard reply back explaining how everything would be alright and the Government was going to do it's best to ensure that the process of leaving the EU went as smoothly as possible, and that the best possible deal would be gained for the UK.
No mention of the reason I actually wrote to her, so I suspect an onllne petition might have more chance.
We now compete with other EU countries - why do we think we'll get an easy ride? If someone said "I'm leaving your club" I'd be planning ahead and not wasting money on a member who isn't going to be around in a couple of years.
France and Germany are definitely eyeing up the bits of the UK they want. They are in a strong position to get a lot of the banking and international companies.
France and Germany are getting the financials? Oh no! Who is going to create the next financial crisis? Time is running out here, the UK is moving towards paying off the deficit created by that overvalued and overpayed section of the economy. Personally I would welcome rebalancing the UK economy by sending that lot elsewhere and let somebody else can pay the price for their fat bonuses.
If by paying off the deficit you actually mean building up huge debts by increased government borrowing to avoid austerity 2.0 and another recession then yes I agree with you.
If you actually mean reducing our national debt, then that is what we were doing before Brexit. At the moment we are building up debt to avoid creating the economy.
"Oh no! Who is going to create the next financial crisis?". Oh please calm down, that will be the Wall Street as always before, in 3.2....
As for the "financials", is there such a word, The London Exchange and the Deutsche Börse already joined together and the Germans have a bit more than 50%. I was a bit surprised when a UKIP guy on the telly claimed it wonderfully expressed how important the UK is. Perhaps he is right those guys know what to do to defend their turf with or without a Brexit.
"France and Germany are getting the financials? Oh no!"
Well - the Financial industry is worth 20% of the UK economy, so someone ought to be worried. I'm not convinced that we can absolve governments for a big chunk of the blame for the financial crisis anyway - they should have been planning for and expecting a recession whatever the root cause.
"the UK is moving towards paying off the deficit created by that overvalued and overpayed section of the economy"
I wish I had a pound for every time I see people misconstrue deficit and debt.
Cameron's government didn't pay a single penny of debt back. Furthermore, they never promised to.
What they *did* do was to bring down the deficit - i.e. the amount by which our debt goes up each year.
Incidentally, servicing this debt costs the taxpayer each year around 5 times the net contribution we make to the EU... At least the latter does some good.
My (united) kingdom for a politician with the balls to stand up and say that brexit would be a disaster and isn't happening. Even the die hard euroskeptic Tories must realise what's going to happen by this point. Why must we continue to drift towards the abyss just because a bunch of little-Englanders decided they hate Polish people?
just because a bunch of little-Englanders decided they hate Polish people?
Just because you don't understand the economic and political reasons why people don't want to remain in a failing paternal European superstate does not entitle you to categorize us all as xenophobes and racists. It may be convenient to say "I don't understand why they did it, it must mean they are racists" but frankly that attitude says more about you than us.
And yet, when the infamous "breaking point" poster was unveiled, I really didn't see any brexiter standing up saying: not in my name.
All stood quiet, looking elsewhere.
For me, this was a predominantly racist vote and I haven't found proof, and not for lack of searching, saying otherwise..
"failing paternal European superstate" which is largely a fictional invention of the Eurosceptic press and politicians.
The EU is by no means perfect, but it is neither failing nor a superstate (and actually has no means to become one without significant political changes that would require unanimity from member states, some of whom would veto such changes).
It is continually evolving union that is changing to suit the needs of its member states as it goes forward to meet new challenges, it is impossible for it to be perfect (for nothing is) but it is continually improving (and will always have to be as the needs of its population changes).
You might say it is a super state. With that I might agree.
The EU is by no means perfect, but it is neither failing nor a superstate
It's certainly failing. There is increasing discontent in almost all states, even ones that 5 years ago were very supportive. The economies in the eurozone, apart from Germany, are moribund and the eurozone itself is on the route to collapse the next time a Greek/Irish/Italian/etc. crisis comes along. Little of the post-EEC legislation is actually useful, or even unambiguous enough to be helpful. It's all based on fudge and ambiguity so that all 28 countries could claim to be onboard even when they had diametrically opposed views to one another. I'd expect several other states to leave within 10 years, especially if Brexit is even tolerably successful for the UK.
(and actually has no means to become one without significant political changes that would require unanimity from member states, some of whom would veto such changes).
And we've seen how it deals with that, by gradually moving to qualified-majority voting and treaties forced through without popular votes. The politicians who run it are federalists, and they are determined to get their superstate, people like Juncker have said as much.
It is continually evolving union that is changing to suit the needs of its member states as it goes forward to meet new challenges,
It's not evolving, it's regressing, mired in stagnation and less relevant to the desires of its member states with every year that passes. It is changing to suit the vanity of the politicians who created it, while the ordinary people see it as less and less relevant to their daily lives (see the steadily dropping turnout in euro elections).
The free-trade and free-movement aspects of the common market were, and are, extremely valuable in building a cooperative europe. There was never any reason to go beyond them.
I am sorry for the academics affected by this but it is not something new in the way the EU works.
I have witnessed EU projects where the inclusion of the UK for any consideration was brushed off in an office by what amounted to a researcher (not even a civil servant), due to the 'complexity of dealing with another currency'.
These academics have only been protected by more focus and clauses in funding requiring multiple EU countries.
"If they stop playing by the rules then so should we."
I don't know if it's escaped your attention, but we weren't thrown out of the EU. What actually happened is that a campaign of lies and vitriol lasting decades finally duped a large-enough minority of the british public to vote to ditch decades of cooperation with our strongest allies and friendliest neighbours on this planet.
Things go rapidly downhill when fences start being erected with "them" and "us" being bandied about.
It may give a warm fuzzy feeling for some that our country is behaving like a spoilt child wanting to take its toys away, but in fact its a national tragedy, and at this moment of greatest need our political system seems to be imploding when we need to be saved from this stupidity.
Continental media outlets are about as useful as British ones. As an expat living in France, when I discuss Brexit with my colleagues and friends I'd say the reaction is roughly equally divided between "d'oh, why would you do that?" and "Bravo, I wish our politicians had the guts to do it". The latter attitude is not well reflected in the papers or TV, which tend to be fawning Europhiles.
"The latter attitude is not well reflected in the papers or TV, which tend to be fawning Europhiles."
I'm an expat too, working in France and the only "Bravo" types you speak of are the Front National voters. So not really aquaintances of mine, I admit, but they are very vocal in some regions.
They have a major chip on their shoulders about media conspiracies and such like ...
Hmmmmm.
@ Dr_N
>I'm an expat too, working in France and the only "Bravo" types you speak of are the Front National voters.
Beat me to it, totally agree. There is no "euroskeptic" club in the neo-liberal parties (PS, LR, MODEM), there are in the communist (front de gauche) and national socialist (front national) parties ... actually, the front national is the only party of any relevance which is outright "for" France to leave the EU, the commies (as a party) are not, though some elected officials do voice "their opinion" from time to time.
So, yes, you will find xenophobes in France who want to leave the EU, but they are mostly Front National ...
I'm an expat too, working in France and the only "Bravo" types you speak of are the Front National voters.
You must have a narrow or selective range of acquaintances. The ones I know of range from bank managers to software engineers to hairdressers, and they are vocal about not liking the FN. Quite a wide spread of the population, although the French press would have you believe it's only the FN voters, much as sections of the UK public would have you beleive that everyone who voted for "Leave" is a card-carrying BNP racist.
Neither position is borne out by the numbers, there simply aren't that many BNP or FN voters.
Have you ever considered that?
I have indeed, and it's an excellent position. All living together in a stable, co-operative relationship, with freedom of trade and movement, and where each can celebrate their differences and share what they have in common.
It's largely what we had in the Common Market, and it worked.
Unfortunately the folks who ran the show decided that all 600 million had to be put into the same box, where they could be uniformly taxed, instructed and generally centrally controlled. That clearly does not work, and an increasing number of people are kicking holes in the box to escape. Good for them.
The response from the French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc press on the Monday after the referendum was unanimous criticism of the EU for not looking after working class people and being to federalist.
An Italian paper suggested that power should be transfered from the European commission to the European parliament.
I wouldn't blame Cameron too much. He was cornered into holding a referendum by what turned out to be a huge section of society, and hoped to settle the issue once and for all (irony!). He campaigned saying that he didn't think leaving was a good idea for economic reasons - which is 100% standard Tory rhetoric. It was an entirely free vote and the split very much didn't follow the traditional right/left divide.
This was a straight disconnect between Westminster and the country. Although the result is going to be somewhere between unfortunate and disastrous, politicians have to make the argument and convince people. Ahem... Jeremy "7/10" Corbin...
He was the dickhead that offered the referendum in the hope that not too many of the rabid right wing of the tory party would skip over to UKIP and possibly loose a few tory seats.
Its totally his fault - even if people try and blame someone they also claim to be totally ineffectual in the same breath there is only one person to blame - the twat that offered the referendum and, unlike every other policy promise they break the moment they get into office, actually went though with it.
Indeed.
He saved the Tory party from splitting down it's most famous fault line and stemming the defections to UKIP.
By splitting Europe down it's fault line.
No doubt many in the Party will applaud his act of "bravery."
I have to admit it isn't all bad.
For a start, there's the prospect of blue passports!
I look forward to the day when I can proudly wave my british (or will it be english) passport in the faces of all those foreigners (or "them" as they will just be known) who wanted our nhs money.
<snip>
"I look forward to the day when I can proudly wave my british (or will it be english) passport in the faces of all those foreigners (or "them" as they will just be known) who wanted our nhs money."
I also look forward to the day when I can watch you in the slow troublesome other passport queues and I shall salute you with two fingers and shall call you a c**t in French, Portuguese, Italian, German , English, Spanish and French and a few others that i am not totally fluent in.
For I sir am no longer Irish, English, Catholic or Protestant etc. I sir am a European I speak their languages, absorb their culture and I am proud to be a 'naturalised foreigner' .
So in short;
You sir can stick your nationalistic blue passport up your arse and you can wipe it with your white flag with a red cross before Jock comes to poke it with his thistle and Paddy whacks it with his golden harp.
Oh dear. I tried my hand at parody, and ended up being taken for a real brexiter. Please check my other contributions to confirm that I am not a swivel-eyed xenophobe!
I couldn't quite believe the blue passport story when I read it. Could that really be one of the 'brexit wins' worth destroying our relationship with our neighbours? Apparently so.
Satire is squeezed out when things get this stupid.
>Oh dear. I tried my hand at parody, and ended up being taken for a real brexiter. Please check my other contributions to confirm that I am not a swivel-eyed xenophobe!
>I couldn't quite believe the blue passport story when I read it. Could that really be one of the 'brexit wins' worth destroying our relationship with our neighbours? Apparently so.
>Satire is squeezed out when things get this stupid.
Problem is, Brexit-backers are plain stupid or xenophobic, how on earth are we to detect parody ? Brexiters are clowns (cf icon), sad clowns, and their jokes are not funny.
I am guessing a lot of people posting today took part in the "Sad Losers Parade", a week after the Gay Pride Parade.
To all the "Remain" sadsters, I suggest you actually go do some research on the UK and the EU, right back to the day BEFORE we signed up to the Common Market, when they secretly signed away our fishing grounds.
The French and Germans have ALWAYS been anti-British; year after year they have proved this, with treaty violations specifically aimed at the UK - the embargo on British lamb, British beef; so why the fuck should we keep subsidising them, or bowing to crappy EU laws that are based on shoddy French safety standards.??
(Waits for histrionic levels of down voting)
Truly sad, Ian.
We had a referrendum in 1975.
If your ilk hadn't spent 40 years whinging about the result we would have made an even greater success of our membership.
I will take no lecture from you over what I now say and do to protect my interests and those of my family.
I didnt get a vote, I was too young; but as I understand it, the vote was to join a "Common Market", not join "The Federal States of Europe".
I also remember the French blockading the ports and refusing to let BRITISH lamb in, long before NZ lamb became popular, and the French blockade on British beef is still ongoing, even the European court has ruled it illegal, but the French wont give it up - one of the reasons so much livestock mysteriously disappears from NI and reappears in Eire, where no such French blockade occurs.
As for whinging, no, I just voted on the historical and current FACTS, not those ridiculous claims made BY BOTH SIDES in the run up to the vote and quite honestly, I expected to lose due to the fear-mongering spread by the "impartial" government.
Under any competent government, we should rapidly recover and prosper outside of the EU, but I expect the sad bunch we have, both in power AND opposition, will drag things out for so long that we will have a very bad decade to come.
[HINT] Instead of "Quantitative Easing"; which just threw money at the prats that caused the crisis, they should have invested in INFRASTRUCTURE, like building Hinckley Point as a government investment, instead of toadying to the French tech industry - who havent even managed to get their first attempt at the design to work.
Far better to have triggered A50 the day after the vote, and let the markets sort themselves out, than this constant up and down, panic and profit; for several years the markets has been reported to be substantially over-valued, so a crash was coming either way.
Keep up the down-votes, I dont expect any better from you.
Ian,
The EEC always had a political goal of peace across the European continent. It's the British who tried to reduce it to its purely economical part. But that common market was /always/ a mean toward peace and unity, never the goal itself. That goes back to the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, between countries that just 5 years earlier were ending the worst bloodbath in their history, itself following a long line of previous bloodbathes.
Sorry that you missed that important bit, but as you can see, it's really not new, it's goes really deep.So the British have no right to act surprised about it. The political union has /always/ been what it is all about. I understand the British don't want it, so they should maybe have read the fine print better before joining. But now, psychologically, they sure made the right choice by leaving.
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history_en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community
Anyone who has to quote wiki has already lost the argument.
As for the europa link, you need to look at what went on in France a few years AFTER WWII, but before the C.M. was proposed.
A history written by someone about themselves only ever mentions the parts they want you to know; try reading 3rd party histories.
I am saddened at the lack of down-votes, I was expecting historic levels, and all I am seeing is the same few, petulant losers.
Do you even have the faintest understanding of what article 50 means or just how much our economy and regulations are tightly integrated into Europe? Untangling all of that is going to be a huge and incredibly expensive undertaking. For all the was wailing about a "sclerotic bureaucracy in Brussels" we are going to have to build a huge one in the UK to take back all the civil service functions that are currently handled in the EU. There is going to be a huge recruitment drive for civil servants coming up (we need a huge number just to handle the untangling).
Similarly depending on the nature of Brexit companies are going to have to put into place people to handle the new trade rules that are going to appear- being a pan European company in the UK is currently very easy because there is next to no extra paper work involved. Untangling our economic dependencies also means adding bureaucracy to our companies to add for the extra complexities that we currently need only for countries external to the EU.
For all the complaints about "unnecessary" EU regulations, just compare it to the complexities and extra work you have to go through to trade (or even collaborate, even within the same company) with the US or Japan. I have bitter and frustrating experiences with US and Japanese export regulations for combined use goods (and these apply for intangibles such as email and telephone conversations!), Get these wrong and it can mean gaol time- which if you are unlucky can be in the US as certain UK business men have found.
"but I expect the sad bunch we have, both in power AND opposition"
Well, that's how democracy works, both in the Westminster elections (though admittedly first past the post is considered less than perfectly democratic by some, including me) and the party leader elections. And I think it's a bit rich going on about "give us back our country" and "Parliament is sovereign" and then complain that Parliament is useless.
"You are speaking of the british lamb from New Zealand and of the mad cows from England?"
That is no way to talk about Maggy {1} Thatcher and Theresa May. Would that I could spell misogynist, I would call you one if I could.
Misodginistical <sic> swine and probably Johnny Foreigner to boot.
{1} The spill chucker showed and error and offered "saggy, baggy and mangy" as alternatives. A very prescient spill chucker methinks.
You realise that actually a lot of these "EU laws" originated from our contribution to the EU?
Also leaving the EU is not going to do any benefit to us for our fishing grounds- basically those are still going to be managed in the same way, although we are now going to be dealing with the EU as a block and not participating with the individual relevant countries within that block.
If that gurning gargoyle fat head Farage had actually turned up to and voted in more than 5% of the Fisheries commission meetings that he was supposed to then maybe our fishing grounds might be in a better position.
" or bowing to crappy EU laws that are based on shoddy French safety standards."
Hi Ian, this happens to be an area I used to do a bit of work in so I'm interested in hearing your point of view.
Could you give me an example of such a "crappy EU law based on shoddy French safety standards"?
As far as I'm aware a lot of safety-related regs in the EU have benefited significantly from UK input given how the country has managed to build up a good safety culture over the last few decades.
Incidentally, I thought that on the whole Brexiters were against "health and safety gone mad" and in favour of having British regulations which could reduce costs (presumably at the cost of reducing safety, efficiency and environmental standards). But now you seem to be advocating UK standards which are tougher than the EU standards. Please elucidate.
Look up info on cartridge fuses for portable appliances (ie 13amp plug fuses), and the downgrading of circuit breakers to the point where modern one are more useless than a fuse.
IEEE wiring 16th(?) regs were dumbed down to match EU rules and regs back in the late 80s/early 90s (?), but at the same time, a few stricter German electrical regs were added to consumer electrical rules (and nearly killed off the banana plug for HiFi use).
(?) It was a long time ago, and I cannot remember the exact year the revised regs came out.
I was thinking of something specific when I said French, but now I cant for the life of me remember what it was.
Then there is the stupid CE mark, which is completely worthless, yet replaces most BSI Kite marks as the "legal standard".
I left the trade a while back, and didnt keep any of the reference/regs books.
"IEEE wiring 16th(?) regs were dumbed down to match EU rules and regs back in the late 80s/early 90s (?), but at the same time, a few stricter German electrical regs were added to consumer electrical rules (and nearly killed off the banana plug for HiFi use)."
The IEEE produce wiring regs? Really?
Are you sure you're not just making that up?
IEE and now IET are uk organisations and the IEEE is an american organisation got nothing to do with EU regulations. FYI CENELEC is NOT an EU institution. For the banana plug I take you are referring to DIN, do note DIN socketplugs were not required for HiFi use and was mostly used on german A/V equipment. Most use now the Japanese/American sockets/plugs for A/V equipment.
"The French and Germans have ALWAYS been anti-British" well not quite - they've always been cautious of the British as we were often seen as being in the club purely to cause trouble and slow down its development on behalf of the US. We joined the ERM at a level that was designed to fail and, then as now, we pissed in our own chips and came out far worse for it.
Whatever happens now needs to happen fast - we're obviously in the worst of both worlds.
@Ian Emery, when you resort to bitching and name calling, you lose the plot and you should not be taken seriously.
That Brexit vote has already done billions of pounds worth of damage to the British economy and more of the same is yet to come. In addition, similar significant and long term damage is about to be inflicted on the British science community and all because of a pack of populist lies and deceit promulgated by Boris, Gove et al.
>The French and Germans have ALWAYS been anti-British; year after year they have proved this, with treaty violations specifically aimed at the UK - the embargo on British lamb, British beef; so why the fuck should we keep subsidising them, or bowing to crappy EU laws that are based on shoddy French safety standards.??
I down-voted you, poor sod ... now, lets get this straight:
> The French and Germans have ALWAYS been anti-British
Probably why the British got all those exemptions to the rules the others had to follow, right ?
>with treaty violations specifically aimed at the UK
Are you referring to arms exports to crooked states ? Says enough!
> the embargo on British lamb, British beef
Well, seeing as you had quite severe contamination problems, I guess it was only fair to ban the produce until you had cleaned-up your mess - you would not want to put hundreds of millions of people's health in jeopardy, right ? It had nothing to do with "British" more with "foot and mouth" and "mad cow" (and I am not referring to Mrs Thatcher, this time.), respectively.
>or bowing to crappy EU laws that are based on shoddy French safety standards.
What are you referring to, here? Not the prams, again, are you ? If safety standards as brought forward by the EU are poor, nothing stops the UK (or France, or Germany) from implementing more stringent standards ... what is your point ?
This post has been deleted by its author
A lot of projects only existed because of EU funding rather than serious scientific objectives. It's right that we review where the money goes and for what reasons. Too many academics in these new so-called universities (aka polytechnics) really ought to get real jobs (if they can) rather than planning a career of consecutive grant funded projects.
I was a supplier to a recent project which was the recipient of EU funding. The amount of that funding that had little to do with the actual project was mind blowing. As part of a video wall in the reception area we had to have a screen dedicated to the local bus and rail timetables. It was all part of sustainability they said along with enough bike racks for 80% of the staff. Getting the local bus company to give us a data feed was a huge waste of time with management and techies. For almost every pound of grant money received, about 30p went on EU mandated items that no one really wanted or needed. Sheer madness.
A lot of department heads are using Brexit as a reason to prune budgets and ensure their own survival. It was time for a close look at funding and Brexit was a perfect trigger.
Now in the aftermath of Brexit it becomes clear that project fear was if anything a highly optimistic view of what would be happening, I see some deluded comments about stopping payments to the EU and paying your own bills.
Yes,.. indeed. For instance for the amount of bureaucratic nonsense that had been delegated to the EU, which enable the UK to shrink its home bred bureaucrats down to pre war levels (not including the empire residents). Those that are remaining can now reluctantly start rewriting some 12K+ laws that used to be arranged as EU rules. There will be a great demand for new civil servants the upcoming years. I guess the 350 million a week will pale in comparison with the cost of increasing their numbers. Budget neutrality will be a dream from the past.
It can negotiate new trade agreements with it's current 12 trade experts (EU having 600 for comparison) and those are highly paid technical expert comparable to nuclear scientist who are going to have the ultimate shit job for years prying apart nucleus with their bare hands. Maybe a lordship as a bonus? Tax free for eternity? Okay,.. not enough eh? How about prima nocta!
That EU institutes are not going to compete for funds with a member that is about to leave and thus will not be eligible any more for those funds is an obvious thing. And this is just the scientific world we're talking about. The whole chain of demand and supply has been disrupted.
Parts of the UK voted to cut off the legs they were standing on for mainly petty reasons that were hardly related to the EU, but more a reflection of their own unwillingness to do the shitty jobs of weeding herbs and moving muck anywhere but their own little gardens.
And you can blame your entire political class (left and right) for not being able to point out the obvious benefits of the EU and what made those extra payments more than balance for the reduction of bureaucrats needed in the UK itself. The only good thing coming from the Brexit will be for the rest of Europe where the voices for leaving based on populist delusions are now silenced by the example the UK makes. Oh,.. so that's what they meant with the leave result being not so positive?
So yeah,.. maybe it is time to start campaigning for a "We're sadder and wiser now so let's stay after all" and hang Murdoch and his cronies by the bollocks. The referendum is legally non binding so there is some hope still to have an on second thought event happening. The pound being sub par with the Euro and Greece looking healthy in comparison might even make that a bit more palatable as well.
And if not, you can always sell the whole of Britain to the Chinese that will turn it into some f*ked up holiday park and will teach you how to skip ahead in the line at every occasion. They have plenty of experience in investing large sums in third world countries and ensuing looting the place, so why not the UK.
If the EU didn't exist, we'd be finding ways to introduce it again in Europe, so that it would be easier to do business together, to help developing areas (which would then become markets for our products), to protect our shared environment, to encourage the adoption of human rights for all across the continent, and to try to avoid the descent into extremism which has poisoned our joint history over the centuries.
Like any other human endeavour, there are problems, but the informed person can see beyond the screaming Daily Mail headlines. I feel sorry for the people who have poisoned themselves with decades of bullshit at the breakfast table. It ends up with the Ians of this world coming out with
"The French and Germans have ALWAYS been anti-British"
You could put any nationality into that sentence, and cherry pick examples to prove a point.
This is the essence of xenophobia. Followed to its ultimate conclusion you have less trade, less prosperity, greater distrust, and more war.
Is it really that hard to understand that it is not about straight cucumbers?
"… ever growing bureaucratic leach that the EU has become."
Ermm, I'm not sure where you're from, but in Britain a blood-sucking worm is a "leech".
I guess you're neither from the UK nor the US as both countries have form where it comes to having a huge amount of home-grown bureaucracy. (Just some examples: convoluted planning permissions and issued by UK local councils, and I gather the IRS in the US isn’t fun to deal with and there are differences in legislation between states which makes doing business across the country more difficult).
And a UK outside the EU is going to develop its own additional bureaucracy, so anyone doing business internationally is going to have more regulations to deal with, not fewer. As someone in that position (on a small scale) all I can say is “Thanks - not.”
I’m not saying the EU is perfect. But it works pretty well, it is most definitely not undemocratic and it makes doing business and living in the region much easier and more predictable.
You do something like that without it effecting ... well almost everything and NOT in a good way.
The real question is will you be better off as a nation in 5, 10, 15 years down the road.
Its like marriage. If its bad you end it. Its' going to get ugly. Sometimes they hate each other for life. Sometimes they eventually learn to put their differences aside and and successfully co-parent. Sometimes they move on to better healthier relationships while ending up the best for friends.
My gut says the "marriage" was on the rocks when you couldn't agree to a common currency, but I eventually the UK and the EU will become close friends, allies and collaborators in many areas.
But the healing can't begin until after Brexit is complete.
It's really simple. Gov takes a big axe to Corp tax, 0% for biz turnover to say £100k, sliding scale then to top tier, science industry has very low rates. This attracts investment across the board in the UK due to better rates. It might initially yield less tax at the beginning, however as the UK recovers, the employment rate goes up and they get their tax back via PAYE / VAT etc
I see the EU imploding in the next 10 years so the faster we can draw talent to our shores the better the country will be long term.
My EU research project comes to a close next March. We had already been in discussions about further research work with some of our team.
We'd already understood that we are Yesterday's People and involving us would be possibly destabilising, time consuming and, generally, an all round steaming headache.
This email is the first thing I've seen in writing about what's already freely talked about.
Meh. And double Meh.
Europeans would be foolish to start cooperating with Britons when there is so much uncertainty. How would it be possible to make a contract with a side who legal bases and rules are about to change?
It maybe time that Brexiters realize they have to hurry up to start negotiating, uncertainty has huge consequences.
Negotiation is quite simple:
[U]K[G]B: We want to be part of the single market, yet outside the EU.
EU: Fine, please recall all your MEP's, forget about all the advantages you previously had, ohh, BTW, here are the latest directives you have to implement to remain in the single market! Also, would you please regularize your financial position with us, since you left, you are no longer entitled to this, that, that, and that rebate/money-back plan. Thanks in advance.
The EU holds KB by the balls, now ;-), and they know it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
