UK prepares to go it alone on post-Brexit science plan Among her public first acts since becoming UK science minister, Michelle Donelan has said Britain is prepared to go it alone on scientific research as it struggles to reach an agreement with the EU on the UK's association with the lucrative Horizon programme. The move has been derided by scientists, who said quickly finding …
@BebopWeBop
"It's the morons who insist that the UK can 'have its cake and eat it' who are the problems here."
I assume you mean the 'scientists' complaining we should have access to Horizon when its not in our power to deliver (the EU are intentionally holding out on this, not the UK).
@AC
"Do you mean the 'scientists' who were reassured by proponents that Brexit would not undercut their ability to continue with their advanced research projects?"
You are right! The EU agreed that we would continue to be a part of horizon. Damn those lying bastards.
"The EU Research Commissioner recently told MEPs that, while British researchers’ participation in the current scheme is assured,
“For the next programming period, we need a little bit more time, a little bit more information to evaluate all this in a more in depth way.”"
Horizon Europe
Volume 815: debated on Monday 18 October 2021
So it wasn;t agreed, was it.
@codejunky
Your loyalty to the morons does you credit, but you might consider treatment for your hard-of-thinking problem.
I made the post above because I personally think we need the worst possible Brexit outcome so morons are shown the results of their approach. Then, and only then, can we remember the damage they've done is all (including themselves) and charge them with treason.
@NXM
"Your loyalty to the morons does you credit, but you might consider treatment for your hard-of-thinking problem."
You misread my comment. I am not supporting the 'experts' who seem to think the gov should deliver what the EU refuses. Its not in the UK's power to give. Try thinking about it again.
"I made the post above because I personally think we need the worst possible Brexit outcome so morons are shown the results of their approach"
You mean to remain? That would be the worst brexit outcome. Unfortunately NI was screwed by remain but it seems the gov is finally waking up to not being under the thumb... a bit slowly but getting there.
"Then, and only then, can we remember the damage they've done is all (including themselves) and charge them with treason."
I think that would be appropriate for the scum who without being elected to government took it upon themselves to hold meetings with the EU to undermine brexit.
FTFY - effectively the Politicians organized a vote and then had to sort out the Brexit agreement - but they didn't understand all of the consequences, fair enough because that was not anything that they had any experience in. If we replaced the Politicians with Scientists then after the original vote then the Scientists would have done a lot of research to work out all the potential consequences that we are now seeing these days - virtually none of which any moron said could happen.
I wonder if eventually Brexit might end up eliminating Politicians on all sides ... replacing them with Scientists might be an improvement.
I wonder if eventually Brexit might end up eliminating Politicians on all sides ... replacing them with Scientists might be an improvement.
Same comment about scientists as experts really. There are some very good people out there who are doing real research which could benefit society generally. There are also economists and sociologists (among others) who do the equivalent of carrying out surveys to see if bears shit in the woods.
I have only one problem with your post - it uses the word "expert" (well technically experts) and does not give a definition. Unfortunately in our modern times the definition seems to have shifted from someone who knows (nearly) everything about a topic to who's got the biggest gob!
@LybsterRoy
"I have only one problem with your post - it uses the word "expert" (well technically experts) and does not give a definition. Unfortunately in our modern times the definition seems to have shifted from someone who knows (nearly) everything about a topic to who's got the biggest gob!"
As I understand it the world followed the experts over covid. And around the world enacted very different policies. Guess 'experts' dont all agree either
Even now, they still can’t admit that this is all caused by Brexit.
That's a rather bizarre statement, since all sides are in complete agreement that this situation only exists because of Brexit, and the refusal of the EU to implement the withdrawal agreement it signed up to 18 months ago.
I think you'll find that the EU have implemented their side of the deal. The sticking point is Johnson's "over ready deal" and the Northern Ireland Protocol. Which the UK are now complaining about, even though it was entirely Johnson's idea.
I think you'll find that the EU have implemented their side of the deal.
No, it has not. The EU is still "finalizing the UK's participation". The ball is entirely in the EU court, they are dragging their heels until the UK agrees to do what the EU wants in a completely separate area.
Separate area? Such as signing and abiding by a Brexit agreement.
There is no separate area, the EU agreement is a package deal and you can't pick the parts you like and renegotiate the rest. The EU tried to make this clear from the very beginning, but British politicians were a bit preoccupied with internal politicking and never seemed to get the message.
The person who "negotiated it" never intended to honour it. He's never honoured any other agreement in his life, which is why I'm still amazed at the stupidity of his paramour in actually marrying him, after he divorced his then wife, who happened to be undergoing cancer treatment at the time.
What a gent.
He just makes a mess and then fucks off leaving it for others to clear up. There's no hope for those who can't even realise that they've been taken for a ride.
> There's no hope for those who can't even realise that they've been taken for a ride.
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get someone to understand they've been taken for a ride, when preserving their fragile ego depends on their not understanding that.”
all i can add, having met the gentleman in question and having the experience of him lying to my face about things he “improved’ (reality, made far, far worse) during tenure as mayor - if he said Brexit was a good thing, everyone knew it was a bad thing. Anyone who voted for it, knew beyond doubt they were voting to hurt other people.
Without compromising people: a few years ago, the johnson was foreign secretary and there were multiple anniversaries of independence linked to Soviet Union collapsing and the illegally occupied countries becoming nation states. There was a reception in London, hosted by Foreign Office, and their own boss decided he was too important to even present. Sir Humphrey & equivalents were doing the rounds, as were some junior ministers, but the foreign secretary was, according to journos present, at a dinner with some people one could kindly call lobbyists and potential funders for his next campaign.
Oven ready deal - yeah, for chosen definitions of oven.
About as honest as Daniel Hannan lying that single market still an option, or the various suggestions of “global” deals, or any attempt from farage claiming he’s that pro-Trump is not pro-racist and pro-Putin, when the world can see these things.
@Schultz
"There is no separate area, the EU agreement is a package deal and you can't pick the parts you like and renegotiate the rest. The EU tried to make this clear from the very beginning, but British politicians were a bit preoccupied with internal politicking and never seemed to get the message."
This being a fantastic reason for the UK to unilaterally rip up the agreement as it was not negotiated in good faith. The EU actively violated the negotiation rules which did not allow for holding up all negotiations while negotiating a part of it. The EU used NI intentionally and due to remainers negotiating on our side we got the NI protocol which the EU cant even stick to.
>This being a fantastic reason for the UK to unilaterally rip up the agreement
How is having a toddler tantrum going to help?
>due to remainers negotiating on our side we got the NI protocol
I had always thought Boris et al were dedicated hard Brexiteers...
Before you get started on May etc., if Boris had been properly advised he could have withdrawn the UK's leave notice and resubmitted it shortly after and thus restarted then whole process with a clean slate.
-- if Boris had been properly advised he could have withdrawn the UK's leave notice and resubmitted it shortly after and thus restarted then whole process with a clean slate. --
1. I didn't realise that was in the protocol. Is it really?
2. Doing so would have just given the remain mob a second chance to screw things up even worse that they have achieved.
“ Doing so would have just given the remain mob a second chance to screw things up even worse that they have achieved”
Somehow, with a majority brexiter government and a brexiter cabinet, a deal negotiated by brexiters and a situation that brexiters were wholly in control of was screwed up by Remainers? You realise how daft that sounds, right? Are you saying the rabid brexiters we had in absolute control weren’t rabid enough?
@redpola
"Somehow, with a majority brexiter government and a brexiter cabinet"
Was it? When?
"a deal negotiated by brexiters"
Was it? When?
"a situation that brexiters were wholly in control of"
When the hell was that?
"You realise how daft that sounds, right?"
Those claims do sound very daft. Cameron was remain, May was remain, Boris inherited May's deal and picked the brexit side to be elected PM. Hell even the official brexit campaign was chosen by remain and wasnt the very people who got the brexit vote to happen.
@AC
"How is having a toddler tantrum going to help?"
It doesnt which is why the EU was so bad at negotiating. The negotiators had the conflicting instructions of punish the UK and enable trade so as not to kill the eurozone again. Failure to negotiate in good faith (as the EU did) means in adulting world that the contract stands for as long as we are willing to entertain it but isnt strictly valid. As the EU cant abide by it anyway (again toddler tantrum) we are well within our rights.
"I had always thought Boris et al were dedicated hard Brexiteers..."
I am sure some people may think that but he would sit on any side to get the votes. He was a last hope at best. But he inherited Mays deal which was intentionally BINO.
"Before you get started on May etc., if Boris had been properly advised he could have withdrawn the UK's leave notice and resubmitted it shortly after and thus restarted then whole process with a clean slate."
Why would we do that? Go through all those legal challenges again from traitors and scum trying to undermine the UK and sell us out in the negotiations. And the 2 year negotiation already dragged on for longer.
I had always thought Boris et al were dedicated hard Brexiteers...
apparently, he agonised long and hard which side to support - right up until he realised that the Brexit lies could help him catapault to power and also make lots of money.
Conscience? What conscience?
Yeah, I can really see all those "fantastic trade deals" lining up after we do the international equivalent of standing on the table at a party and taking a big dump on it.
The logic, which is quite clear, is that nobody is going to want to go anywhere near making any sort of agreement with someone who publicly and obviously tears up the one they just made, which they, unnecessarily, backed themselves into making, before publicly declaring that it was the best deal they could possibly get.
To think otherwise is the true paragon of wishful thinking cross-bred with naïveté, and your loyalty to these clowns is both touching, and deeply disturbing.
@Potemkine!
"Please show me where in the withdrawal agreement EU said that UK will be included in the 'Horizon' program whatsoever?"
Maybe this will help-
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/horizon-scanning-is-there-any-hope-for-uk-membership-of-horizon-europe/
Its the post brexit trade and cooperation agreement.
"So why the delay? This is where the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP) issues come into play. The NIP forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA), the divorce text between the UK and the EU. In order to uphold the Good Friday Agreement, and ensure there was no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Northern Ireland stayed in the EU Customs Union and Single Market for goods. The effect of this was essentially an East/West border (i.e. a border down the Irish sea) and a potential role for EU institutions, including the European Court of Justice, in overseeing the NIP. The UK government has decided this is unacceptable and is currently taking the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (NIPB) through parliament. This will turn off a number of provisions in the NIP and give the UK government extensive powers to apply its own system."
So not in the withdrawal agreement.
>"Maybe this will help-
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/horizon-scanning-is-there-any-hope-for-uk-membership-of-horizon-europe/
Its the post brexit trade and cooperation agreement."
Interesting, possibly a good example of a failure to do detail...
Whilst it would seem everyone assumed the UK would be part of Horizon Europe, the withdrawal agreement fell short, as it did not include the EU conferring the fundamentally important ‘associated country status’ on the UK.
The devil is always in the detail...
"Even now, they still can’t admit that this is all caused by Brexit"
Indeed, although it's Johnson's ultra hard Brexit that has caused the current situation and May's softer Brexit would probably have preserved most, if not all, of the science and technology links with Europe.
I think that Donelan's statement is both premature and unhelpful because there is a case for cautious optimism. If the UK and EU can come up with an agreement to solve the Northern Ireland Protocol issue then that does potentially open the way to the UK joining the Horizon programme and other initiatives, e.g. becoming a formal Associated State like Norway is for science and technology cooperation purposes.
>agreement to solve the Northern Ireland Protocol issue
I think there is a workable technical solution.
3d movies were a flop so there are lots of pairs of 3d glasses around, more than enough to give them free to anyone in Northern Ireland/The 6 counties/Ulster/The ancient lands stolen from our ancestors (delete as appropriate). We can simply swap left/right eye lenses so that those that believe that the flat matso ball is the body and blood of the big man's lad and those that believe pipes and drum are music can have totally opposite glasses.
Then we simply put polarizers on the custom posts on top of the old red/green channels.
That way the sons of the Ard Rí can not see a border post across the island, while seeing one at Belfast docks and the fans of Cromwell can see border posts on land but not the ones facing the Irish sea.
has failed to negotiate an ongoing association with the Horizon programme
is not an entirely accurate statement of the position. Continuing UK access to Horizon was an accepted part of the withdrawal agreement signed by UK and EU 18 months ago, and the UK has £2bn+ per year set aside for it. The problem is that the EU is refusing to respect the agreement until completely unrelated issues like the NI protocol are settled, essentially trying to blackmail the UK into accepting its terms. For now the UK is guaranteeing research grants that would be paid out of Horizon funds.
Neither UK scientists nor government want the UK to leave Horizon and look for other partners, and it's hard to believe that EU scientists would want that either, but unless EU politicians accept the agreement they signed and stop acting in bad faith there may not be any other option. No surprise that the government's trying to put a positive spin on it, of course, they won't want the EU to think that it can extort further changes to the NI protocol. That is a wholly separate issue, and should remain so.
The EU, and Northern Ireland, are pretty happy with the Northern Ireland Protocol. It's a good deal for both of them.
The UK Brexiteers, who came up with the protocol, are the ones who are now complaining.
(They're not "completely unrelated issues", they're both solidly linked to the UK leaving the EU and the Withdrawal Agreement.)
I think you'll find they came second in the last election. They should have had another election by now, but our NI minister keeps kicking that can down the road (with dubious legality under the GFA). I can't imagine the DUP will do better than last time when the next election for the NI Assembly does eventually come along.
Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our Glorious Brexit. What are you, some sort of traitor intent on doing our country down?
Don't you know we should not listen to anyone who knows what they are talking about. His Holy Goveness himself told us so.
We'll send John Redwood to personally take charge of your re-education shortly.
Funny that... The party with the most votes (Sinn Féin, *not* the DUP) is held hostage by the party who didn't get the most votes, but who has traditionally had the most (because Unionist).
Sinn Féin is just as keen to get things sorted, but the DUP are being twats by holding up the processes under the Good Friday Agreement (whilst claiming to have the GFA in mind). I hope the next election (as promised by the Tories) costs the DUP even more votes just to drive home the point that they are no longer the grand poobah in Norn Iron and that people are fed up with having their lives f***ed with just because a Unionist party didn't like the end result.
"So why is the largest political group in NI refusing to allow an assembly to be formed due to it's objection to the NI protocol?"
That is a factually incorrect statement. The largest bloc in the Northern Ireland Assembly based on the last election is the nationalist bloc comprising parties that are committed to Irish unification, i.e. Sinn Fein, Social Democratic and Labour Party and People Before Profit.
Equally importantly, the business community in Northern Ireland does not have an overt objection to the Northern Ireland protocol although they would like to see the rough edges smoothed off the current trading arrangement which could very well happen in the near future.
I see someone down-voted you for applying facts to a religious discussion there. Doubly so, since it involves both brexit and the problems in Northern Ireland (thankfully, no longer The Troubles). Thankfully, for the younger generations of people living there, it isn't quite so much about Catholics and Protestants wanting to murder each other any more.
Yes there is "blackmail" but it's HMG who are guilty here. They negotiated in bad faith and almost immediately broke agreements or at least threatened to do so if they didn't get their way.
Also I would suggest you look at the Tory history on "Money set aside for..." and "Money spent on..." and you'll find while the Tories are big on promises they never ever carry them out.
"Completely Unrelated" in this context means "part of the exact same withdrawal agreement", right? The one that the UK has already tried to break international law over because no amount of writhing, doublethink and lying will make Northern Ireland both fit entirely in the UK, without any borders, and also within the island of Ireland without any borders (as required by another, better drafted, and more important international treaty).
All this demonstrates is the staggering ignorance (of Irish history, basic economics, and several other matters) and fuzzy thinking displayed by brexiters.
Presuming your reference to "another, better drafted, and more important international treaty" refers to the Belfast Agreement (aka the Good Friday Agreement), would you be so kind as to quote the precise clause of that agreement that states explicitly that there may not be any borders within the island of Ireland?
It has been a while since I last read it through thoroughly, so I admit I may have forgotten that being in there, but I don't recall it.
I do recall that the agreement repeatedly makes reference to cross-border institutions etc - the term 'Cross-border' occurring repeatedly throughout the document. That rather suggests that the Good Friday Agreement explicitly requires a border within the island of Ireland (one does tend to need a border, if one wants to have a cross-border institution).
Sadly you will be downvoted because it's easier to believe that Horizon exists in a completely isolated bubble than accept it's being used as a political football.
As with all things EU and Brexit related, public statements are less about the reality of the ongoing negotiations and more about how the respective parties want the negotiations to be perceived. Both sides essentially want to say "our choice is the best for the public", when their choice inevitably has costs and consequences. The "toys out of the pram" announcements are often more negotiating tactics than deep political beliefs.
We should be clear that Horizon is part of the 'carrot and stick' of the membership programme. Unfortunately, your (and shortly, my) downvotes come from people who only see the carrot.
The TCA doesn't specify a timeframe for Horizon.
The UK can complain all it likes that progress on Horizon is slow, but it wants the EU to comply with the spirit of the agreement when it itself is not complying with the letter of the agreement.
When (if?) the UK manages to implement its side of the letter of the agreement, then as if by magic progress will be made on the spirit of the agreement. It's usually the way.
Well, if that were true, there would not be a problem.
Assuming the data is correct in this link:
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
in 2015/16, UK NHS spending 141.1 Billion (in 2022 figures); in 2021/22, 199 Billion. the £350 million / week equates to just over £18 billion (in 2016 figures, but that will not be significant). The actual rise is just under £60 billion.
Therefore it is the case that the promise of an additional £350 million a week has been honoured and more than honoured.
(The figures I pulled from the site appear to be health and social care, not just health, but both needed the money; also noted that they appear to be figures just for England)
The thing is, that the NHS gets a year-on-year increase anyway, due to two factors: inflation, and changing demographics (whodathunkit, older people need more medical care).
The loss of income to the UK from leaving the EU far outweighs the "£350M a week" figure, by about £90M apparently.
Is this money actually going to the NHS, or money that the tories make the NHS hand over to private healthcare providers that just happened to donate to the tory party up front?
https://www.nhsforsale.info/private-providers/nhs-spend-on-private-companies-up-27-per-cent-in-a-year/
Even if what you claimed was true- and that's open to dispute as others have mentioned- the fact that spending went up proves nothing in itself if that money came from existing funds. (Though I was correct when I predicted that that the Tories and people like yourself would use this tactic to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.)
The bus claim was that "We send the EU £350 million (*) a week - let's fund our NHS instead", the clear implication being that meant £350m extra- i.e. £350m over and above what we'd have had available to spend otherwise.
It doesn't matter that the UK government chose to spend however much more on the NHS (or on anything else) if that money simply came from existing funds they'd already have had available whether or not we'd left the EU (and where both those existing funds and the choice to spend or not spend them had nothing to do with the EU or Brexit in the first place).
Still not clear? If someone boasts that they're so brilliant they're certain to be awarded a huge pay rise, it proves nothing when they turn up in a shiny new car if they didn't get the pay rise and funded the car via existing savings, income or a loan they could have got anyway.
In short- either the UK is £350m a week better off- as promised- as a result of leaving the EU or it isn't.
(*) And again, this isn't even allowing for the fact that the £350m figure was never correct in the first place as, amongst other things, it didn't allow for the UK's rebate which got factored in before the money was ever owed.
Dear E. Muskrat,
Was that comment directed at me?
If so, please explain why presenting factual data (or at least apparently factual data ) that disproves a statement made by another forum member constitutes being a 'far-right troll'?
If you wish to dispute the figures I referred to in relation to the NHS funding, please act like a civilised and intelligent human being and present your facts (or what you believe to be facts) that would undermine the technical point of my argument.
The fact that you have resorted to name calling rather indicates that any troll-ish behaviour here is on your part.
I look forward to seeing you in-depth assessment of NHS funding since 2016, to prove that the original post was correct and that the figures I presented were incorrect.
...I'll just add, that I didn't have you specifically in mind. There are two or three prominent posters I was very obviously trolling.
Your particular handle isn't on my radar, so my advice would probably be to steer clear of that particular set of bad apples and try to play nicely with the other kids who aren't known biters.
Could be that since it's now 13 years since Labour lost power, there are an increasing number of techies who are to young to remember that the opposition are just as bad as the current lot in power.
As the old song goes: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in"
Onoes, not the hellbeast that is the Grauniad! Run for the hills!
In other news, those whose best argument is to insinuate that their debating partners are reading the "wrong" papers, may be lacking something in their arguments. Especially if the paper they point fingers at happens to be a well respected one, and not, for instance, one that is repeatedly forced to print retractions for front-page lies, or which is likely to spontaneously catch fire if found within the bounds of the City of Liverpool...
Seriously, yes, the output of the Guardian is left-of-centre. I'd advise people to get their news from more than one source, but if being the target of right-wing hatred is a badge of honour, the Guardian wears it well, and if you're the one spewing that hatred, well, you've figuratively just stood up and shouted "I'm a plonker"* to the whole room.
*Or post-watershed equivalent for when the kiddies aren't listening.
@Elongated Muskrat
"In other news, those whose best argument is to insinuate that their debating partners are reading the "wrong" papers, may be lacking something in their arguments."
Thank you. The number of times I get accused of reading the mail or whatever by lacking fools is ridiculous. Also I am glad I didnt insinuate people were 'reading' the wrong papers, just that a certain... political and ideological leaning has increasingly shown up recently in reg comments. A similar shift in writers for the reg seems to have occurred too.
"Seriously, yes, the output of the Guardian is left-of-centre. I'd advise people to get their news from more than one source"
While breaking some good stories (Snowden) it is generally a funny pages especially the more opinionated the article gets. They even had (dunno if they still do) Polly Toynbee writing for them which provided fodder for an entire website and I think even a book called Factchecking Pollyanna. And thankfully they dont have Jessica Valenti any more, especially in current MeToo climate. I occasionally look at the guardian but I then have to look at the fact checking before I can take anything away from it.
I mean, you do tend to use a lot of the very-right-wing talking points that The Heil* likes to plaster on its front pages, so one would be forgiven for thinking that you read it. I guess you get your dose of hate from GB News and watching Youtube videos of Nigel Farage instead?
As for fact checking, presumably you only do this for things that you don't agree with, because an awful lot of your posts are woefully lacking in an attachment to factual reality.
*I am aware of the irony of picking someone up for playing the "you read the wrong newspaper" game. However, the Daily Mail is a special case; it was founded as a "gossip rather than news" paper, actively supported Hitler, and is very well known for having inflammatory content on its front page, which it frequently has to retract (usually in a tiny inset on p34) on the basis that it is completely factually incorrect.
@Elongated Muskrat
"I mean, you do tend to use a lot of the very-right-wing talking points that The Heil* likes to plaster on its front pages, so one would be forgiven for thinking that you read it. I guess you get your dose of hate from GB News and watching Youtube videos of Nigel Farage instead?"
Actually no. The only time I see GB News is when someone links to it (not necessarily on here) and the only time I see a video with Farage is the occasional one on Fortune and Freedom (a site I also take with a pinch of salt). I get my news predominantly from 63 news sites and blogs leaning left and right and also from various countries (that provide an English version). You?
"As for fact checking, presumably you only do this for things that you don't agree with, because an awful lot of your posts are woefully lacking in an attachment to factual reality."
I try to cross check news against different news outlets as the bias (whatever it might be, not just political) can cause information to be missed. Such at the stupidity of certain sources crying that our brexit negotiators had nothing in front of them in the picture while the EU negotiators did. Counterbalanced by sources pointing out they didnt need to have anything in front of them, it wasnt for them to do so.
Your perception of reality against my posts being amusing after some of our previous exchanges but do go on.
The El Reg forums have started to lean somewhat more to Port over the last few years.
IS2R that Brexit was much more highly supported, too.
It's an interesting phenomenon. Mind you, I live in a true blue village in Zahawi's seat and I no longer have to pretend to vote the way I sound.
Interesting times.
Not strictly true; it will show you the date they last changed their handle, and, as I discovered, if you do so, you lose your badge as well.
My own posts go back far before the advent of the likes of CJ, f'rinstance.
Bring back the moderatrix I say, she'll sort this out!
There's plenty of people in the middle (I'd consider myself a little to the left of centre, but pretty much there). To the likes of CJ, though, I'm probably some terrible Marxist-Leninist that wants to repossess his house and turn it into a tractor factory, or something.
There are only a handful of the real hard right-wingers, who are very vocal, but, as their ground has shifted further and further to the right, they have found themselves still standing on it, and I think it is not unfair to describe them now as far-right. They're the ones who'd advocate the sort of rhetorioc coming for the current Home Secretary when referring to those fleeing and seeking asylum. The sort of rhetoric that very much matches "a Very Well Known 20th Century Far Right Party That Must Not Be Named for Fear of Invoking Godwin". That one.
As for far-left? Well, yes, I do see some naive leftist "Take everything into public ownership" type posts, the sort of ideology that evaporates pretty quickly when it comes to the practicalities of actually governing. I see very little of it here, though, compared to the fascist drivel that some people spout.
-- as their ground has shifted further and further to the right, they have found themselves still standing on it --
I would probably see it as more of "as more and more progressive ideologies are rammed down our collective throats some people seem to be far right when in fact they haven't changed a bit"
I do apologise for the use of the word "progressive" - yet another one who's meaning has shifted dramatically in my lifetime.
@Elongated Muskrat
"There's plenty of people in the middle (I'd consider myself a little to the left of centre, but pretty much there). To the likes of CJ, though, I'm probably some terrible Marxist-Leninist that wants to repossess his house and turn it into a tractor factory, or something."
I have no idea. Generally I just see you as a remainer (fairly sure thats on point). Based on your self-confidence (cant find a better word for now) of your remain beliefs I consider you staunch remainer, not quite consider you rabid remainer yet ;)
"There are only a handful of the real hard right-wingers"
One amusement over brexit is the bone headed stupidity some people insist on. Brexit wasnt right wing and neither was remain. It was a cross party issue and voter wise it was the reds that voted leave too. It wasnt some right wing effort, it was pro or anti EU membership.
> Brexit wasnt right wing
It very much was in this case, i.e. in terms of the motives of the hard right-wingers that wanted it in the first place, drove and shaped it as a vehicle to deliver their desired laissez-faire, low-tax, low-protections, low-rent race-to-the-bottom capitalist society and the form it was delivered in as a result.
> It was a cross party issue
There may have been some useful idiot "Lexiteers" who wanted it for their own reasons and thought they could then exploit it to turn it into a (supposedly) left-wing-driven Brexit. Ignoring the fact that it was the aforementioned hard-right Tories, UKIPpers at al that were in control, not them.
Regardless, their support was small fry compared to those on the right.
> voter wise it was the reds that voted leave too
Nah, the fact that many of those people (i.e. the ex-"Red" Wall sellouts et al) were willing to shift to the "Get Brexit Done" Tories in 2019 showed that they weren't "red" in any worthwhile sense.
@AC
"It very much was in this case, i.e. in terms of the motives of the hard right-wingers that wanted it in the first place, drove and shaped it as a vehicle to deliver their desired laissez-faire, low-tax, low-protections, low-rent race-to-the-bottom capitalist society and the form it was delivered in as a result."
So the people who campaigned and voted for leave being a cross party of left and right but because you disagree with them call them right wing?
"Nah, the fact that many of those people (i.e. the ex-"Red" Wall sellouts et al) were willing to shift to the "Get Brexit Done" Tories in 2019 showed that they weren't "red" in any worthwhile sense."
No true scotsman! Disown the left for being too far right! Yes comrade.
> So the people who campaigned and voted for leave being a cross party of left and right but because you disagree with them call them right wing?
Your claiming that doesn't make it so.
The aforementioned few token useful idiot Lexiteers never made it meaningfully cross-party.
Brexit is- and always was- driven by those on the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party (i.e. the right of the right) and the likes of UKIP dominated by defectors from the latter. Cameron only called the Brexit vote as a woefully (and contemptibly) misjudged sop to the latter he hoped would shut them up once they'd lost as expected.
> No true scotsman! Disown the left for being too far right! Yes comrade.
Nice strawman, but are you seriously trying to argue that anyone willingly voting Tory still gets to be considered "left wing"?
They may once have been "red"- whether one uses that to mean "left wing" or a "Labour supporter"- but the ones who abandoned Labour for the Tories were by definition no longer the latter and- by common sense- no longer the former.
@AC
"The aforementioned few token useful idiot Lexiteers never made it meaningfully cross-party."
Amusingly Corbyn pre-leadership was anti-EU and during leadership showed little leadership. He is a marxist who's second in command was a commie. How right wing were they? I suppose from the perspective of Kim Jong maybe. And the brexit vote only carried beyond 50% due to labour (and left) voters also voting leave.
"Brexit is- and always was- driven by those on the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party (i.e. the right of the right) and the likes of UKIP dominated by defectors from the latter. Cameron only called the Brexit vote as a woefully (and contemptibly) misjudged sop to the latter he hoped would shut them up once they'd lost as expected."
Yup. That and UKIP gained a serious support from both tory and labour voters who saw little difference between the parties and none of them acting on their offer of a say over membership. Blair was elected on a manifesto of giving a referendum over EU diktat (never happened of course). Cameron with his cast iron guarantee built like a chocolate teapot.
This is the tribal stupidity of things I like = left, things I dont like = right. The answer being nope.
[Citation Required] throughout.
Thanks AC, for picking up this baton and running with it, there's little point in arguing with this particular one though, and I fear you are wasting your time unless you find it entertaining to troll him, or bait him into posting something that gets his posts removed by a moderator.
To butcher a proverb, "You can lead a brexiter to consequences, but you can't make him think." in this case, the entire world will be pointing and laughing at what a stupid idea brexit ever was before he'll admit to being wrong about anything. He'll argue with his dying breath that the EU is some evil monster determined to poison your well and steal your women.
@Elongated Muskrat
"To butcher a proverb, "You can lead a brexiter to consequences, but you can't make him think.""
I see the consequences (you post drivel and cant respond when shown wrong) and I seem to be the one doing the thinking. You really are butchering this aint ya
> Corbyn pre-leadership was anti-EU and during leadership showed little leadership.
That's one of the few things we'll agree on. Whether Corbyn's "conversion"- from being a "Lexiteer"- was ever sincere is questionable, and whether Labour's lacklustre support of Remain- which in a narrow-fought contest might have made all the difference- was down to lack of enthusiasm on his part or outright malicious is something I've questioned before.
@AC
"That's one of the few things we'll agree on."
This is the regularly forgotten fact that brexit was supported from left and right, just as remain was. One of the complaints about brexit is how everyone had a different vision of leave, which is true. Just as remain was made up of many people with wildly conflicting visions of remain too.
This is why it is extremely wrong (not even a grey area) to say brexit was a right wing thing and remain a left wing thing. The negotiations were carried out by the Tories but the referendum and support for remain/leave crossed parties and ideologies
> To the likes of CJ, though, I'm probably some terrible Marxist-Leninist that wants to repossess his house and turn it into a tractor factory, or something
CJ didn't get where he is today by not adopting the partisan hysteria of American republicans who think anything to the left of Ayn Rand (including the US Democratic party) is rabid Marxism.
(Surprised he hasn't emigrated there to live in his true spiritual home yet.)
But, then again, Dr Alice Roberts also said that: "Thisands of yars ago ancient Britons all lived in rind hyses (houses made entirely of rind)".
One can only assume therefore that she was being prescient in actually predicting our post-Brexit impoverishment. So maybe UK science does work proper like after all.
"the ruling Conservative party faces re-election at the end of next year."
I think you will find, actually strongly HOPE that we in the UK will find, that the ruling Conservative party faces a General Election by the end of 2023. The prospect of this lot being re-elected ...
(Sorry, I just needed a little something distilled to drink* and a lie down.)
Anyway, the prospect of this lot being re-elected, does not bear thinking about.
AND B R E A T H E
*Not water, a beautiful yellowy-brown something from those nice Scottish people on an island somewhere.
@Steve Button
"Honestly, the prospect of ANY of them being elected scares the shit out of me, as they will all fuck it up in new and different ways."
That the current government should be voted out next election should be a thought of joy. Even amongst tory voters who wonder where their party has gone. But unfortunately I dont like the options available to us currently, I dont see one I would vote for.
That's it for the UK. We're just circling the plughole of irrelevance now. And the EpochTimes reading, salad dodging Gammonati are all here to comment in force. I think that's it for this site too. It was fun for a while but has turned sour. Circa 2016 for some reason. Fare thee well El Reg.
This brexiter "go it alone" or "we'll go and play with someone else's ball" treats scientific collaborations as if they were sausages, entirely interchangeable,
OK, there are people who work on topics that interest me in Buenos Aires, Cape Town, Sydney and several Canadian cities.
But it's hardly an accident that the ones with whom I have the closest academic relationships are in Slovenia, Italy, Germany.
Yes, part of that is that the EU has (indirectly) paid for me to go there a number of times in the past. But the underlying reason is that it's a good deal easier to get on EasyJet from Stansted to a familiar place an hour away than Qantas from Heathrow via somehere-or-other and death- warmed-up on the other side of the planet.
And because the places are familiar and easy to get to, I have productive longstanding collaborations with various people in Europe.
I can't just "slot in" a replacement from some other continent.
@Dr Paul Taylor
"This brexiter "go it alone" or "we'll go and play with someone else's ball" treats scientific collaborations as if they were sausages, entirely interchangeable,"
Except it isnt brexiter 'go it alone'. Its EU misbehaving and messing about so why should we sit on our hands and wait for them to budge (when they make clear its all about punishing the UK and getting their own way in a tantrum)? This isnt brexiter go it alone, this is the UK getting on while the EU continues to suck its thumb
It's sovereignty, innit?
We retain the right to sit in the corner and wail about how unfair it is that the local gang won't let us set the rules now we've told them what we think of them and stormed out of the clubhouse.
The EU are playing hardball over Horizon in the light us demonstrating bad faith over Northern Ireland. Quelle surprise.
It's called 'real politik'. Once upon a time we were quite good at it, but the self-absorbed entitled lightweights currently presuming to 'rule the country', while still having all the gear, clearly have no idea.
Except, of course, that they are there to look after the interests of their paymasters. Whether they are even doing that with any competence is arguable.
@Adair
"It's sovereignty, innit?"
Yes. The EU can huff and puff and scweem untiw its bwu in da face but its not our problem. They can hold their breath until they pass out and its not our issue. They can stamp their feet all they like but we dont have to comply.
"The EU are playing hardball over Horizon in the light us demonstrating bad faith over Northern Ireland. Quelle surprise."
The EU are already acting in bad faith over NI which was the issue in the first place. An agreement reached in bad faith (EU side) and the EU continue to cry. I just wish we would get a gov who told them to grow up, put the border back where it actually is and let the bed wetters over there sort themselves out.
"It's called 'real politik'. Once upon a time we were quite good at it, but the self-absorbed entitled lightweights currently presuming to 'rule the country', while still having all the gear, clearly have no idea."
I dont disagree. Electing light weights who just appease the EU (Blair worked really hard as PM to get his EU jobs) didnt go well.
"Whether they are even doing that with any competence is arguable."
Whenever anyone tries to convince me of government competence I have to look at them sideways. Yet some people think another layer of government improves that!
So what was the 'bad faith' of the EU over NI?
There is a 'border issue'. Mr. Johnson promised there would be no border down the Irish Sea, which means a border between NI and the rest of Ireland. Mr. Johnson et al then made an agreement involving a 'border' down the Irish Sea, which obviously has not sat well with certain factions. Mr. Johnson et al decided their agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on, and everyone has been trying to find a way out of the mess ever since.
No one pretends it's simple or easy, but being an ass by making promises then promptly breaking them is never helpful to generating confidence or trust.
@Adair
"So what was the 'bad faith' of the EU over NI?"
The EU negotiators were called out for insisting UKIP were not allowed in the room for negotiations. They had no right to dictate such. They stalled negotiations until NI was dealt with against the very rules of the negotiations that no one part can hold up the rest. In the spirit of the NI agreement the UK can send to NI with little friction which the EU refuse to abide.
And this is with help from remainers to get the best deal they could. God help them if a brexiter gets in charge, the EU will panic.
What the hell have UKIP got to do with anything—loud bluster from the sidelines, and running for cover whenever anything remotely looking like 'taking responsibility' seems to be coming their way. They were never even in the room, let alone serious and responsible players.
As for the rest, that really is a matter of point of view. For anyone who is desperate for a scapegoat to beat on the 'EU' has always been a useful bogeyman, anything rather than face home truths about the state of the nation and why and how we got here.
@Adair
"What the hell have UKIP got to do with anything"
Read my comment you may have a hope of understanding. I cant make it any clearer.
"They were never even in the room, let alone serious and responsible players."
You are so close to reading my comment. Its really close.
Why wasn't Tufton Street allowed into the negotiations? Why wasn't the Green Party allowed into the negotiations? Why wasn't the SNP allowed into the negotiations.
"You are so close to reading my comment. Its really close."
So close to not being a nimrod. So close, but no cigar.
>"The EU negotiators were called out for insisting UKIP were not allowed in the room for negotiations."
What have you been smoking Codejunky?
UKIP didn't have an MP in Westminster and do you seriously think the UK Government would have stepped aside to allow a bunch of unelected, self appointed nutters (*)negotiate on their behalf?
UKIP lost their petitions (to Westminster) and lost in every general election, they had (and continue to have) no basis on which to claim they represent the British people...
(*) I note Henry Bolton - UKIP leader in 2017 used a Nazi salute to the audience - there are pictures on the Internet from sources other than the Guardian...
@Roland6
"UKIP didn't have an MP in Westminster and do you seriously think the UK Government would have stepped aside to allow a bunch of unelected, self appointed nutters (*)negotiate on their behalf?"
Nope and I didnt even say that so what have you been smoking? UKIP were invited to a meeting and the EU refused to discuss anything while they were in the room. The EU twits had no right to demand so and it was even brought up at the EU (thats how I know about it, I watched the twits laughing as the issue was brought up. Little children they are). Hopefully I can find the video again from years ago because it is worth a watch but facts matter little if you keep smoking the wacky stuff
@Roland6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwAessw-jLw
I wonder if I will be reading an apology from you and other commenters or if you will be trying to justify the EU and twits actions? While it would be tempting to put money on this I doubt anyone is going to bet on an apology.
for insisting UKIP were not allowed in the room for negotiations
Why should they be allowed? They had no role in Government (except for the brief time when some Tory renegades decided to join them), could never be trusted to negotiate in a calm manner and generally seemed to hate the EU just because 'da EU'..
It would be like giving toddlers knives and guns and expecting them to play nicely.
And the EU had every right (as the other party) to object to the presence of people who, not only would be utterly unintrested in negotiation, but would most likely actively attempt to sabotage them just to make the EU look bad.
@CrazyOldCatMan
"Why should they be allowed?"
And this is the problem. The EU has no right to dictate. Or as it was the twit who caused the issue for the EU side. The gov was happy for UKIP to be there, the EU had no rights to be awkward. You have it backwards.
"And the EU had every right (as the other party) to object to the presence of people"
Absolutely not at all without any margin for moaning. UKIP had every right to be there as they were allowed to be there by invitation. The EU idiot had zero right to demand otherwise.
A number of EU science academies are calling for the UK to rejoin Horizon, quoting importance of UK to European science, and are upset about the EU stalling on actioning the agreement. That hasn't been widely reported though, probably because it spoils the "everything is shit in UK since we left EU" narrative.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
They did, they decided it wasn't, and the headbangers kept on about it (over a period of about 40 years). It was the main thing that destroyed the tories in the '90s, I believe John Major referred to them as the "difficult bastards".
It is delightful, however, now to see the "difficult bastards" got what they wanted, and, like the proverbial dog chasing the car, have no idea what to do now they have achieved their goal. Their party, now so divided, that they manage to be 25 points behind Mr Beige himself Keir Starmer in the polls, is now polling considerably worse than they were before their historic landslide defeat to Blair in 1997, and say what you like about Blair ($deity knows, I have in the past), he had charisma. Hopefully, once this lot lose (hard) in the next election, they will all fuck off for good, and we can go back to having a government that isn't actively trying to steal all our money and move it into tax havens.
Something that always surprises me is that the remainers seem to think we should have gained all the benefits on the instant the agreement was signed. I and other brexiters seem to think it will take several years. So are the remainers of the "I want it now" brigade and when they don't get it NOW throw their toys out of the pram?
Nope, the "remainers" are the ones who could see that all the promises were lies, the "quitters" were the ones sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "Project Fear" every time someone pointed out that brexit might cause problems. As it turns out, pretty much every problem that "Project Fear" pointed out would happen, has happened. A loss of funding for academic research, and, just as importantly, cross-Europe cooperation and freedom of movement for the researchers is one of those things. You might not have been paying attention on the multiple occasions that the very erudite Dr Mike Galsworthy pointed this out, both prior to the opinion poll in 2016, and afterwards, but those in the scientific community have been telling you all along that brexit was going to screw them over.
@Elongated Muskrat
"As it turns out, pretty much every problem that "Project Fear" pointed out would happen, has happened."
End of western civilisation, recession if we vote leave... erm when we invoke art50... erm in the future, punishment budget, all the banks leaving (was funny watching the EU nutters spit feathers), house price crash, world war 3, a hard border in Ireland, EU nationals to be sent home, Scottish independence (right now she is suffering push back on PC non-sense), lower wages (risen), stock market crash.
Nope, lots of FUD.
There you go, making your opponent's case for them.
Once we wipe away the extremist froth from both sides of the 'Brexit' argument what solid points are we left with.
In reality, not very much on the 'exit' side, especially given the totally shambolic way it was actually done and continues to be mishandled; while on the 'remain' side actually quite a lot of well founded and now substantive realities—technically known as 'chickens coming home to roost', or, more prosaically, 'consequences'.
@Adair
"There you go, making your opponent's case for them."
Eh? Elongated Muskrat made a bogus claim and I burnt it down for being drivel.
"Once we wipe away the extremist froth from both sides of the 'Brexit' argument what solid points are we left with."
Exactly. We remove the bull from both sides (and there is bull from both sides). So when someone spouts garbage like that it should be corrected or people reading it might think there is merit to the comment.
"In reality, not very much on the 'exit' side, especially given the totally shambolic way it was actually done and continues to be mishandled"
Eh? Are you in the UK? Yes it was shambolic, and yes it is still mishandled and yet the benefits of brexit were meant to materialise over years and yet we already saw immediate benefits. The FUD of doom didnt happen and instead we still came out of it pretty good even with the mess of the negotiations.
"while on the 'remain' side actually quite a lot of well founded and now substantive realities"
Where? Few of the claims actually happened and didnt overly matter. It took excessive gnashing of teeth and the government actually threatening the UK population to make a case for remain! Leave didnt have that. Leave didnt have the power of government to work around the rules and abuse the tax payer/voter. The reality was a disappointment to remain that the world didnt end
Why the fuck should I? You’re a random RWNJ on the internet, not my employer. Get over yourself.
I'm under no obligation to argue with people who can't manage a sensible, reasoned, argument. It's a pure waste of my time, and to be clear: when I do so, it's for my own amusement, and to provide amusement for others. Nothing I say is going to change your mind, you've already decided what is the truth and go looking for "facts" to back that up. The fact that all you can ever manage in the way of "evidence" is opinion pieces from right-wing "think-tanks" makes me think you're probably based in Tufton Street yourself, and the only people you are "convincing" of anything are the terminally weak-minded.
@Elongated Muskrat
"Why the fuck should I? You’re a random RWNJ on the internet, not my employer. Get over yourself."
Aka you reply but not respond. Even had to look up RWNJ. If you think I am you must be some sort of Stalinist commie.
"I'm under no obligation to argue with people who can't manage a sensible, reasoned, argument"
Very true. Your also under no obligation to post crap and troll afterwards but here we are. Stick to the man in the mirror, he might let you win.
"Nothing I say is going to change your mind"
Not if you post utter tripe. Post something factual and you might. You are entertainment though so thanks.
"and the only people you are "convincing" of anything are the terminally weak-minded."
And that is why I post the rebuttals to your garbage. Because I wouldnt want people to assume you knew what you were talking about.
@Bruce Ordway
"Wouldn't it have been better to let elected officials decide whether something this complex was a good idea?"
It was this disregard for the people living in the country by its elected officials that caused a lot of these problems. Remember the contempt Brown had for that one lady voicing her concerns? It wasnt her opinion that caused a stir, it was the bland appeasement he gave to her face and the contempt he held for her as he thought he was out of earshot.
EU membership isnt such a complex idea and if it is too complicated for people to decide of they would wish their country to be part of it with a little research then it is likely intentionally opaque. Should the people have the right to elect its government? Should the people have a say if the government try to sell out the country to another government? Should the people have any say at all or maybe its just too complicated and the officials can do away with the election.
And yet, I'm rather glad there was no collaboration between atomic scientists in the US and those of Nazi Germany.
Also, I've chatted enough with scientists when I was in university to know that plenty of barriers are put in place by scientists themselves, to protect their personal reputation and funding.
So it's not a simple black & white thing.
Sometime in 2024, the Tories will get wiped out. They may win fewer seats than Sinn Fein. They might not win any. Then these things will get sorted out.
Until then, be amused by the level of political failure on display. You can tell your grandchildren that you were there to see the end of the Conservative party. And that it served them right.
That is a pipe dream.
The "It would have been worse under Corbyn!!!", "It's the EU's fault!" and "Immigrants!!" are all still distractions that resonate strongly with the English electorate. Tories will squeek in again. Mostly because that's what we deserve.
If you believe this, I invite you to check out any meta polling or predictions based on meta-polling.
Starmer would have to do something seriously bad, like eating a live baby on TV, to lose the next election. Even after their "new leader bounce", the Tories are basically polling at half the number of votes that Labour would get if there were an election tomorrow. This is with a leader of the opposition who is about as inspiring as a block of tofu.
As they go on, Sunak isn't getting more popular (he's getting less so), and more sleaze and scandals are coming out of the woodwork.
Their best bet would be to call an election now, and cut their losses, because the longer-term trend is for their vote share to fall, not rise. When the inevitable election comes, even with their electoral boundary rigging, gerrymandering, and programme of voter disenfranchisement (that's what all this "voter ID" bullshit is about), they are still going to lose hard. It might not be quite as bad for them as the polls currently predict, because they're bound to pull out some smears, pre-election tax cuts and false promises in their election campaigning, but I'd be surprised if they got even 200 seats.
I'll just add, that due to the FPTP system, which the Tories would never change, because it normally favours them, due to the "anti-tory" vote being split between Labour, Lib Dems and Greens, will mean that 25% of the vote could end up netting them as little as 10% of the seats. They could well end up with no seats at all in London, and other major population centres. I'll raise a glass to that!
I was a little too young to vote in 1992, but not in 1997 when Labour won the landslide under Blair. I didn't actually vote for Labour (I never trusted Blair), and our local MP who got elected (and kicked out the long-term Tory incumbent) was a Lib-Dem.
Now the party demographics have changed; the Greens might get more votes in strong Labour constituencies (which mine now definitely is) but not really in places where it might risk giving the vote to a tory. The Lib Dems are all but wiped out (which is a bit of a shame for Ed Davey who was a thoroughly nice bloke when I happened to meet him, randomly), due to the deeply inadvisable bed-getting-into-with that went on with Cameron. The polling shows the real far-right parties taking a bite out of the tory vote ("Reform" and what is left of UKIP), which is pretty remarkable, given that the tories have been adopting their policies wholesale, but still much lower than they were before the last couple of elections, so there's no real votes for the tories to pick up there during campaigning (which the far-right parties are thankfully very bad at).
Blair got in largely because he wasn't scary "Old Labour" and also was a reasonable alternative to the incumbent and, by that time, deeply unpopular tories. He had to contend with the Lib Dems as well, though, and Labour now really don't, except for in a few rural constituencies, which the Yellows might take from the Blues.
Starmer's Labour are all lined up for an even bigger win, unless be manages to completely bottle it. Personally, I'd like to see someone else in charge of the party; there are plenty of very competent and hard-working MPs in the party who are both left enough of centre to provide a genuine alternative to the tories, but not so far left that they scare people. Most of them are, wisely, keeping their heads down.
By the way, I'm assuming your reference to the 1992 election is a reference to the "shock" result, described here, where the polls gave a slight lead to Labour / the Tories and Labour neck-and-neck. In the event, the Tories won a small majority.
It is now generally recognised that polling tends to favour left-wing parties slightly over right-wing ones (people who vote right-wing are more reticent to admit it), largely down to these "surprise" results, which were still just about within the "margins of error" shown in the polling in that wiki article. This is generally accounted for in polling now.
The polling now still has Labour well out ahead of the Tories, with the best-case polls for the Tories and worst-case for Labour still putting Labour at least ten points ahead, as shown in the meta poll on the wiki article here and in the Politico meta-polling here. Realistically, even if Labour's position were overstated by 5 points, this is still a landslide defeat for the Tories, worse than in 1997, when they were polling at 33% vs 43% just prior to the election, and Labour won by a slightly larger margin than that (by about 2.5%) due to a surprise showing by the Lib Dems. If a ten point lead in the polls, with a third party noticeably in the running returns a 179 seat majority, what do you think a 25% poll lead will give?
As I said, I really hope Starmer doesn't fluff it.
...I'll also reiterate, that FPTP distorts the vote share, and thus the results. If we had some sort of PR system, then we'd almost always end up with a left-of-centre, or centrist coalition government between socialist Labour, centrist Lib Dems, and left-of-centre Greens, and the Tory party would split into a moderate centre-right fiscally conservative but socially progressive party, and whatever the BUF/BNP/UKIP/Reform are calling themselves today, who would be a perpetual thorn with about 5% of seats, but without the ability to claim that they are unrepresented. There's probably be some fertile centre-left ground for a stable social democracy party, as with many successful European nations, probably as an offshoot of the Labour Party.
Having been professionally involved in oversight of a university's STEM funding, Horizon 2020 in a pain in the arse. It accounts for a small % of STEM funds, it is very bureaucratic both to bid for and to administrate, and unless you have an inside track the bidding strike rate is low. Added to this the funding calls are very agenda driven.
A can so no issue with binning it, and putting the UK's contribution into a directly administered International Collaboration Fund.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
