Carl the Llama Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 So wrong. Nothing to do with boarders or accountability. I can't be bothered to get into a debate with somebody who has already judged me. I am a third generation of immigrant origin and non white. You've just described one of the people I know irl who wanted to leave for those reasons so you'll have to qualify your views a bit better than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 I say again - all sensationalised by vested interests, projecting the appearance of certainty when the scientists involved continue to insist there is no such thing - merely a probability and the truth tends to get buried in all the squawking. Which is a shame, because everyone knows the ending to the Boy Who Cried Wolf. And... I feared this might happen. Any Brexiters want to give me some good news regarding this particular topic? Unfortunately when we all made our decision on which way to vote, it wasnt based on every single situation in every single industry. I dont think anyone who voted leave (and did so for reasons other than not liking the sight of a Polish deli on their high street) would have been naive enough to think that some people somewhere wouldnt be adversely affected by Brexit. Same as anyone who voted remain surely doesnt think that being a member of the EU beneftis every single person in every single situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Unfortunately when we all made our decision on which way to vote, it wasnt based on every single situation in every single industry. I dont think anyone who voted leave (and did so for reasons other than not liking the sight of a Polish deli on their high street) would have been naive enough to think that some people somewhere wouldnt be adversely affected by Brexit. Same as anyone who voted remain surely doesnt think that being a member of the EU beneftis every single person in every single situation. It's comforting to know that such an integral part of both UK and world future development was not considered in this way by so many people. Edit: Sorry if the sarcasm is a bit too biting there. It's been a long day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxoffderby Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 I voted Brexit becasue I'm not happy with the way small businesses have been treated by the EU. The amount of paper work and red tape is beyond a joke. I'm not happy with the EU treating large businesses with so much favour. I'm not happy with the way large companies get away with murder when it comes to taxes. I'm not happy the way EU wants to standardise the way it treats small and large businesses. I'm not happy with the amount of tax I have to pay so the EU can bail out failing economies like Greece, who are corrupt and have failed their people. I want my taxes going into Education and the NHS and not on the failings in Europe. I'm not happy how somebody who is unelected can tell me how to run my life and my business My wife who works for the NHS voted Brexit because of the amount of people who use the service who should not be able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 The thing is, we've heard it all before. When global warming first came into the public consciousness in the early 90s we were told that half the country would be under water by now. When a house on a cliff tumbles into the sea we're told it's climate change, but we've had coastal erosion as long as we've had coasts. B.S.E, aids we were all supposed to know someone suffering from them by now, I don't. Even something as trivial as diets, one day a carb free diet is dangerous for you the next day it's received wisdom, next week there'll be something different. Nobody believes this crap anymore. You're conflating science and science journalism. Science journalism is generally quite poor, a result of having just one of two people in a mainstream paper focusing on covering everything from nutrition research to climate change to the work at CERN, many subjects of which aren't their speciality - this, and a fair few researchers not having the lingustic skills to communicate their findings effectively (as in, not wrapped in technical jargon but as a narrative), results in a lot of findings being misinterpreted or overblown (see the X causes/cures cancer that shows up so regularly) and makes it look like the science is always changing. Normally there's not a constant sea change - it's the reporting, not the science, that moves around like dust in the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 You're conflating science and science journalism. Science journalism is generally quite poor, a result of having just one of two people in a mainstream paper focusing on covering everything from nutrition research to climate change to the work at CERN, many subjects of which aren't their speciality - this, and a fair few researchers not having the lingustic skills to communicate their findings effectively (as in, not wrapped in technical jargon but as a narrative), results in a lot of findings being misinterpreted or overblown (see the X causes/cures cancer that shows up so regularly) and makes it look like the science is always changing. Normally there's not a constant sea change - it's the reporting, not the science, that moves around like dust in the wind. This. One of the reasons I'm looking to move into scientific journalism/consultancy when I get the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkon84 Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Every time Carl writes something this thread now, I can't help but imagine him pulling a face like Huth's in his av, thinking he's smug and just wrote something he thinks is hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxoffderby Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Every time Carl writes something this thread now, I can't help but imagine him pulling a face like Huth's in his av, thinking he's smug and just wrote something he thinks is hilarious I didn't appreciate him judge or stereotype me with what his stance on Brexit. My views and traits don't fit what the Remain camp think at all and that's why they failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 An absolute must watch from Rod Liddle here for seven minutes, hilarious satire of the people wanting a second referendum, how the Labour party must wished they kept him, intelligent, funny and down to earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 @@Grewks £14.2 million of £772 million is less than 2% I believe. Oh and part of democracy is being able to hold different views. Those on the losing side who wish to hold and air a different view continue to have the right to do just that, much the same as some euro sceptics did for a long time prior to the most recent referendum. "The EU does not control how much we spend on, or what our priorities are, for public services such as the NHS, schools, community services or libraries. The UK government decides on those issues." The problem with trying to support this statement, is that it is simply impossible to do so. £14.2 Billion of our GDP is being taken by the European Union. We cannot control what this is spent upon. We cannot prioritise whether we wish the E.U. to subsidise our fishing industries, our farming industries etc. So the point made which you're backing up becomes invalid right away. When you look past the face value of it all, and look at it analytically, you realise the domino effect that occurs as a result. Let's say the Government has shortlisted 10 areas for which they wish to invest, and they wish to do this by making cuts in another 10 areas. What happens if the E.U. decides to re-invest some of our membership fees into areas we wanted to cut? We will not be able to make the required investment into the areas that need it the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 I say again - all sensationalised by vested interests, projecting the appearance of certainty when the scientists involved continue to insist there is no such thing - merely a probability and the truth tends to get buried in all the squawking. Which is a shame, because everyone knows the ending to the Boy Who Cried Wolf. And... https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/12/uk-scientists-dropped-from-eu-projects-because-of-post-brexit-funding-fears I feared this might happen. Any Brexiters want to give me some good news regarding this particular topic? Anyone wanting to take this on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Anyone wanting to take this on? We haven't left the EU yet, or even attempted too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Anyone wanting to take this on? Things are in a state of uncertainty at the minute, there's bound to be some short term set backs. Britain isn't going to stop spending on science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Anyone wanting to take this on? As others have said, we don't know anything that's going to happen yet. Though in the grand scheme of things I don't think it's that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 We haven't left the EU yet, or even attempted too And yet even the possibility of it seems to be having this kind of effect on a pretty integral area. If the article is telling the whole story, of course. Things are in a state of uncertainty at the minute, there's bound to be some short term set backs. Britain isn't going to stop spending on science. Britain can't fund the kind of projects that can really change things by itself. More to the point, at what point in history has it ever wanted to in any dedicated, get-us-to-the-Moon-inside-a-decade fashion anyway? It's a miracle our scientists make the breakthroughs they do with the limited resources they're allotted. As others have said, we don't know anything that's going to happen yet. Though in the grand scheme of things I don't think it's that important. Fair enough Matt. Suffice it to say I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. We should be doing everything we can to improve and streamline scientific collaboration on projects between countries, for a lot of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 And yet even the possibility of it seems to be having this kind of effect on a pretty integral area. If the article is telling the whole story, of course. Britain can't fund the kind of projects that can really change things by itself. More to the point, at what point in history has it ever wanted to in any dedicated, get-us-to-the-Moon-inside-a-decade fashion anyway? It's a miracle our scientists make the breakthroughs they do with the limited resources they're allotted. Fair enough Matt. Suffice it to say I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. We should be doing everything we can to improve and streamline scientific collaboration on projects between countries, for a lot of reasons. The money the EU give us is our money to start with. we'll either keep giving them money and we'll get our share back or we'll keep our money and distribute it as we see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 As others have said, we don't know anything that's going to happen yet. Though in the grand scheme of things I don't think it's that important. We can't compete with the developing world for manufacturing, and investment in scientific research is one of the few things that definitely increases GDP (for example every pound invested once in mental health research results in a return of 37p per annum - over the course of a parliament it more than pays for itself). If we want to remain a world power then being one of the foremost countries in research is a necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 The money the EU give us is our money to start with. we'll either keep giving them money and we'll get our share back or we'll keep our money and distribute it as we see fit. And if the money we give to the EU for science purposes is not in fact then redistributed for use of the UK's own much more modest science projects - as will probably be the case? In any case, my point regarding the UK not being able to fund the truly significant projects by itself (as well as its ingrained reluctance to do so anyway based on various reasons) stands, whether we get that money or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Fair enough Matt. Suffice it to say I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. We should be doing everything we can to improve and streamline scientific collaboration on projects between countries, for a lot of reasons. We can't compete with the developing world for manufacturing, and investment in scientific research is one of the few things that definitely increases GDP (for example every pound invested once in mental health research results in a return of 37p per annum - over the course of a parliament it more than pays for itself). If we want to remain a world power then being one of the foremost countries in research is a necessity. I didn't say it wasn't important, I'm saying when you put it up against the ability to control your own borders and create and apply your own laws it's not that important in the grabd scheme of things, I wouldn't sacrifice an inch of the former to stay in scientific projects within the EU. I don't see though why we can't just come to a agreement for us to contribute and continue though, that would seem to make sense for all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Didn't take long to change their minds, I notice..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36771595 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 I didn't say it wasn't important, I'm saying when you put it up against the ability to control your own borders and create and apply your own laws it's not that important in the grabd scheme of things, I wouldn't sacrifice an inch of the former to stay in scientific projects within the EU. I don't see though why we can't just come to a agreement for us to contribute and continue though, that would seem to make sense for all parties. I have a gut feeling time will prove you utterly wrong on that one, though not in any timeframe either of us is likely to see. But who knows. Hell, it's still a point of greatest shame for me that both von Braun and Korolev made some of the greatest space-based successes ever because their masters wanted to be able to drop a nuclear bomb on a pinhead thousands of kilometres away. That shouldn't be what scientific development is about. There certainly needs to be some kind of agreement that is come to regarding collaboration and funding - and quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 And yet even the possibility of it seems to be having this kind of effect on a pretty integral area. If the article is telling the whole story, of course. 1) Britain can't fund the kind of projects that can really change things by itself. More to the point, at what point in history has it ever wanted to in any dedicated, get-us-to-the-Moon-inside-a-decade fashion anyway? It's a miracle our scientists make the breakthroughs they do with the limited resources they're allotted. Fair enough Matt. Suffice it to say I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. 2) We should be doing everything we can to improve and streamline scientific collaboration on projects between countries, for a lot of reasons. 1) You're right. But even in the E.U, we can't assure the projected we wish to complete, will be funded by fellow member states. 2) You're right. But outside the E.U, just like any other business activity can take place, collaboration between countries can of course take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 And if the money we give to the EU for science purposes is not in fact then redistributed for use of the UK's own much more modest science projects - as will probably be the case? In any case, my point regarding the UK not being able to fund the truly significant projects by itself (as well as its ingrained reluctance to do so anyway based on various reasons) stands, whether we get that money or not. How is that any different to now? We give them the money, they decide how to distribute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 1) You're right. But even in the E.U, we can't assure the projected we wish to complete, will be funded by fellow member states. 2) You're right. But outside the E.U, just like any other business activity can take place, collaboration between countries can of course take place. Then it would be nice to see reassurances regarding no.2 occurring in the form of an agreement regarding collaboration between UK and EU scientists on all existing projects. Are we going to see that anytime soon? How is that any different to now? We give them the money, they decide how to distribute it. Because right now there is dedicated, guaranteed funding that has been the case for some time now using contributions from members. With Brexit, that funding is in jeopardy for UK scientists, with no guarantee a post-Brexit government will make the same commitments to scientific research - not when they and the public think there are far more 'worthy' causes for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 If the EU is that spiteful perhaps it's better that we're leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.