Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Smudge]

22 hours ago, FIF said:

 

how do you think it would be "fiddled"?

 

 

 

[reynard]

On 8/1/2016 at 19:47, MattP said:

I'd imagine people voted to leave the European Union for a variety of reasons, in the same way I imagine people voted to stay in the European Union for a variety of reasons.

 

However it is binary, there is a list of nations in it and out of it, we will now be one of the ones out of it, now it's the government's job to get the best deal for us and like any other they will judged on what they have done at the next election.

But the point is it isn't binary at all in reality. Here are just two simplified examples.

Person 1. Doesn't like immigration and wants to stop/reduce it. Believes the way to stop that is to leave the EU and retain border control and stop freedom of movement.

 

Person 2  Doesn't like the EU parliament and the so-called unelected bureaucrats. Thinks the best way to deal with this is to vote to leave the EU but wants to retain freedom of movement and free trade.

 

Both legitimate reasons and both very different outcomes.

[Smudge]

7 minutes ago, reynard said:

But the point is it isn't binary at all in reality. Here are just two simplified examples.

Person 1. Doesn't like immigration and wants to stop/reduce it. Believes the way to stop that is to leave the EU and retain border control and stop freedom of movement.

 

Person 2  Doesn't like the EU parliament and the so-called unelected bureaucrats. Thinks the best way to deal with this is to vote to leave the EU but wants to retain freedom of movement and free trade.

 

Both legitimate reasons and both very different outcomes.

The ballot paper was binary. 

 

What you have said is correct and predictable. So why?

[leicsmac]

http://www.nature.com/news/e-mails-show-how-uk-physicists-were-dumped-over-brexit-1.20380

 

Brexit: Good for physics, good for science.

 

Will the UK pick up the slack as far as projects and funding go? Not holding my breath.

[reynard]

2 hours ago, Smudge said:

The ballot paper was binary. 

 

What you have said is correct and predictable. So why?

And that is exactly the problem. Essentially the country was presented with a simplistic question when the reality is so much more complicated.

[reynard]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.nature.com/news/e-mails-show-how-uk-physicists-were-dumped-over-brexit-1.20380

 

Brexit: Good for physics, good for science.

 

Will the UK pick up the slack as far as projects and funding go? Not holding my breath.

I wouldn't either. Especially as government debt and borrowing looks likely to rise and stay high for some time to come. Eventually though it will have to be paid back.

Charities also very likely to suffer.

[GazzinderFox]

On 05/08/2016 at 16:40, reynard said:

I wouldn't either. Especially as government debt and borrowing looks likely to rise and stay high for some time to come. Eventually though it will have to be paid back.

Charities also very likely to suffer.

Another knife in the heart of the doom merchants who want the UK to fail as the government pledges to maintain EU levels of funding post Brexit for 'farmers, scientists an other projects'  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37060430 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

Another knife in the heart of the doom merchants who want the UK to fail as the government pledges to maintain EU levels of funding post Brexit for 'farmers, scientists an other projects'  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37060430 

Just have to hope they don't break their pledges - not that they have a record of doing that.

[The Doctor]

40 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

Another knife in the heart of the doom merchants who want the UK to fail as the government pledges to maintain EU levels of funding post Brexit for 'farmers, scientists an other projects'  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37060430 

Not like tories to say one thing and do another, but even still:

 

"What we are doing here is guaranteeing that projects that have already been signed or that are going to be signed over the coming months, even if the payment of those funds runs on beyond the time we leave the EU, will be guaranteed by the British government to the recipient," Mr Hammond said.

 

So, only those signed or being set up at present - no assurances that research funding will be kept beyond the next few years once the Horizon 2020 program runs out and is replaced by a new funding framework. It's great that there's going to be a bit of protection to current funding, even if the brexiteers have already bollocksed up a fair bit of research (see Macs link a few posts up), but funding can't just be there for a couple of years; it needs to be secured long term

[Webbo]

45 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Not like tories to say one thing and do another, but even still:

 

 

 

 

So, only those signed or being set up at present - no assurances that research funding will be kept beyond the next few years once the Horizon 2020 program runs out and is replaced by a new funding framework. It's great that there's going to be a bit of protection to current funding, even if the brexiteers have already bollocksed up a fair bit of research (see Macs link a few posts up), but funding can't just be there for a couple of years; it needs to be secured long term

It's been guaranteed until the present arrangements are complete. Once they run out we'll decide which projects we want to fund ourselves. Pretending that we won't fund science or agriculture is desperate, hoping for the worse to prove myself right.

[The Doctor]

25 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's been guaranteed until the present arrangements are complete. Once they run out we'll decide which projects we want to fund ourselves. Pretending that we won't fund science or agriculture is desperate, hoping for the worse to prove myself right.

That's utter bollocks - I don't have faith in research funding being retained because both camerons, browns and blairs governments have shown outright contempt (bit too early to judge Mays, but appointing a supporter of fracking and someone who is happy to suggest maybe we don't bother phasing out coal as SoS for the environment is an early sign there'll be no change).

 

Under Cameron we saw David "awesome power of the moon" Trennedick appointed to the science select committee - a man who insists surgeons shouldn't perform surgery on a full moon because... (I genuinely don't know - werewolves maybe?, there's absolutely no traceable thread of logic there) and claims expenses for astrology software - he's a woo-peddling moron and yet is trusted with British science. Sitting alongside Nadine Dorries - a serial liar who disorts the science and takes false anecdotes over proper evidence to support her preconceived positions on things like abortion.

Before that, under Brown we saw Professor Nutt, the drugs advisor, sacked because the evidence on the harms of cannabis didn't support the position that that government wanted to take on it. And of course Blair and his nutcase of a wife refusing to confirm whether they had their son vaccinated when Andrew Wakefield was producing falsified data to try and scare people away from the MMR vaccine (the fact that he had an alternative one was obviously just a coincidence), despite it being blindingly obvious that not doing so would create further panic and result in even poorer uptake and putting public health at risk.

Chuck in the series of cuts and "freezes" that were in practice cuts and not having faith in the government to adequately fund science isn't desperate, it's common sense.

[GazzinderFox]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

That's utter bollocks - I don't have faith in research funding being retained because both camerons, browns and blairs governments have shown outright contempt. Under Cameron we saw David "awesome power of the moon" Trennedick appointed to the science select committee - a man who insists surgeons shouldn't perform surgery on a full moon because... (I genuinely don't know - werewolves maybe?, there's absolutely no traceable thread of logic there) and claims expenses for astrology software - he's a woo-peddling moron and yet is trusted with British science. Sitting alongside Nadine Dorries - a serial liar who disorts the science and takes false anecdotes over proper evidence to support her preconceived positions on things like abortion. Before that, under Brown we saw Professor Nutt, the drugs advisor, sacked because the evidence on the harms of cannabis didn't support the position that that government wanted to take on it. And of course Blair and his nutcase of a wife refusing to confirm whether they had their son vaccinated when Andrew Wakefield was producing falsified data to try and scare people away from the MMR vaccine (the fact that he had an alternative one was obviously just a coincidence), despite it being blindingly obvious that not doing so would create further panic and result in even poorer uptake and putting public health at risk. Chuck in the series of cuts and "freezes" that were in practice cuts and not having faith in the government to adequately fund science isn't desperate, it's common sense.

Perhaps some projects will lose their funding in the medium term. Perhaps some who were denied funding will now be able to get it. What is certain is that as a nation we will now be able to allocate tax payers money towards the projects we see as most valuable for the country in the future. We will also now be able to demand accountability from our politicians in how our money is spent - I'm thinking particularly of the CAP which is a by word for waste.

[cityfanlee23]

Not really kept up with this thread but quite a few interesting things I've read all over the place regarding Stocks/Sterling,

 

I've been saying this would happen regardless of Brexit for over 2 years now, The markets have been over inflated due to the monetary system pumping funny money into bubble assets like housing, financial services have received 86% of the 1.1 trillion of money created by banks since 1997, Everyone now thinks we are going to hell now we have voted to leave, and they can't wait to point out the "Weak" pound, 

They always fail to point out the £ had dropped over 40p in the 18 months leading to the vote, and in an economy built on debt, the banks are the most important indicator for the strength of an economy, As a conservative, I don't take much pride in calling my party a bunch of propaganda driven liars, but it's true, this "recovery" and "long term economic plan" is complete BS, we've grown the economy since 2010 by pushing up household debts, thats pretty much the only growth we have had, and we have "Fixed" the debt crisis, by making people more dependent on debt. 

Markets have been selling off bank shares for 18 months like they are diseased, before the vote took place most banks were trading around or below the lows of 2008, the biggest banking collapse in history, as said earlier, in an economy built on debt, bank shares are the biggest indicator to an economies health, and ours has been in trouble since 2008, we have just masked it all behind a failed recovery driven on the back of more debt. 

I voted Leave because I believe it gives us the best chance of taking back control from the bankers, but we NEED to nationalise them before they destroy us, I'm not an advocate for across the board nationalisation, but the people should control it's own money supply, thats just common sense. 

 

It pains me to say it but alot of Corbyns proposals blow the tories out the water, the economy needs investment not cuts, the economy bubbles up from the bottom it doesn't trickle down from the top.

 

2008 is coming again, I strongly advise everyone on the forum to get your savings into a building society, they are much safer, our banking system is hanging by a thread, I had a heated debate with John Macnamara's wife (John is Head of trade finance at Deutsche bank) about a month ago, She told me it was all conspiracy and that Deutsche bank were in a strong enough position to survive the crisis without any casualties, Told me I knew nothing about banking and I'm wasting my time. A week or so later they announce they need to close 200 branches to survive, Funnily enough she also told me that only central banks can create money digitally or printed, and told me I was stupid when I let her know high street banks create 97% of the money supply. 

 

The time bomb is ticking, your money is NOT safe in big banks (not really safe in any) so move your savings to a building society. 

[cityfanlee23]

Also worth pointing out government bonds have gone through the stratosphere since the vote, Investors think the UK is a safe place to lend money, Markets are just playing their selfish games and ruining peoples live for their own profit, no change there.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

That's utter bollocks - I don't have faith in research funding being retained because both camerons, browns and blairs governments have shown outright contempt (bit too early to judge Mays, but appointing a supporter of fracking and someone who is happy to suggest maybe we don't bother phasing out coal as SoS for the environment is an early sign there'll be no change).

 

Under Cameron we saw David "awesome power of the moon" Trennedick appointed to the science select committee - a man who insists surgeons shouldn't perform surgery on a full moon because... (I genuinely don't know - werewolves maybe?, there's absolutely no traceable thread of logic there) and claims expenses for astrology software - he's a woo-peddling moron and yet is trusted with British science. Sitting alongside Nadine Dorries - a serial liar who disorts the science and takes false anecdotes over proper evidence to support her preconceived positions on things like abortion.

Before that, under Brown we saw Professor Nutt, the drugs advisor, sacked because the evidence on the harms of cannabis didn't support the position that that government wanted to take on it. And of course Blair and his nutcase of a wife refusing to confirm whether they had their son vaccinated when Andrew Wakefield was producing falsified data to try and scare people away from the MMR vaccine (the fact that he had an alternative one was obviously just a coincidence), despite it being blindingly obvious that not doing so would create further panic and result in even poorer uptake and putting public health at risk.

Chuck in the series of cuts and "freezes" that were in practice cuts and not having faith in the government to adequately fund science isn't desperate, it's common sense.

This. This this this.

 

I honestly don't know what makes anyone think that the UK establishment attitude towards STEM is in any way healthy. The announcement today is reasonably welcome, but a.) I'll believe it when I see it and b.) It's a half measure anyway.

 

1 hour ago, GazzinderFox said:

Perhaps some projects will lose their funding in the medium term. Perhaps some who were denied funding will now be able to get it. What is certain is that as a nation we will now be able to allocate tax payers money towards the projects we see as most valuable for the country in the future. We will also now be able to demand accountability from our politicians in how our money is spent - I'm thinking particularly of the CAP which is a by word for waste.

The truly big science projects - the ones that we NEED to be doing to guarantee our future - are beyond the scope of any one country to fund or equip. Funnelling UK money into projects on the basis that they benefit us the most is a serious potential loss and waste.

[Webbo]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

I honestly don't know what makes anyone think that the UK establishment attitude towards STEM is in any way healthy. The announcement today is reasonably welcome, but a.) I'll believe it when I see it and b.) It's a half measure anyway.

 

 

What makes you think it isn't?

 

I honestly don't know how this country manage to run half the world, start the industrial revolution, make countless important scientific breakthroughs  and defeat fascism before we had enlightened Europeans to tell us what to do.

[The Doctor]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What makes you think it isn't?

 

I honestly don't know how this country manage to run half the world, start the industrial revolution, make countless important scientific breakthroughs  and defeat fascism before we had enlightened Europeans to tell us what to do.

Probably all of this:

 

3 hours ago, The Doctor said:

That's utter bollocks - I don't have faith in research funding being retained because both camerons, browns and blairs governments have shown outright contempt (bit too early to judge Mays, but appointing a supporter of fracking and someone who is happy to suggest maybe we don't bother phasing out coal as SoS for the environment is an early sign there'll be no change).

 

Under Cameron we saw David "awesome power of the moon" Trennedick appointed to the science select committee - a man who insists surgeons shouldn't perform surgery on a full moon because... (I genuinely don't know - werewolves maybe?, there's absolutely no traceable thread of logic there) and claims expenses for astrology software - he's a woo-peddling moron and yet is trusted with British science. Sitting alongside Nadine Dorries - a serial liar who disorts the science and takes false anecdotes over proper evidence to support her preconceived positions on things like abortion.

Before that, under Brown we saw Professor Nutt, the drugs advisor, sacked because the evidence on the harms of cannabis didn't support the position that that government wanted to take on it. And of course Blair and his nutcase of a wife refusing to confirm whether they had their son vaccinated when Andrew Wakefield was producing falsified data to try and scare people away from the MMR vaccine (the fact that he had an alternative one was obviously just a coincidence), despite it being blindingly obvious that not doing so would create further panic and result in even poorer uptake and putting public health at risk.

Chuck in the series of cuts and "freezes" that were in practice cuts and not having faith in the government to adequately fund science isn't desperate, it's common sense.

You're blind for the sake of patriotism, the fact of the matter is that science and research is given lip service by politicians in this country and has been for the last two decades - because it's not a voter winner in and of itself. Also, no-ones claiming that we'd be useless if the Europeans hadn't come along, but acting like history still means we're top when domestic attitudes are leaving us behind is all a bit Liverpool-y.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

Probably all of this:

 

You're blind for the sake of patriotism, the fact of the matter is that science and research is given lip service by politicians in this country and has been for the last two decades - because it's not a voter winner in and of itself.

You're blind because you're sulking about the referendum result. Jobs and profitable businesses are vote winners and that's why science, just like it was before we joined the EU, will still be funded.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What makes you think it isn't?

 

I honestly don't know how this country manage to run half the world, start the industrial revolution, make countless important scientific breakthroughs  and defeat fascism before we had enlightened Europeans to tell us what to do.

 

The Industrial Revolution made it possible for us to run half the world by generating enough money to make enough ships so that everyone would play nice. At that point, we had enough rich boys with time on their hands and arts educations who did science on the side and made a fair few discoveries. But it was always arts education that made you part of the establishment. It still is.

 

And also, that was then and this is now - the world is a smaller place. We can't do the truly big projects by ourselves. And the Doc gives a pretty good example of some of the UK's political wings attitude towards STEM in the present day. Where's the big space projects? Where's the (needed) fusion energy research? If you really think the UK can stand alone on the science research front and lead the world, those are just two ideas that would show it.

 

[Webbo]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

The Industrial Revolution made it possible for us to run half the world by generating enough money to make enough ships so that everyone would play nice. At that point, we had enough rich boys with time on their hands and arts educations who did science on the side and made a fair few discoveries. But it was always arts education that made you part of the establishment. It still is.

 

And also, that was then and this is now - the world is a smaller place. We can't do the truly big projects by ourselves. And the Doc gives a pretty good example of some of the UK's political wings attitude towards STEM in the present day. Where's the big space projects? Where's the (needed) fusion energy research? If you really think the UK can stand alone on the science research front and lead the world, those are just two ideas that would show it.

 

We're still in the EU, we have been 40 years, where are they now?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're still in the EU, we have been 40 years, where are they now?

 

Good question. But honestly, trying to go it alone to do them is less likely to work - or even to conceive such ideas - than continuing to collaborate. 

 

I guess my point of view about the whole thing is that scientific research - most of it, anyway, outside the stuff that concerns killing people - should be as internationalist and apolitical as possible. Yeah, you could make the argument that the US only got to the Moon because they wanted to develop more efficient ways of delivering swift mushroom-cloud based death to the USSR cities as well as a PR coup (and vice versa, of course) and so some competition regarding STEM between nations can be a good thing...but I think that nowadays, with the scope of projects, energy and space research, as well as cutting edge medical research, should be as collaborative as possible, to spread the cost but also to show that humans don't actually need to be fighting with each other to drive development, and perhaps send a message that this is possible in other areas too.

[GazzinderFox]

It's funny how some people have absolute faith in the motives of unelected, faceless, autocrats yet despise the very men and women who we voted into power and who's continued grasp on that power depends entirely on us...

[Dr The Singh]

23 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

It's funny how some people have absolute faith in the motives of unelected, faceless, autocrats yet despise the very men and women who we voted into power and who's continued grasp on that power depends entirely on us...

Love the name Gazzinder!!!

[The Doctor]

5 hours ago, Webbo said:

You're blind because you're sulking about the referendum result. Jobs and profitable businesses are vote winners and that's why science, just like it was before we joined the EU, will still be funded.

hardly sulking - still think it was a terrible idea to even offer it as a referendum when the years of papers using euro-myths to fill inches means precious few people were able to make an informed decision, but I'm making the best of it - that is, getting excited for the anarchy and mayhem; just like I will be if Trump wins.

 

Lot of scientists disagree with you on it being a vote winner, but I'm sure you know more about their field and it's perception than they do...

 

 

1 hour ago, GazzinderFox said:

It's funny how some people have absolute faith in the motives of unelected, faceless, autocrats yet despise the very men and women who we voted into power and who's continued grasp on that power depends entirely on us...

Ignoring that MEPs are elected, have these people we voted into power done anything to warrant having faith in them on some issues?

[Webbo]

25 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

hardly sulking - still think it was a terrible idea to even offer it as a referendum when the years of papers using euro-myths to fill inches means precious few people were able to make an informed decision, but I'm making the best of it - that is, getting excited for the anarchy and mayhem; just like I will be if Trump wins.

 

Lot of scientists disagree with you on it being a vote winner, but I'm sure you know more about their field and it's perception than they do...

 

 

 

By that argument, politicians know more about what a vote winner is than scientists. 

 

It's such a ridiculous argument that a scientist knows what a politician is going to do in the future because they've got a degree in chemistry.